Up Next
Matt Walsh Calls Charlie Kirk Assassination an Act of LGBT Terrorism Demanding Federal Crackdown
25:26
Tucker Carlson Reveals FBI Cover-Up of Thomas Crooks' Online Threats Before Trump Assassination Attempt in Butler Pennsylvania
34:24
Candace Owens on White Guilt, Black Victimhood Culture, and Why Trans Activism Hijacked the Gay Rights Movement
1:41:49
Steven Crowder Returns Change My Mind After Charlie Kirk Assassination Sparks Leftist Political Violence Crisis
Steven Crowder brings back his Change My Mind series for the first time in years at Southern Methodist University, confronting what he argues is an undeniable crisis of leftist political violence in America. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk and years of escalating attacks that forced him to suspend the series, Crowder arrives with unprecedented security measures to have conversations that he believes could cost him his life. Armed with polling data showing 62% of liberals find political violence somewhat to completely acceptable compared to just 23% of conservatives, he challenges students to reconcile the celebration of Kirk's murder with claims that both sides are equally violent. The conversations reveal deep disagreements about the nature of political ideology, the role of faith in curbing violence, and whether holding the left accountable will prevent further bloodshed.
The Return of Change My Mind Under Unprecedented Security
Steven Crowder resurrected his Change My Mind series at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, marking the first time in years the controversial segment returned to campus. The reason for the hiatus was clear from the moment students approached: bulletproof glass, armed security, metal detectors, and a fortified perimeter that cost an estimated $4 million surrounded the simple table and chairs setup. This wasn't theatrical excess—it was, according to Crowder, absolute necessity in an environment where conservative voices face escalating physical danger.
The catalyst for the return was impossible to ignore: the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a figure Crowder described as a peaceful conversationalist much more moderate than himself, was murdered in cold blood by an individual who explicitly stated his motive was political—to silence a "hateful conservative right-winger." The assassination sent shockwaves through conservative circles, but what followed proved equally disturbing to Crowder: widespread celebration from segments of the left, including disruptions at vigils and memorials held in Kirk's honor.
Crowder explained that when he launched Change My Mind in 2017, his goal was never to mock students but to expose the institutional failures of academia and media that had created impenetrable echo chambers. Students would sit down having never heard mainstream conservative viewpoints articulated directly. Nearly a decade later, with billions of views and countless inspired conversations, the series had grown far beyond his initial vision—but so had the hostility. Rocks, concrete-filled milkshakes, Molotov cocktails, slashed tires, doxxing, and firebombings became routine. Security concerns forced him to step back. But the assassination of Charlie Kirk compelled him to return, despite warnings that it could only be done as a secret pop-up event with extraordinary protective measures.
The Premise: The Left Is Violent
Crowder's thesis was straightforward and provocative: political violence in 2025 is overwhelmingly coming from the left, creating an unsustainable crisis that threatens the fabric of civil discourse. He distinguished carefully between violence committed by people who happen to have political beliefs and political violence—violence carried out specifically to achieve political ends or instill fear in political opponents.
To establish common ground, he presented students with the technical definition of political violence: criminal acts seeking sociopolitical change or communicating to an outside audience. Using this framework, he walked through examples to separate genuine political terrorism from crimes that happen to involve politically affiliated individuals. The assassination of Charlie Kirk qualified unambiguously—the killer explicitly stated he targeted Kirk for his conservative ideology with the intent to terrorize others who share those views. In contrast, Vance Boulder, who murdered Minnesota State Senator Nicole Hortman and her husband, left a note saying Governor Tim Walz had ordered the hit, clearly indicating mental illness rather than ideological motive. Boulder's crime, while committed by someone with mixed political affiliations, wasn't political violence by definition.
This distinction became crucial as Crowder presented data from Yuggov and Reuters polls showing stark differences in attitudes toward political violence. According to the polling conducted after Kirk's assassination, 77% of conservatives said political violence was "not at all acceptable," while only 38% of liberals gave the same answer. Conversely, 62% of those on the left said political violence was "somewhat to completely acceptable"—a ratio of roughly 6 to 1 compared to conservatives. Similar patterns emerged in polls following the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and various attacks on conservative institutions and businesses.
Conversations With Students: Christina the Pastor
The first extended conversation featured Christina, a female pastor and aspiring comedian who identified as politically moderate. She held both conservative and liberal views and expressed a desire for more moderation in American politics. The conversation immediately tested Crowder's framework when Christina initially brought up the Hortman murders as a counterexample of right-wing violence, apparently influenced by early media speculation before facts emerged.
Crowder patiently explained why that case didn't constitute political violence based on the perpetrator's own stated motives, contrasting it with Charlie Kirk's assassination where the terrorist explicitly cited political reasons. Christina took time to process this, initially hesitant to immediately categorize Kirk's murder as political violence—a hesitation Crowder found telling given her quick initial assumption about the Hortman case.
When discussing the attempted assassination of Donald Trump by Thomas Crooks, a registered Republican, Christina struggled with the categorization. Crowder clarified that political violence isn't simply Republican versus Democrat—it's about ideological targeting. Many on the right opposed Trump, but the act still constituted political violence against a conservative figure, making conservatives the victims regardless of the attacker's voter registration.
Christina raised concerns about media polarization and the difficulty of obtaining accurate information quickly, suggesting this fuels the violence. Crowder agreed that media bears responsibility but pressed the point that the institutional left—from academia to legacy media to tech platforms—has created an environment where conservatives are hunted. He emphasized that someone like Charlie Kirk, notable only for expressing opinions and having conversations, required the same level of security as elected officials, yet was still assassinated.
On solutions, Christina advocated for civil discourse and changing attitudes away from negativity. Crowder acknowledged her good faith but pointed out the asymmetry: he could only have these conversations with $4 million in security, while leftist speakers on the same campus required nothing comparable. He noted that even her church discussed security concerns but couldn't afford implementation—yet she as a female pastor in Texas didn't face the same level of threat as conservative male commentators.
Crowder proposed three solutions: First, the left must take accountability and change rhetoric, acknowledging they've gone too far in calling Trump voters fascists and Nazis who will end democracy. Second, states must end soft-on-crime policies like cashless bail and repeat offender releases. He cited the case of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death on a North Carolina subway by D'Carlos Brown Jr., who had been arrested 14 times and released despite being deemed unfit for trial. Third, conservatives must adopt "ruthless, lawful self-defense" because grace afforded to attackers has only emboldened them.
Christina agreed with the no-cashless-bail policy for violent felonies, finding common ground there. She acknowledged that ignoring statistical reality about where violence originates prevents proper risk assessment—the fundamental purpose of crime statistics. However, she worried about pointing fingers being counterproductive, comparing it to therapy where blame can hinder progress. Crowder countered that identifying the source of violence isn't finger-pointing but necessary diagnosis, like recognizing that certain demographics face higher victimization rates so protective measures can be implemented.
Madison: The Ideological Labyrinth
The second conversation with Madison proved more philosophically complex and, ultimately, less productive. Madison, wearing distinctive fur pants, immediately questioned whether people committing violence were truly acting from leftist ideology or if leftism was being plastered onto criminal acts to build a narrative. This led to an extended definitional debate about what constitutes left versus right ideology.
Madison made the unusual argument that Communist China represents conservative rather than leftist violence because it's an autocracy that conserves state power. Crowder expressed bewilderment at this characterization, noting that the Chinese Communist Party arose explicitly under Marxist ideology claiming to liberate people from Western decadence. Madison insisted that Marx's ideology was actually conservative because it sought to eliminate races and remove human rights rather than expand them, defining conservatism as inherently about limiting rights and maintaining elite power.
