Up Next
Charlie Kirk and Pastor Rob McCoy on Churches Standing Against Lockdowns and Vaccine Mandates in America
1:22:51
Charlie Kirk on How RFK Jr's Endorsement Changed Everything and Led to Historic HHS Confirmation
9:46
Charlie Kirk Explains Why the American Church Must Rise Up Against Tyranny and Technocracy Before It's Too Late
2:09:55
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Charlie Kirk and Vaush Debate Critical Race Theory, Vaccine Mandates, and Reparations in America
Charlie Kirk and Vaush sit down for a surprisingly constructive debate on some of America's most divisive topics. From vaccine passports in New York to critical race theory in schools, the conservative activist and libertarian socialist find unexpected common ground on class issues while sparring over racial justice, reparations, and the role of government intervention. Kirk challenges pharmaceutical industry mandates while Vaush defends vaccine effectiveness. They agree that two-parent households matter more than race in outcomes, yet disagree on whether anti-racism education helps or harms young students. The conversation reveals how Americans across the political spectrum might agree on more than cable news suggests, if they're willing to talk.
Vaccine Mandates and Medical Freedom
The conversation begins with New York's vaccine mandate for indoor activities, which Bill de Blasio called the "Key to NYC." Charlie Kirk immediately establishes his position: he's among the 100 million unvaccinated Americans and views these mandates as "medical apartheid." Kirk argues that with vaccinated individuals like Senator Lindsey Graham contracting COVID-19 and an 85% vaccinated Israel heading toward lockdown again, the vaccine functions more like a treatment than a traditional vaccine.
Vaush counters that while the vaccine development was expedited, extensive safety studies have been completed. The FDA process focuses on determining long-term protection duration, not searching for unknown health effects. Vaush points to data showing breakthrough cases occur in only 0.003% of vaccinated individuals, with dramatically lower hospitalization and death rates compared to the unvaccinated. When Kirk raises concerns about Johnson & Johnson's potential link to Guillain-Barré syndrome, Vaush acknowledges the concern but notes that even if true, COVID's effects would still be far worse than potential vaccine side effects.
Kirk enjoys pointing out the irony that he's criticizing pharmaceutical companies while Vaush defends them. Vaush clarifies that his support goes to the workers who developed the vaccines, not to pharmaceutical CEOs profiting from them. When Kirk brings up the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showing over 7,000 deaths after vaccination, Vaush explains that VAERS is self-reported and doesn't establish causation—researchers use it to identify potential patterns, not as definitive proof.
Trust in Medical Institutions
The debate shifts to which medical experts to trust. Kirk references Dr. Robert Malone, who invented mRNA vaccine technology, and Dr. Bret Weinstein, both of whom have raised concerns about spike proteins and the accelerated timeline. Vaush responds that while Malone may have concerns, he wasn't involved in producing these specific vaccines and his warnings should be addressed by the broader scientific community rather than accepted uncritically.
When asked about Dr. Fauci, Kirk dismisses him as "an epidemiologist who's been wrong about everything," while Vaush argues it's not about Fauci individually but about the unified global medical community. The conversation touches on alternative treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, with Vaush noting that studies found hydroxychloroquine largely ineffective, with a French study stopping when people started dying of heart failure.
Surprisingly, Vaush states he would support nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, saying he trusts it more "in the hands of our ineffective bloated government than in the sociopaths who currently run it." Both participants agree that anyone watching should ultimately consult their own trusted medical professional rather than making decisions based on YouTube debates.
Historical Context of Vaccine Mandates
The discussion includes historical perspective, with Vaush noting that the Supreme Court ruled on vaccine mandates in 1904, and that George Washington had his troops inoculated against smallpox. Kirk argues that when there's uncertainty or disagreement, the American system should "yield to rights," allowing individual medical decisions rather than mandating experimental medicine as a condition for entering restaurants.
Vaush clarifies his position: while he supports vaccine requirements similar to existing school and travel mandates, he finds New York's restaurant-level enforcement more of a "panic measure" than a sustainable long-term solution. He questions the practicality of the vaccination card system, noting many people have thrown them away or can't fit them in their wallets.
Defining Critical Race Theory
Moving to critical race theory, Vaush distinguishes between two versions: the highly esoteric elective law school class teaching various legal theories, and the catchall term people like Christopher Rufo use to describe all anti-racism efforts. Vaush expresses concern about anti-CRT bills that don't even mention critical race theory but instead target "boilerplate anti-racist theory for like two centuries."
