Matthew Marsden and Sara Gonzales on Media Rhetoric, Political Violence, and the War on Free Speech
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Tyler Robinson Faces Death Penalty for Charlie Kirk Assassination as Chilling Text Messages Reveal Political Motive
29:20
JP Sears Questions Whether ABC's Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel After Charlie Kirk Comments Threatens Free Speech Principles
23:27
Steve Green, Bill Whittle, and Scott Ott Expose Media Lies Following Charlie Kirk Assassination
12:31
Matthew Marsden and Sara Gonzales on Media Rhetoric, Political Violence, and the War on Free Speech
Matthew Marsden and Sara Gonzales examine the dangerous consequences of dehumanizing political rhetoric in mainstream media. They discuss how labeling conservatives as Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists creates a climate that justifies violence, pointing to assassination attempts and escalating threats against public figures. Marsden and Gonzales argue this is part of a broader Marxist agenda to silence dissent through fear, comparing the situation to restrictions on free speech in the UK. They emphasize that Americans must recognize this as a spiritual battle between good and evil, encouraging continued engagement despite the risks.
The conversation begins with a sobering question about whether targeting political opponents was inevitable. Matthew Marsden and Sara Gonzales dissect how mainstream media rhetoric has created an environment where violence against conservatives feels justified to some.
Marsden explains the mechanism: "If you call someone a white supremacist, if you call them a Nazi, if you call them a fascist, then what you're doing is you're justifying any violence that is being committed against them because those things are evil." This framing, he argues, transforms political opponents into existential threats that must be eliminated rather than debated.
The discussion references CNN's coverage and the pattern of "lies by omission" that distort reality. Marsden questions whether media figures truly understand the consequences of their behavior or if it's merely a game to them. The uncertainty itself is chilling.
Diminishing Assassination Attempts
When discussing the attempted assassination of President Trump, Marsden highlights the immediate response from certain quarters: denial and diminishment. "They're like it's fake. He popped a blood packet," Marsden recounts, describing how some claimed it was shrapnel from a teleprompter rather than a bullet.
Marsden, drawing on his experience in movies where staged gunfire is used, emphatically states: "That is impossible. It's impossible." Yet the immediate instinct wasn't to condemn violence but to question whether it even happened.
The proper response, Marsden argues, would have been immediate and unequivocal: "Hey everybody, stop. This violence is bad. We don't want it." Instead, the response was to diminish, deflect, and continue the same rhetoric that created the climate for violence in the first place.
Marsden addresses those now offering tepid condemnations: "You're all guilty of this. You're all guilty of it. We tried to tell you, the right tried to say, 'Please stop. Please stop. Please stop. Please stop this. This is the shot heard around the world, part two.'"
The Message: Silence Through Fear
Sara Gonzales identifies the strategic purpose behind political violence: silencing dissent. She explains that conservatives are not supposed to discuss certain topics—the disproportionate amount of violent crime statistics, patterns in mass shootings, or problems in specific communities. "We're not supposed to say that. We could be shot if you say that," she warns.
The assassination attempt on the president sends a clear message: "What a message that would send to every single one of you if you thought that you were safe to go out there and share the truth and talk about statistics and try to have a respectful dialogue with someone. You might die. That's what they want you to think."
Gonzales worries this intimidation campaign might succeed in chilling speech. Marsden, however, believes it will have the opposite effect: "I think that what this has done is it's riled something up in this country where they're going to say, 'I'm done. I'm not having this anymore.'"
A Global Marxist Movement
Marsden broadens the analysis beyond American borders, pointing to the United Kingdom as an example of where this trajectory leads. "If you look at what's happening in the UK, they're doing the same thing, but they're just not using guns," he notes, referencing arrests for memes and social media posts.
Without a First Amendment protecting free speech, the UK government simply imprisons dissenters. In America, where such protections exist, the alternative becomes violence and intimidation. "They're going to kill you. They're going to harm you. They're going to threaten you with violence," Marsden states.
But he believes Americans are fundamentally different: "Americans are built of different stuff. And this is not going to deter them. In fact, this is going to make people even more determined that you are not going to stifle our free speech."
Marsden identifies this as part of a "Marxist leftist agenda" and "communism," using "useful idiots" to achieve their goals.
The Dehumanization Campaign
Gonzales returns to a particularly disturbing example from "The View," where a host responded to President Trump's granddaughter speaking about him at the RNC: "I didn't like it because it humanizes him."
Gonzales's reaction captures the horror of this mindset: "What? Like what am I hearing? These people don't want anyone to remember that we are human." The explicit acknowledgment that humanizing a political opponent is undesirable reveals the depth of the dehumanization campaign.
"They don't want you to be humanized. They want you to be demonized. Because if you're demonized, what comes next is obvious. And what comes next is justified in their mind," Gonzales explains.
Media Accountability
Both Marsden and Gonzales call for consequences for media organizations that have fueled this climate. Gonzales recounts the warnings that went unheeded: "Maybe you guys, I don't know, could tone down your rhetoric. Maybe you could stop calling us Nazis with no evidence. Maybe you could stop calling us fascists with no evidence."
Marsden, while supporting First Amendment protections and freedom of the press, insists there must be accountability: "You don't get to speak without consequence, right? There's always a consequence for your actions."
The frustration is palpable: "You can't lie to people time and time and time again and expect nothing to happen. You can't lie about people. These are real people."
COVID's Role in Revealing the Left
Gonzales reflects on how COVID-19 exposed the authoritarian impulses on the left: "What COVID did was it showed us what people were willing to do for power over others." She recounts receiving messages like "I hope you die" and threats against her children.
"It exposed this really disgusting nasty underbelly of the left," she says, noting that it has "got worse, it's got more radical."
The problem is systemic, Gonzales argues: "If you want to see systemic leftism, it's everywhere in almost every college campus across the country." This has been building for over 15 years, and now these radicals have "risen to positions of power."
The Call to Action
Gonzales issues urgent calls to action for conservatives: "Stop sending your kids to liberal colleges guys, stop it. Start turning up to your school boards and asking for these to get fired who think it's okay for kids to go into males to go into females changing rooms."
She identifies a fundamental difference between left and right: The left understands power and promotes their own relentlessly, while the right values individual achievement and virtue. "The right does not look after each other," she observes, which allows leftists to capture institutions.
The result is "hotbeds of radicalism that are teaching kids, no, you know what, America's a bad place."
A Legacy That Will Endure
The conversation appears to reference someone who was killed, though the context suggests this may be discussing a hypothetical or metaphorical death of a public figure's influence, or possibly refers to the man killed behind President Trump during the assassination attempt.
Gonzales notes the difference between typical celebrities who become dehumanized cardboard cutouts and those who maintain authentic connection with people. She believes that efforts to silence authentic voices will backfire: "I think his legacy is going to be picked up by millions of people. I really do."
A Spiritual War
Gonzales frames the entire conflict in spiritual terms: "This is a spiritual war between good and evil." She emphasizes that Bible-believing Christians represent a particular threat to those seeking power and control.
Her closing plea is direct: "I hope you understand what you're up against and what we have been we deal with every day behind the scenes."
The conversation ends with a call to prayer for families affected by political violence and for the country as a whole, acknowledging the very real dangers faced by those who speak out.