Crowder challenged this premise as fundamentally flawed regarding American conservatism, explaining that in the United States, conservatism means preserving constitutional principles where rights come from God, not the state. The government's only role is recognizing and protecting those natural rights, not granting them. Therefore, American conservatives oppose state power expansion, favoring individual liberty—the opposite of how Madison defined conservatism.
The conversation revealed Madison's view that political labels mean entirely different things globally versus in the American context, making it impossible to assign political violence domestically to left or right. Crowder grew frustrated with this abstractness, pointing out that real people are dying—including people he knew personally—and nebulous academic theorizing prevents the concrete risk assessment necessary to protect potential victims.
When pressed on solutions to curb political violence, Madison suggested people need to get off social media where they become radicalized through algorithmic echo chambers. Crowder agreed social media toxicity contributes but emphasized the need to identify where current violence originates to implement protective measures. Madison refused to attribute current U.S. political violence primarily to either side, insisting on viewing it globally where both left and right commit atrocities.
Crowder thanked Madison for the respectful disagreement but noted they reached an impasse—Madison wouldn't acknowledge that leftist ideology as commonly understood in America drives the current violence wave. The conversation ended somewhat awkwardly when Crowder asked about Madison's "furry pants," not realizing they were bear fur, which Madison found offensive due to an apparent negative experience with Boston hockey culture.
The Data Problem: What Gets Counted as Political Violence
Crowder dedicated significant attention to exposing what he views as deliberate data manipulation by left-leaning sources. The studies most commonly cited by media to claim right-wing violence predominates—the Prosecution Project (TPP) and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), reflected in reporting by The Economist, NPR, and Center for Strategic and International Studies—systematically exclude major categories of leftist violence.
Most glaring, according to Crowder's research, these databases don't include the 2020 George Floyd riots. The summer of unrest resulted in approximately $2 billion in property damage, at least 37 deaths, thousands of injured police officers, and thousands of civilian casualties. The databases also omit the execution of Aaron Danielson in Portland by Michael Rhol, an Antifa member who shot him point-blank and told police "I got the Trump supporter dead" on recorded audio. Security camera footage and police body camera video documented Rhol identifying his victim's politics before killing him, yet this appears nowhere in the databases used to claim right-wing violence predominates.
Similarly excluded: Daryl Brooks driving through the Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas parade, killing multiple people. Brooks maintained extensive social media presence espousing Black Lives Matter ideology, defund-the-police rhetoric, anti-white sentiment, and black supremacist views. He explicitly targeted the parade due to these beliefs, yet his attack isn't categorized as leftist political violence in the databases.
Crowder revealed that the creator of The Prosecution Project, the most authoritative source cited, was himself arrested on January 20th protesting Donald Trump's inauguration and committing crimes. This individual identified as Antifa, stated "we are an organized group and we confront fascists," and the entire day of January 20th violence—much of it directed at Trump supporters—was omitted from his database. Meanwhile, any white-on-black violence gets categorized as right-wing regardless of the perpetrator's actual politics, and any attack on government buildings gets labeled right-wing even when carried out by Antifa.
This systematic exclusion, Crowder argued, creates a false narrative used to victim-blame conservatives. When the left assassinates Charlie Kirk, then uses cooked statistics to claim conservatives are actually more violent, it backs the right into a corner with lies. This dynamic, he warned, is what could eventually provoke the right-wing violence leftists claim to fear—a self-fulfilling prophecy created by refusing to acknowledge current reality.
Andrew: Faith as the Root Cause
The third conversation, with Andrew, offered perhaps the most thoughtful engagement. Andrew, a young conservative man of faith with politically left-leaning siblings, began by agreeing with Crowder that hatred in politics has increased. However, he framed his perspective through a religious lens: political violence isn't the problem but rather the symptom of societal godlessness.
Andrew explained that he maintains excellent relationships with his left-leaning siblings because they roundly condemned both the Charlie Kirk assassination and the celebration that followed. This mutual condemnation of political violence formed the basis for continued relationship despite policy disagreements—a distinction Crowder affirmed as crucial.
Drawing an analogy to inner-city crime and fatherlessness, Andrew argued that just as crime is the symptom of broken families, political violence is the symptom of lost faith. He believed the solution requires addressing the spiritual root rather than the political manifestation. His concern was that focusing on left versus right, while factually accurate regarding current violence sources, might be pragmatically unproductive because it doesn't tackle the underlying cause.
Andrew shared a moment of personal reflection: the day after Charlie Kirk's assassination, he caught himself thinking "I don't know how we can live with these people" and felt ashamed. As a follower of Christ, he recognized that Jesus and his followers endured persecution without responding in kind, instead using it as the cost of spreading the gospel. He worried that rhetoric emphasizing leftist violence, while true, might not lead conservatives and Christians toward the Christ-like response of enduring persecution peacefully.
Crowder appeared to agree substantially with Andrew's diagnosis about godlessness being the root cause. He noted that leftist ideology explicitly seeks to replace faith in God with faith in the state—that's the foundational goal of Marxist philosophy as articulated by Marx and Engels. The state becomes god, the provider, the moral authority. In that sense, leftist politics grows directly from atheistic religion (or secular humanism), making Andrew's spiritual diagnosis and political analysis two sides of the same coin.
The conversation was cut short, but it represented the most philosophically aligned discussion of the day, with both participants agreeing on diagnosis even if they might differ on rhetorical approach. Andrew's perspective offered a challenge to Crowder's framing without denying the facts: acknowledging leftist violence might be factually necessary, but how conservatives respond to being targeted determines whether they maintain moral high ground and spiritual integrity.
The Professor Challenge
During a brief intermission addressing the crowd, Crowder announced a new initiative escalating beyond student conversations. He revealed that Change My Mind was always designed to highlight institutional failures—academia and media—that left students propagandized and unable to encounter mainstream conservative viewpoints. The next phase involves going directly to the source: challenging professors.
Crowder publicly announced offers of $10,000 charitable contributions to universities if professors from political science or liberal arts departments will debate him. The institutions targeted include University of Texas, Kansas University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Stanford, USC, University of Pennsylvania, Penn State, Columbia, NYU, Harvard, and Boston University. Any professor from these schools can name the time, place, moderator, and rules. The money goes to a cause of their choice at their institution.
His framing was pointed: it should be an easy day out for esteemed professors from elite institutions to debate a "college dropout comedian." The challenge serves to expose what Crowder sees as academic cowardice—professors willing to indoctrinate students in safe classroom environments but unwilling to defend their ideas in open debate. He encouraged students to share the challenge with their professors and promised to update publicly if any accept.
The announcement underscored Crowder's conviction that students have been failed by their institutions. Going to the top—the professors who shaped the intellectual environment that produces graduates who've never heard conservative arguments—represents the logical next step in his mission to break open echo chambers.
Why the Security Is Necessary
Throughout the day, the extreme security measures served as both practical necessity and rhetorical device. Crowder repeatedly noted that leftist speakers on the same campus require no such protection. Maya Angelou spoke at SMU years before Crowder's first visit without bulletproof glass or armed guards. The asymmetry speaks to what Crowder views as the central truth: one side in American politics has created an environment where certain viewpoints cannot be expressed without mortal danger.
The security wasn't preventative paranoia—it was response to demonstrated pattern. Every previous Change My Mind event resulted in physical attacks: projectiles, chemical agents, incendiary devices, property destruction, doxxing leading to home invasions. Charlie Kirk, who took similar precautions, was still assassinated. The message sent by Kirk's murder and the subsequent celebration was clear to Crowder: they will kill us for having conversations, and they will party on our graves.
This reality, Crowder argued, represents the definitional outcome of years of leftist rhetoric calling Trump and his supporters fascists, Nazis, racists, and genocidal threats to democracy who will never allow another election. If people genuinely believe an American fascist regime is executing minorities, transitioning children, and ending democracy permanently, violence becomes not just justified but morally necessary. How else does one deal with Nazis except through force?