Kirk acknowledges Vaush is technically correct that academic critical race theory isn't being taught to fourth graders, comparing it to not teaching advanced geometry to elementary students while still teaching basic math. Kirk points to the National Education Association's press release explicitly stating they would push "critical race theory" in schools. Both agree the better term might be "wokeism" or "racial justice education" rather than academic critical race theory.
Reparations and Economic Class
On reparations, Vaush supports them as "an owed debt"—the promised forty acres and a mule that was never delivered. He explains that generational wealth transfers mean the consequences of slavery persist. However, Vaush opposes cash payments, noting research showing money filters out of black neighborhoods faster than white neighborhoods because businesses are often owned by outside corporate boards.
Instead, Vaush advocates for "structural reparations" targeting neighborhoods that need help most, which would include some white areas. He envisions "a new New Deal" focused on the lowest economic echelon regardless of race. Kirk expresses skepticism of the term "reparations" because it implies intergenerational guilt, but agrees the question is mostly about class rather than race.
Kirk argues that racial focus distracts from the real issue: "a small group of people getting a lot richer while normal people get poor." He points to Thomas Sowell's research showing that the black community actually saw incomes increase faster than white Americans in the 1940s, 50s, and early 60s when facing discrimination, because they collectivized their purchasing power in response.
Fatherlessness and Family Structure
Both participants strongly agree that two-parent households are essential for child development. Kirk highlights that before the Civil Rights Act, about 24% of black children were born without a father present, compared to upwards of 70% today. He attributes this not to increased racism but to policies subsidizing fatherlessness, poor government-run schools, and cultural factors.
Vaush notes that black fatherlessness statistics are somewhat exaggerated because they only count married fathers—when accounting for unmarried black couples raising children together, the numbers approach those of white couples. He agrees that welfare systems create perverse incentives, with benefits cutting off at income levels just slightly above what a single parent earns, making marriage economically disadvantageous.
Kirk presents data showing that a white child raised by a single mother is less likely to succeed by ten independent metrics than a black child raised by a mother and father, suggesting the issue is family structure rather than skin color. Vaush agrees but maintains that neighborhood revitalization should be based on class assessment while recognizing that many poverty trends involve race due to historical factors.
Race Consciousness in Schools
The conversation turns to whether young children should be taught to be race-conscious. Kirk strongly opposes this, advocating instead for Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of judging people by character rather than skin color. He argues that making third graders hyper-aware of race constitutes "the textbook definition of stereotyping" because you don't know anyone's actual history from their appearance.
Vaush responds that children as young as four already show implicit racial bias in testing, whether they're consciously aware of it or not. While he supports very little racial consciousness education for third graders, he believes some conversations about these issues can be valuable because "we don't live in a colorblind world."
Specific curricula are discussed, including anti-racist workbooks asking children why they think black children feel bad about their skin color, and a book depicting a little girl yelling at her mother with a "whiteness contract" showing a devil tail. Vaush calls the whiteness devil imagery "indefensible." He suggests the more charitable materials might be designed to promote discussion rather than indoctrination, similar to how Marx is taught in economics classes without expecting students to become Marxists.
Ibram X. Kendi and Discrimination
Kirk challenges Vaush on Ibram X. Kendi's statement that "the only solution for past discrimination is present discrimination and the only solution for present discrimination is future discrimination." Vaush calls this "misguided," explaining that while there's a charitable interpretation—that past discriminatory practices necessitate favorable practices today—any discriminatory treatment will have adverse effects in the real world.
Vaush notes that Kendi wrote an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution that would provide preferences based on skin color, which Vaush doesn't support. He distinguishes between academic discussions of radical ideas meant to promote thought and debate versus actual policy implementation, noting that professors often present ideas not for agreement but to incentivize discussion.
America's Founding and Slavery
The conversation touches on how to teach American history. Vaush acknowledges America as "one of the first practical liberal democracies" while noting that one in every six people was human property at the founding. Kirk challenges this characterization, pointing out that nine out of thirteen states had abolished slavery by the time the Constitution was ratified, making America not a "slave country" but rather "a Confederacy with portions that were slave states."
Kirk explains that Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence included a grievance that the British Crown had enslaved people and brought them to the colonies, then offered them freedom to wage war against the colonists. This was removed because they believed they needed South Carolina and Georgia to win the Revolutionary War. The conversation ends mid-discussion of these historical complexities.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.