The only offramp, according to Crowder, would have been immediate accountability from the left after Kirk's assassination: admitting they created a climate where people believed their hyperbolic rhetoric and acted on it, then publicly walking back claims about fascism and genocide. Instead, the left doubled down, used manipulated statistics to claim right-wing violence actually predominates, and showed up to conservative memorials to celebrate and vandalize. This response eliminates any possibility of de-escalation and creates what Crowder described as an unsustainable powder keg.
The Warning About What Comes Next
Crowder's most ominous message concerned the potential for right-wing retaliation. He emphasized repeatedly that conservatives overwhelmingly reject political violence—polling shows 72% to 88% across various surveys say it's completely unacceptable. The right hosts vigils and memorials when they lose people like Charlie Kirk. They pursue legal channels and democratic processes. They try to have conversations.
But there's a limit. Crowder warned that backing people into a corner who have been peaceful, who've extended grace, who've taken the high road for years while watching cities burn and their leaders assassinated—eventually that grace runs out. When right-wing violence does occur, he suggested, it tends to be "very ugly, very effective, very swift" precisely because it's been restrained for so long. The danger isn't that conservatives will match leftist violence tit-for-tat with isolated attacks and riots. The danger is something far worse: organized, focused, overwhelming response from people who've been pushed past breaking point.
This is why Crowder frames his work, despite the personal danger, as trying to prevent that outcome. By continuing conversations, by documenting leftist violence, by calling for accountability, he hopes to create the conditions where de-escalation becomes possible. But he was clear-eyed about the prospects: without the left taking responsibility, changing rhetoric, and reforming criminal justice policies that release repeat violent offenders, the trajectory leads somewhere dark.
His call for "ruthless, lawful self-defense" represented an attempt to thread this needle—encouraging conservatives to protect themselves and hold attackers legally accountable without crossing into vigilante violence. The problem, as he sees it, is that the left currently fears no consequences. They can kill Charlie Kirk, celebrate it, and face no social or legal repercussions beyond individual prosecution of the shooter. Until consequences exist, the violence continues and escalates.
The Failure of Both-Sidesism
A recurring theme across conversations was Crowder's rejection of false equivalence. Multiple students suggested both sides bear responsibility for political violence or that it's counterproductive to assign blame. Crowder forcefully disagreed, arguing that "both-sidesism" in the current moment actively enables continued leftist violence by diffusing accountability.
His position: when one side is clearly, documentably, overwhelmingly responsible for current political violence based on polling data, crime statistics, and body counts, pretending it's equally distributed is a lie that protects perpetrators. It's victim-blaming. When conservatives are being hunted, murdered, and then told at memorials that they share equal blame, it doesn't promote healing—it promotes the conditions for eventual violent response.
Crowder drew parallels to crime statistics more broadly. We track demographics of perpetrators and victims not to point fingers but to assess risk and implement protection. If transgender sex workers face higher violence rates, we acknowledge that to help them. If conservatives face overwhelming rates of political violence, acknowledging that isn't divisive—it's diagnostic. Refusing to name the problem ensures it continues.
The asymmetry in security requirements proved this point visually. If both sides were equally violent, both sides would require equal protection. They don't. Until that changes, claims of equivalence ring hollow.
Video Transcript
[Music] The reason we're here, and I don't think you would argue that this is unnecessary, the assassination in cold blood is an act of terrorism of Charlie Kirk. >> Is that political violence? >> You seem so confident on the Hortman's but not Charlie Kirk. >> I would Well, no, I would. I was just thinking about your question. >> If if that doesn't constitute political violence that could be answered in the affirmative immediately, of course, what would? Hey YouTube, what you're about to watch is a new segment we call change my mind. >> Welcome back to Change My Mind. It's been a while. This is the place where we rationalize, we reason our positions on controversial topics. When I created change my mind in 2017, I had one goal in mind and that was to shine a light on the institutions that had failed America. Often students propagandized by the educational system as well as legacy media. >> Trump's once again defending comments he made about the white supremacist and neo. >> There were very fine people on both sides. >> President's statement that both sides are responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. It was designed to bring genuine dialogue to what had become an impenetrable echo chamber dominated by progressive professors, administrators, student leadership along with a complicit media and big tech establishment. To put it simply, the kind of dialogue that evaded all of cable news. >> I know I know you said that. I don't know if you please. >> You said I was being hyperbolic. Let me respond. >> I'm not you being a white man as an >> just shows you the ridiculousness of all of this. And so nearly a decade later with billions of plays, countless discussions, inspired student iterations, one meme of the year, and yes, even a few changed minds later. >> It somewhat changed your mind. >> Change my mind had grown far bigger than I ever initially anticipated. And with that came push back, controversy, increasing hostility, and yes, straight up violence. Nope. >> Piece of living garbage ass dumpster fire. >> It got to the point where security became a serious issue. SHUT THE UP >> and so I pulled back. Now given recent events, however, I felt led, compelled even to bring it back. Voices like ours, and I mean ours, can't be silenced. And I say this to you watching on the left, made me do this. I didn't necessarily want to. And everyone told me that this in today's climate could not be done unless I took unbelievable precautions, unless it was absolutely kept a secret until mere hours before the event as a pop-up. Unless I literally brought an army with me and bulletproofed the entire radius, which is exactly what we did. >> So strong. >> And so today, for the first time in many years, change of mind returns and back to one of the places where it all began, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Today's subject is plain and simple. The left is violent. Will anybody be able to change my mind? >> Thank you, Christina, for sitting down. >> One more time, >> Stephen. Steven. So, um I I'll take that. I mean, you're not maybe super familiar with what we do with these uh this series. Let me just kind of clarify what it is. Uh first, I'll tell you what it's not. >> It's not gotcha. It's not clickbait. Um, this is not meant to be or it won't be used to clip into some kind of a dunk or something to just ferment people uh espousing the same rhetoric on one side. It will be uploaded contextually in its entirety where hopefully we have a productive discussion and we rationalize our positions, reason them on controversial topics. Before I get to the premise of today, could you do me a favor just so we can find some common ground? This is what's being cited right now quite a bit. Just the definition of political violence. I want to make sure we both agree on it. Political violence are criminal complaints, indictments, and court records looking for crimes that seek a socopolitical change or to communicate to outside audience. >> And I'll summarize it if that's the the the technical description from the source cited. It's uh violence as a tool being used toward a political end. In other words, just because you vote Democrat or because you vote Republican, if you accidentally hit someone with your car and you know, commit manslaughter, that's not political violence. If you vote Democrat, but let's say you go out and run someone over because of their politics, that would be political. Do we agree on that? >> I I think I can agree with you on that. >> Okay. Yes. Good. So, the premise today is that particularly today in 2025, um by and large, the political violence is coming from the left. Uh it's not proportionate with that on the right. That's the reason for the security that you see today. That's very necessary. Um, and it's a problem that's reaching a boiling point that may not be sustainable. >> If you disagree with me, you're welcome to change my mind. >> I don't know if I can change your mind because here's here's the thing. When I see the sign that says the left is violent and you talked about how it's not proportional, and I would love to see your >> your statistics about that because we could make the same statement about the right very easily, right? Like we could say that was was it just a month or two ago that the Democratic lawmakers were shot and that was like all right. I think our bigger problem is that the >> talk about the Hortman's in Minnesota. Right. >> Right. Yeah. Cuz she was a senator and his and her husband were also killed and like you know that was that was done by the right whatever. But >> it wasn't a continue. >> Oh that wasn't a it wasn't a conservative or >> no no that's why I use the example that I did. The person Bolter, Vance Bolter who committed it specifically said it had nothing to do with politics and he left a letter reasoning it saying that Tim Walls had ordered him to carry a hit out on people. >> So he was very clear that it wasn't in the name of politics. That's someone who happened to be on some issues Republican, on some issues Democrat and he was appointed uh by a Tim Walls administration. So that was not done in the name of uh political violence. He said Tim Walls ordered him to assassinate somebody who was out of his mind. >> But I'd like you to continue with the example. >> Sure. Sure. And well, and let's say okay, so he wasn't right. That that's fine. >> No, it wasn't political violence. >> It wasn't political. Oh, it didn't count as political violence >> based on the definition you agreed to, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um and I think a lot of it too is there's so many things happening, it's actually really hard to get all the facts about everything. >> Sure. And our media is is when they when they make these statements or they start to postulate about an event and it will become political before we've even fully fleshed everything out, you know, like >> could you give me an example? >> Well, like the so the shooting that happened at the church yesterday, um I haven't seen enough I don't know. Have you seen any media on it yet? I'm curious to know what the media is saying about it and I want to know if they're how are they characterizing it? Yeah, the media isn't characterizing even I will say this, even on the left and the right, they're not really characterizing that as political violence um because it was a guy who really seemed to harbor ill toward the Mormon church. So, it's pretty hard to categorize it as political violence when um the targets were largely conservative and the man who carried out the action seems like he might be Republican. But I think we could pick a more clear example, a multitude of them. The reason we're here, and I don't think you would argue that this is unnecessary, the assassination in cold blood is an act of terrorism of Charlie Kirk. >> Is that political violence? >> You seem so confident on the Hortman, but not Charlie Kirk. >> I would Well, no, I would. I was just thinking about your question. Um, yeah. I mean, probably because he was like Turning Point USA is a conservative organization, right? that's meant to try and rally young conservatives and be involved. And so, yeah, I would probably agree that his death was >> political or his murder, assassination was politically violent. But I guess I just have a hard time reconciling that with, you know, we can say that the senator and her husband being killed wasn't political. But >> I'll tell you exactly why. >> I'll tell you exactly why. Because the express motive of the terrorist who assassinated Charlie Kirk was politics. He killed him because he said he's one of those hateful conservative right-wingers. The rhetoric that he espoused, the reason that he killed Charlie Kirk, was to take out someone of his political persuasion and make others of his political persuasion afraid to express their opinions. The man who assassinated, which I roundly condemn, Vance Boulder, the Hortman's did not do it as a means to a political end. Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He is not an elected official solely because of his political perspective as a method to instill terror in the populace. >> Yeah. >> How do I know? Because a person said it was political violence. >> Okay. What if we just don't even have enough information though? Like what if it is politically motivated and we just don't have enough to know about it yet? >> In that case, we do, >> you know. Well, not in not in this particular, but I just mean like with the horses you mentioned. >> Okay. Well, let's separate the gray area. >> Okay. >> Right. That's why I kind of start with the example just because you I would assume let's say vote Democrat or Republican. Just because you commit a crime doesn't make it political violence. >> I mean if we did that we'd have 90% of the crime being committed on behalf of the Democrat party because most people in inner cities vote Democrat. I don't consider that to be political violence. >> People have political beliefs and people commit violence. Sometimes they rob a store because they want money. People who commit political violence do so specifically to instill fear in political opposition. They specifically commit violence as a means to a political end. >> Okay. >> And when we categorize it that way, it's overwhelmingly coming from the left. Uh we do have the sources here that we make this available so you can take the QR code. >> Um so what would make you cuz you seem very confident the Hortman was political violence and then it's nuanced with Charlie Kirk. Why? >> Well, I didn't say it was nuanced at all with Charlie Kirk. I agreed with you after considering your question that it was a political >> if if that doesn't constitute political violence that could be answered in the affirmative immediately. Of course, what would like what would be required to say, "Oh, this is clearly an act of political violence or political terrorism if not Charlie Kirk." >> I agreed that it was political violence. So, I'm not sure where this question is coming from. Well, I'm saying because you came in and pointed to an example that would be in the gray area, the Hortman's, >> and took a long time to agree with that premise of Charlie Kirk. And so, what if we don't know enough information? >> So, Charlie Kirk would be very clear left-wing political violence. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Sure. Great. >> Yes. >> So, there are more examples of that coming from the left than the right. That's the premise. Yes. >> Okay. So, you're saying clear examples of political violence and you're using clear >> violence carried out as a means to a political end. So, so there's clear information, data that shows us that the left is violent or is more violent than the right. >> Yes. Not only in crime statistics, uh, but also in the polling after Charlie Kirk's death. >> Now, I believe that you're discussing this in good faith, and I would assume that you roundly condemn political violence of all stripes. Of course, >> so do I. >> Uh, just to be clear, I think we both are. Uh, that's why we're sitting at a table having a conversation. >> Right. Right. Do you identify as more liberal or conservative? >> I am I mean I I like to think I'm moderate because I have I hold some conservative views and some liberal views and I wish we could have a little bit more moderation in our country. >> Like sitting down and having discussions. >> Exactly. Things like this >> cuz we get killed for it anyway, >> right? >> Only the right Only the right gets killed for this anyway. >> You're seeing the one that got through. The reason I stopped doing this uh for years is because every single time out was a violent attack. Sometimes it was a rock. Sometimes it was a milkshake, could be concrete, acid, chocolate, vanilla, I don't know. Doxing, firebombings, molotov cocktails. Maya Angelou, who spoke at SMU only a few years before my first time here, didn't need this kind of security. And you can see it if you observe your speakers here. And I'll tell you why that is. If you look at the polls post assassination of Charlie Kirk and you view you label yourself as a moderate, those who identify as liberal support political violence at a ratio of 6 to1 to conservatives. The yuggov poll said, "Is political violence acceptable?" 77% of conservatives said not at all. Only 38% of those on the left said not at all. 62% of those on the left said somewhat to completely acceptable. We see the same stats after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We see the same stats after the fire bombings of the Tesla dealership. And we see the same stats on the opposite side. Those on the right roundly condemning political violence. The lowest you'll find is 72. You usually find it in the high 80s. You will not find a number that breaks half on the left. >> Okay. You mentioned Donald Trump. Can we jump back? Can we jump to that for just a minute? >> Donald Trump? Sure. I assume we would. >> Well, cuz the I thought that guy was a registered Republican and then he made donated the guy who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump. I'm sorry, I'm really terrible at names. >> Oh, crooks. >> Yeah. That he was a registered Republican. So, would you consider him a act of violence on the on the right? >> I would consider the attempted assassination of a presidential nominee political violence. Yes. >> Yes. >> I don't know if you know this, there are a lot of people on the right who don't like Donald Trump. >> Yes, I do know a few of them. Yeah. >> Yeah. Political violence isn't just Republican, Democrat. That's why I say left versus right. Okay. >> Those on the right are more routinely targets and it's very blatant. Um, people can say it was a registered Republican, that doesn't change the fact that it was a an act of political violence carried out against Donald Trump who's a conservative. >> Yes. >> Republican, whatever term you want to use. Well, I guess but if the argument is the left is violent and I was thinking about this guy's um you know political background >> from the person I I hear what you're saying that that the right is targeted more often. >> Yeah, we're the victims of political violence >> more often and much more. >> So >> would you classify that specific incident as the as violence of the right or of the left? >> Well, the target is the right. the target was Donald Trump. So the net result is the same. We are often the targets of violence. >> Yeah. But the left, >> including someone who may be a moderate Republican. Yeah. The left is still overwhelmingly violent. And I I I point to those polls that you can peruse from Yuggov, from Reuters, not bastions of conservatism along with uh the rhetoric since then. Here's the one thing that you can't point me to. Um and we can go through the stats, and I know you probably heard from those on the left that actually there's more right-wing political violence. They're often circulating that right now. I can disabuse you of that notion uh relatively quickly. I think we'd find common ground there. You still can't point me to an example that is comparable on the right of Charlie Kirk, someone who was not an elected official, a public figure, who was really uh notable for nothing more than expressing his opinion and having conversations, who was assassinated in cold blood and then gleefully celebrated thereafter from the left. And I hope that as someone who's moderate, you understand why that's so concerning >> to us on the right when we host vigils and memorials. And the left is so completely fearless of their own consequences that they they kill one of ours and show up to the memorials and vigils and desecrate and vandalize. >> That is the information that creates a powder cake. >> Yeah. Yeah. The only offramp would have been, "Hey, we kept saying that people like Charlie Kirk." By the way, he's m he was much more moderate than I am. I am Genghis Connor at the Hun compared to Charlie Kirk, but I will have conversations with anyone. I just want to be very clear. So, I know that plenty of people would gleefully celebrate my death, my murder for doing this exact same thing. The only offramp would have been the left saying, "Look, we've called Donald Trump and his voters and Charlie Kirk and Steven Crowder and whoever whoever on the right, Tucker Carlson, take your pick. Sargon of a everyone. We Ben Shapiro, we've called them fascists. We've called them Nazis. We've said that they want to commit a genocide because they don't want to transition children. We've called them racists because they support the police in an era of defund the police. And my god, people out there actually believe it. It's incumbent upon us to tone this down and say, you know what, they're not fascist. We made these people believe that this guy would never relinquish the reigns of power. How do you deal with fascists? You can't do it at a ballot box. If I believe that there was uh an actual government right now that was executing blacks as the left has said about the police force. If I believed that there was a leftist government that was actually fascist that would jail any and all political dissident. If I believed that the left was committing a genocide against white conservative Christian men and if I believed that that administration would never host a democratic election again, I'd be out in the streets with a gun. >> You have a huge portion of Democrats who believe that about Donald Trump and his voters. Yeah. I mean, I believe you saying that people believe that. Absolutely. >> That's very different between the right and the left, isn't it? [Music] >> I mean, I don't know, Stephen. It feels like it's so polarized right now. I It's even hard to find common ground on anything, you know? Like, I was just thinking about the sign and it's that the left is violent, but then when I sit down, it's actually the left is politically violent. And so it's kind of a that's a it's a modifier, right? We're modifying our conversation a little bit. And so um >> no, what I'm doing is matching matching the intensity and the rhetoric of the left. Camala Harris and Joe Biden have said the right is violent. The political right is violent. And I'm doing what they are unwilling to do, which is sit down and have a conversation. I don't believe it's nuanced. Uh I believe there's black and white pretty clear-cut good and evil in this one. I believe there's pretty black and white clear-cut who's responsible for the political violence, but I will discuss it with anybody. So did Charlie Kirk and they kill us anyway. So I'm matching matching their rhetoric that I can fit on a sign, but I'm doing the work that the left is not willing to do and having a conversation. But I don't know where we go from. If we have these conversations and short of a brigade coming in, we get assassinated. >> The left doesn't fear that. >> I would disagree though. I think the left is does have their own fears about it. It's maybe it's not exactly the same, but I think there's a lot of fear out there. It's just not It's just different. >> The leftist speakers on this campus don't need the same kind of security. >> They don't. >> I'll take note of that. I mean, I've been a student here for 2 years and I hadn't really I hadn't even paid that much attention. I don't go to a whole lot of events, but I'll I'll take note of that and see what I notice. So, >> well, let me ask you this. Assuming that I'm not lying to you, right, about these polls and you can and this is one thing we always every show that I do. I'm largely a comedian, by the way. I'm an unwilling participant in this. I want to be telling dick jokes in a comedy club. Uh, >> I do stand up comedy, too, actually. >> Oh, good. Okay. Are do you do some around here? >> I do. >> You might know my half Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond. He does a lot of standup in Dallas right now. He has a show coming up. Cool. Well, let me know. Maybe I'll be able to look it up and uh I can't come out and see a show unless I come out with security, but I'd like to see your material. Um, that's actually even another example. Uh, a man who works on my show, a man name Josh Firestee, he was a booker for a comedy, uh, actually um, a franchise of comedy clubs. When I performed at the Spokane Comedy Club, it was the first time they ever needed metal detectors and security. He'd been a booker there for many, many years. You had actual registered communists do comedy there. He was shocked and he was ready to hate me. He works for him. He works for me now because he saw why it was necessary. When you perform on stage, do you need metal detectors? Do you need armed security? I have since I was 19 years old doing comedy in clubs. [Music] >> And I don't think I've said anything that necessitates that. >> Oh, George was letting I have class at 2. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> So, how do we fix this then? >> Oh, I mean, I think we need to have more civil uh discourse. I think >> can't do that. We get shot. >> Well, we can. and we're doing it right now. Let's let's so pessimistic. But Stephen, come on. We have to change our we have to change our attitudes about about it. We can't constantly fixate on the negative stuff. I know it's important. It matters, but we can do it. And just as >> I can do it with a4 million dollars of security. Most people don't have that. >> Most people don't have that. And you know, you talk about like fearing for your life. I am a female pastor in deep Texas. So on Sunday morning, I wait for that time when someone doesn't like what I said from the pulpit and comes up to me. So I I too live with a fear, but it's just it's different for me. And >> do you have metal detectors and armed security? >> Uh we can't afford that at my church. We have an old person that sits at the front and says hi and tries to intervene in in a way that would be appropriate of a Christian. We thought about having bringing security to the church. We talked about it. We literally can't have these discussions on our side unless we have it. It's a necessity. >> Yeah. Yeah. I And I think that's really unfortunate that that it's gotten so bad, the state of our country is so bad that we can't even talk to each other without one side or the other having to provide ridiculous amounts of safety and security that maybe aren't even guaranteed. >> No. Yeah. It's true. And I agree with you. It is terrible that we've gotten to this point. >> Yeah. It is terrible that it's exclusively incumbent upon one side to have these types of measures in place. Let me ask you this. Um because again I think that we both uh abore political violence. Do you think that maybe when one side is being hunted, let's make no mistake, Charlie Kirk was hunted. When people showed up to my house to try and kill me, I was being hunted. >> Right. Any conservative here is one viral tweet one effective video away from being hunted. >> Yeah. Yeah. Do we think that when that happens and we peacefully mourn the loss of one of our peaceful leaders and we are still approached with violence at memorials and at vigils with desecration. Do you think that maybe the both sides in it saying it comes from both sides is actually more harmful than productive because it lets the side that's responsible for it off the hook, the clear aggressor. >> Do I think it's more harmful to say that it's both sides? Do you think it would be more helpful to call the left out and say, "Hey, you guys have been saying fascist. You guys have been saying Nazi. You guys have been saying genocide, sexist, and people believe it." And we're seeing political violence now that we both hate. Do you think that calling them out aggressively, rhetorically, might be more productive than saying, "Well, I guess it happens on both sides right now." No, I don't because it kind of reminds me of therapy, you know, um where it's not necessarily helpful to point the finger in ways that are counterproductive. Um not that I'm not opposed to holding people accountable because that's a different thing. >> No, I understand. So, um >> maybe let me ask you then this way where you say um pointing fingers, >> what is the reason that we record crime statistics? >> I don't know. >> Would you agree with the fundamental premise that its primary purpose is risk assessment and determining who's most likely to be victimized? For example, and I hear this from the left, transgender or uh gay sex workers are more likely to be targets of violence than heterosexual sex workers, right? Those studies have come out. And by the way, those seem to be true. So, we go, okay, these people are more at risk. The reason for crime statistics is to assess where the risk is exists. Otherwise, it serves no purpose. >> Okay. >> Would we agree with that? >> Okay. >> Sure. I'll trust your information on this. >> Well, it's not information. It's just the reason. This is the why. Why? Why else would we have crime statistics? Why would we record them? There's no reason. Just okay, crime is committed. There's nothing we can do about it now. >> Well, just have a history. I mean, is another potential reason. But sure, >> what's the value in a history? >> But history is so important, Stephen. Come on. History matters. Oh my gosh. >> But history is important in what? >> In everything, right? History repeats itself. But I think it it holds to your point that history matters because you're saying we've seen these violence events. >> Yeah. And we don't want to repeat negative history. So we agree that's the reason for crime statistics. So if we look at those statistics and we look at the polls and we see a vast an overwhelming number of those on the left at a ratio of 6 to1 support violence compared to those on the right and we see people being murdered in cold blood. If you are conservative right leaning in this country and a public speaker, you are more at risk. How is that pointing the finger? It's identifying the problem and not repeating history. No. >> Yes. Well, with with data, sure. Um and and data speaks differently than I think sometimes people do. >> Sure. >> You know, and so I think how data is presented matters a lot. >> I agree. >> Um so yeah, I mean that's kind of all I really have on that particular thought. Were you running? >> Well, I think actually going to that point, the data that's presented, for example, right now in the wake of the assassination, and by the way, not just that, we haven't gone more than 3 days, but a serious liberal liberal attack, but a serious leftist attack, meaning in the ideology of the left, you have it right here, ICE that happened, uh ICE facility. Um you had another one in, I believe, is it Alvarado or Alvarado? I don't know the right way to pronounce it. Uh uh people were shot there. There was a bomb threat. >> Um the ABC. Okay. It's like Houston and then in New York they go Hston. I'm like I don't know the rules. Uh so forgive me. And then I have French Canadian moms so I mispronounced things cuz she taught me English. >> Um and then we look at the ABC affiliate Jimmy Kimmel. We haven't gone more than 3 days. [Music] >> That's an acceleration right now. And the problem is amidst that the left is saying actually there's more political violence coming from the right. And that's right we've been hearing and it's dishonest. In other words, data is being presented to the public deliberately dishonestly to victim to victim blame. And that's something that we face too where if you back people into a corner who are avoiding conflict where not violent, there could end up being right-wing violence. And when that happens, it's very ugly. It's very effective. It's very swift. And the only way we avoid that is for the left to take accountability of it and for them to tone down the temperature. And by that I mean right now and this is where I show you I think we both agree on this. Um so the two sources in the data I don't care if you see my password uh are the uh the prosecution project that's what's cited in the Economist and NPR >> and KO. These are the ones that where they say hey right-wing violence is more prevalent. I'm sure you've heard that. >> Let me show you what they don't include in the data cuz like you said people speak differently than data. Madison in Portland. >> What was it? >> The summer of love. George Foot riots. Aaron Danielson shot point blank dead because he was a Trump voter. And the man Rhyol, it was Michael Rhol who shot him told the cops, "I got the Trump supporter dead." Would we agree that's political violence? >> Yes, of course. >> Not a single one of these places cites it. It doesn't exist in their database. the ones here in your black folder, but not here in this. >> No, in there you have all the sources. >> Oh, these ones don't >> It's the same thing. The black folder is just those. Yeah. The point is they come from two places. TPP, the prosecution project >> or a KO study, which is reflected by the uh CSIS as well, where KO tried to say there's six times the amount of domestic terrorism deaths. TPP said right-wing general violence. By the way, all of them agree that in the last year since Donald Trump has been elected, even now they agree two to three times more leftist violence than right-wing violence. But that was never included. >> In other words, when they say there's more right-wing political violence, that's not included as leftwing political violence. You know what else isn't? >> All the riots, the billions and damages, the 37 dead Floyd riots, the thousands of officers assaulted, the thousands of casualties. That's not included. You know what else is included? Daryl Brooks uh in Wauasha, Wisconsin, who ran people over in the parade out of an exclusive defund the police, Black Lives Matter, anti-white, black supremacist ideology. That's why he killed them. That's not included. >> I could go through example after example that where you would just as clearly agree that is political violence. I'm not I'm not trying to pick a gray one. It exists nowhere. >> So So why do you think that wouldn't be included in the data as leftwing political violence? Cuz that's the number cited by the left right now to justify it. I think we have so much data that it's hard to even especially in the today's Well, I don't know. That's weird cuz you're saying in the police recorded call, they said >> he spoke to the police before they shot him. >> So, it's on a 911 call that the trunker. >> Yeah, he was talking to the police. So, there's >> police cam video. >> This is security camera video and then I believe there's also police camera video um and sworn testimony from the police. But he identified as 100% antifo. >> Yeah, >> you can look at his social media. He went out there. There are even, I believe, interviews with this man before this was committed where he was talking about enacting political violence. >> Yeah. >> Did it clear as day. Are you a Trump supporter? Yes, we've got a Trump supporter. Bang, bang, dead. >> All the studies from leftwing sources. >> Don't include that. Is that bothersome? >> Yeah, I do think it is bothersome because we need to have the facts of the situations, any situation, regardless of where it comes from. And you know, you talked about the something you said earlier just reminded me of like the media is is not portraying things accurately and that's adding fuel to the fire. >> Yeah. >> It's adding so much fuel to the fire >> on that. We agree. And can I ask you and this is by the way there's no wrong answer. This is just an opinion. Why do you think that wasn't included? Why do you think the examples that I gave you, none of none of them were included? But any example of white on black violence, even if it was a Democrat voter, was listed as rightwing. Any attack on a government building, even if it was Antifa, was listed as rightwing. >> Why do you think something that clear >> was not included? Would it surprise you if the authoritative source that's being cited, The Prosecution Project, the author of it, was actually arrested himself on January 20th protesting Donald Trump committing crimes and that entire day was also omitted. >> Probably not. >> Member of Antifa who said we are an organized group and we confront fascists. That's the source that gets disseminated across. >> Seems that there might be a bias there. And these sources are being used to victim blame those on the right right now. >> Where do you think those on the right go? Where we go, hold on a second. We're actually sitting down and having conversations and we've been attacked and in some cases killed >> and then you came to the memorials and the vigils and you celebrated it. A majority of people on the left, not all, not yourself, but too many celebrated it. >> I don't celebrate that way, >> but many did. And we both know that we saw it. >> I know you're right. And I >> and then you came and blamed us and said we need to tone it down and told us that we're more violent with clearly dishonest ads. >> That's why I say that both sidesing it doesn't help because you're backing people into a corner, not you, the left, with lies. At a certain point, they're going to push back and I'm trying to avoid that. >> Yeah. So, what do you think the answer is then? >> I'll tell you what I think the answer is. Twofold. One, the leadership of the left and the majority of the left. I think that the majority of people who identify as liberal, the reason you get those numbers 62 to 65 depending on the day, whether it's Ruters or whether it's Yuggov, I think they support uh political violence to varying degrees because they actually believe that those on the right are fascist, are Nazis, are genocidists, are racist, are homophobic, are sexist because every single member of the Democratic leadership has said so. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kla Harris, Walls, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, every single one has made that comparison. I think it's incumbent upon the left to take accountability. Say, look, we have gone too far here. This needs to be toned down. Of course, of course, Donald Trump and his voters are not fascists who won't relinquish power cuz he can't deal with fascists at a ballot box. And then I think we also need to states need to take this upon them need to change their soft on crime policy the no cash bail the IOU policy where you can simply say I'll be back in court before Charlie Kirk right the story in the news was Zerutka the Ukrainian refugee who was stabbed on that subway in North Carolina >> by a black man to Carlos Brown Jr. He was let out 14 times. And the last time he was let out by a left judge in the name of social justice, he was deemed unfit to stand trial, but they let him go out back out into society because he said he'd be back. Said he killed an innocent woman. You know why? Because hey, justice is racist. I guess it I don't know when it becomes racist. If it's at uh arrest number 11 or 14 or six, but that needs to change. Those two things, accountability, change in rhetoric, ownership from the left, which will change the makeup of today's left, make us safer, and needs to change soft on crime policy. And I also advocate that conservatives take an approach of ruthless, lawful self-defense because we've afforded grace where it is not warranted. What I mean by that is people who attack me and my family and many of my production members who've been attacked, violently assaulted, have taken the high road for a very long time. And that's why these people feel so bold to come to our memorials and still commit attacks. They didn't know they can't do that. I want the left to be able to get up and have these conversations with no security as they often do. And I don't want anyone on the right to go and violently disrupt it. The left needs to be afraid to come into our groups and commit acts of violence cuz we watched entire cities burn down. We watched our own die and then we watched it celebrated. And unless the left does this and takes this approach, it's going to get worse. There's no offramp. That's a genuine concern of mine. >> People are concerned about radicalizing, right? They talk about radicalization with echo chambers online and >> there's nothing more radicalizing than an assassination and a party >> afterwards. >> Yes. No, I agree with you. >> That's why I'm sitting down doing this. >> And to let people know that we're not afraid to have these conversations. Now, of course, you know, we have bulletproof glass and a flat jacket and >> it's sad that it's here, >> right? Right. >> But it's necessary. That's what I think. >> Okay. Okay. >> Would you disagree with any of those approaches? Changing the rhetoric, taking accountability, and stopping the soft on crime revolving door criminality policy. >> This is this is hard, Stephen, because I just feel like we don't have enough time to even really dive deep into each proposal issues. I know, I know, I know. But I just need more time to process and really consider and and to to understand what you mean exactly with each thing because >> I just I don't want to >> No cashless bail. >> No cashless bail. >> Yeah. So you have to post that. Okay. You have to post bail. >> Post bail. >> You commit a violent crime. You have to post bail. You're in jail. You're not allowed out. >> Okay. So no cashless bail meaning you're not allowed to >> you're not allowed to get out without paying any bail. >> Without paying any bail and like >> three strike policy as well. >> Three strike policy. >> Three serious felonies. violent crimes or you would hold on bail. So you're saying if you can't make bail, you can't get out. >> Yep. You have to wait for your trial. >> No matter what the level of the crime is. >> No. If it's a serious felony. >> Only if it's a serious felony. >> Let's even start with violent crimes >> like >> felonies. Violent crimes. >> Something like that. >> Assault, armed robbery. >> Okay. >> Burglary, >> battery. >> I think I could probably get behind that. I could probably get behind that. >> Not a single leader in the Democratic party is. Why? >> Yeah. >> So, we could get behind that. Uh, no IU policy for these criminals. >> You're deemed me. Let's use D. Carlos Brown Jr. as a very clear example. We could use George Floyd as an example, too. He was arrested six or nine times. >> Actually, I'm have to go to Well, please peruse those sources. Your name is Christina. Let me get your last name so if I want to go see your material. >> Yeah. Well, I perform under a staging and I wouldn't say it anyway. >> Could you write it down for me if I don't show it to anybody? Um, I will write it down for you, but you won't be able to find me. And I'm not like a big like I just started a year or so ago. >> Well, I was going to follow maybe if I see it send you some notes of encouragement cuz I could have used that when I was starting. >> Okay. >> If you write it down, I promise you no one will see it. >> Okay. But I don't know how you're going to send me anything. >> Well, just no. Uh, vibes, I think, is the term that's used now. I'll be watching. Know that I'll be out there going like, "Hey, go get him." But >> this is my stage name. >> Okay. So, >> thank you. Thank you, Christina. >> Yes. Thank you. >> I appreciate it. Good luck with this. >> You too. God bless. >> And I am, you know, I just want to say if it's really inappropriate if anyone from the left of the moder is right, we shouldn't be celebrating death. We need to be working together and being united in these things. Together we stand. Divided we fall. >> I agree with most of us. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much, Christina. Be well. >> God bless. [Applause] [Music] Well, that was surprisingly productive. And I say surprisingly, not in the context of change my mind, but in the context of what we see in today's social media highlight reels. I hope that we can keep this up. Let's move on to our next conversation with Madison like the town. Allow me to uh assert the premise today, which is that today, especially in 2025, um I am presupposing that uh predominantly the political violence right now is coming from the left, setting a tenor and tone where everything you see here today is necessary. Um and if you disagree with that, you're more than welcome to change my mind. >> Yeah. >> All right. So what which part of that the left is predominantly responsible for the tone of political violence today do you disagree with? >> Well, I have to think that we first have to consider how many people are on the left and what is the true ideology and mythos behind this new occurrence of violence that we see with the left. >> Okay, >> of course I mean there's potential skews of media. Um, I don't doubt that crime is not happening, but how many people are truly committing crime out of the sake of leftism or out of the sake of radicalism? Or could it be plastered on there just to get this ball rolling about narrative? The only other question that I had a personal question about you is, and it's a tough one. >> Well, is it related to the topic? >> It is. Um, >> would Jesus be on the left or the right? >> Well, that's a conversation for another day. We talk about that in church quite a bit. Um, I don't necessarily know that he would fit within the current American leftright paradigm. Uh, but I will tell you one thing. Jesus would certainly be against political violence as a form of intimidation or coercion. Um, it seems to me like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're not disagreeing with the idea, the uptick that there is an increase in political violence from the quote unquote left. You're just not sure if you define them as left. >> Uh, partially, yeah. I just don't necessarily want to just assign political violence or terrorism directly to the left because we see political violence across the world in terms of autocratic uh or conservative ideologies. So maybe China is a really good example arguably of leftist violence >> of leftist violence especially or well no autocratic and conservative violence. China would be conservative. >> I would believe so because they're an autocracy. So they have to practice conservative ideologies to obtain they can't liberate their people. That's what the left is. That's what liberation is. >> Well, I I don't know how familiar you are with the the CCP, >> but they're they're communist and they they did so under the guise of liberating people. And then of course you don't actually have any democratically held elections again. So they are communist. They've done so to liberate people namely from the decadence, the um quote unquote uh shackles of the western world. I'm just a little bit I guess flumx as to how you would define communist China, the communist Chinese party as rightwing. >> Well, because when Marx wrote his communist ideologies, it was conservative based. He didn't enjoy other people uh races. He wanted to eliminate races. What does it have to do with conservative? >> It has to do with human rights because conservatism isn't looking to liberate people from or define human rights. It's looking to remove human rights. Conserving the beliefs of the state and conserving the beliefs of elitism. >> Okay. So what if your premise is flawed? So what if conservatism and I understand by the way I agree with you. It means different things across for example conservative in the UK. In Canada you're basically a liberal or a liberal separatist. there is no real conservative party. But in the United States, it's not about conserving the state. As a matter of fact, our constitution is very unique in that it said the state doesn't grant any rights. So it's preserving the constitution where you are granted inalienable rights, meaning birth rights by God. And the state only serves to recognize those rights and protect them. And so if the state ever infringes upon the rights that are naturally yours by birthight, >> but who is natural rights? >> Well, that's that's the again the founding fathers who would be concerned. But natural rights being >> Republican. >> Well, this is before the Republican party. >> Am I correct? >> This is the Republican party. >> But I'm just confused. So you would say that communist China conservative. >> I would say it's autocracy that uses conservative. >> Okay. But what how is that conservative? For example, you say doing away with races. Um how is that conservative? >> It conserves their uh power over the state or over the nation. So you believe that conservatives want the state to have more power? >> I think that we define conservative conservative beliefs by our Republican values, >> but conservatism across the globe >> looks very different. >> Okay. Well, I agree that different parties cuz there's also the conservative party for example, whereas here it's the Republican party. We're talking about conservatism in the United States. Seems to me that your presupposition is that conservatives, Republicans want more state control, want more government power as opposed to the Democrat party, liberals. Okay, that would apply over healthcare, what you can eat, what you can drive, taxes. They're more left. They're more liberal, more open-minded on the left with those policies. Um, okay. I would just disagree with that considering if you just look at marginal tax rates and you look at gun policy, you look at speech policy, uh you look at energy policy, what you can drive. But going back to political violence, you said you wouldn't want to ascribe the uptick that we both recognize political violence to the left. What would be required for it to be ascribed to the left? >> What if they said it was like what if someone >> I would say like I'm looking at this globally. >> Mhm. Well, let's talk about here in the United States cuz that's what we're discussing. Yeah. Like what would Well, what I'm asking you is what would be required if someone were to commit an act of political violence and you consider it on the left. What if they said it's because they're on the left? Would that count? >> I would say so. No, I think >> if somebody is doing an act and towards the left, what side of the left and why? Because what we refer to as the left is now a religion and ideology. >> I would agree with that. >> This is a secular movement. >> Secular humanism. Yeah. >> Well, you can really say if you wanted to those people are nuts. Um to try to return back to their liberalist state because in some ways liberalists believe that we they've been robbed of human rights. It's a radicalism of people. Honestly, if you could if the conservatives like maybe 20 years ago started assigning themselves the idea of human rights or like you know public policy and things like that, there would probably been a switch around for the conservative movement to be more actually the democratical people. >> Do you mean like the civil rights act or like civil rights, >> emancipation proclamation, >> um >> freedom of speech policy, section 230, second amendment? Do you mean those kinds of rights? >> Those kinds of rights. if the right had been spearheading those >> and probably a little bit more socialist idealist. But of course, >> well, it's not just change the definitions, right? What you can't do or I would disagree with doing is saying racist means conservative because it doesn't, right? Most slaveholders would be Democrat and I know we would talk about how the parties have switched. You can't say KKK equal those would be largely Democrats. Uh there's nothing conservative about racism. There's nothing I think that we're saying parties and Democratic parties when conserving it here in the states assignment of Republicans cuz if you want to argue that Republicans were liberating people, would that wouldn't that constitute as a left nowadays? >> Why would that be left? >> Because they're liberating people from slavery and it's a Republican mindset. We don't >> No, I don't see how that would be left at all. As a matter of fact, I think your fundamental flaw that I would argue is this idea that the left is more concerned with individual liberty. That makes sense why you would you would uh ascribe conservatism to communism. I think you'd be hardressed to find anyone who agrees with you. But right now on the political violence, let me ask you this. >> Omar, he was a conservative >> wanted to do away with a nuclear family. Wanted to uh seize the means of production and distribution. I I just won't agree with you that anything about that is conservative. the political violence, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, >> using conservative with Republican ideals and Republican ideal is to uh protect the family. >> Some ways you could say it's conservative. >> Yeah. Conservative. >> Karl Mars wanted the state to be in charge of the family. >> That is the American perspective on conservatism. >> Okay. But the arrival of like what is liberalism, what is conservatism, we can't assign it to American Republican party or Democratic party because people hold leaning views in the Republican party. >> Sure. >> Um we can say that Republicans want to um liberate the world from war nowadays at least with Donald Trump's administration and that the Democratic party wanted to do more war in what was it Bush's era. >> Right. So what is it confusing? >> Did you say dem Bush was a Republican? But I would I would agree with you. >> Maybe is it Clinton? Clinton was >> Yeah. I will say this. All presidents have been more pro pro-war than how they campaigned with the exception of Donald Trump. I think we would agree on that. Political violence. The assassination of Charlie Kirk and Cold Blood. That be leftist political violence. >> I think that was the same. >> Okay. Um Daryl Brooks WA running people over. He's a black supremacist who wanted to kill cops and white people. Would that be left as political violence? >> He is a part of the BLM or black supremacy movement. >> And would you not consider that among the left? Antifa. Would that be considered among the left? >> I think that they're assigning themselves a party to assimilate with, but that doesn't necessarily that doesn't account for leftist values because the left is >> So, let me ask you here's because I don't want to waste too much time on this. How would you curb political violence? Right? The whole reason for crime statistics is a risk assessment >> to see who's most likely to be victimized and prevent it in the future. I get that you're in college and I understand that things can be kind of nebulous or abstract, but there are real people dying, >> right? And some of them are people I've known >> sitting in this ex Okay. >> So, how would So, where is the violence coming from in the country right now when you take into account Charlie Kirk? I mean, what just happened here down the road at ICE uh or Alvarado or Alvarado, I'm not sure how it's pronounced, uh as well. We haven't gone more than 3 days in the last 3 weeks about significant acts of selfidentified leftist terrorism. How would you curb it? If you're going to curb political violence and it seems like you're not willing to say that anything is political within the paradigm as it's universally recognized, >> what would you do? >> I think people need to get off social media. They becoming radicalized through that. Okay. >> How much time can you spend on Tik Tok like cycling through the same like violent ideologies because conservatives can have >> I'm banned from Tik Tok because I said Xi Jinping has a small penis. So that's the Communist Party. >> Tik Tok. I can say Instagram as well. >> No, I'm just saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I agree that social media can be very toxic, but we're seeing real acts of violence. So assuming that you can't wave your magic wand and >> ban all social media. >> Are you meaning in terms of like policies like if I had AC inter? But we need to identify the problem. Where do you think the political violence is coming from more right now? >> I think on a global scale in the United States both in the United States in the United States. I can't speak on the United States because I don't think it's just the United States. >> No, but that's what the conversation is today. >> So if you don't want to, that's that's okay. >> But I appreciate you taking the time. I appreciate the disagreeing the disagreement respectfully. I you're never going to get me to say that the Communist Chinese Party is rightwing. Well, of course you wouldn't because like you represent the conservative party and the Republican party mostly. >> Well, there's no conservative party or I'm just conservative. >> There are there are examples of people who are carrying out things violently, but it is not just the leftist ideology. It is a religion to something greater. >> And that's what I just wanted to assign it is that because Yeah, of course. And like I kind of alreadyated my points, but >> No. And I think Yeah. And we would agree, you know, Karl Marx loathed religion and wanted to replace it with the religion of of the state. >> Yeah. And that's what we see from these leftists. But I appreciate you sitting down, Madison. Thank you very much. Are those Are those furry pants? Is that They >> They're furry pants. What? >> Well, they're fur pants. >> Oh, they're bear pants. Sorry, I didn't mean to. >> Shoes that are very, very exclusive and rare. But >> So, what took you back when I said furry pants? If they're bear pants, I I didn't mean to offend you. They look like fur. >> Um, well, they are bear. >> They're pants. Are you a fan of Boston? >> No, not very much. I only spent a little bit of time there with the hockey exchange Montreal. We do an exchange with the Boston and it's it's uh uh an intensely uneducated and often quite racist people. But thank you very much, Madison. I appreciate you taking the time. God bless. >> God bless. [Applause] [Music] and a moment if I may for a brief intermission in the only time I'd be addressing the crowd this day to issue a new challenge and lay out next steps. Uh guys, I'll just this will be probably one of the only times that uh I address you kind of as as a mass of people because these usually end up being individual conversations. But I wanted to take a moment just to kind of communicate something here. when we started um changed my mind the idea was back in 2016. Uh I think the first ones were in 2017 so nearly a decade now. Um SMU was one of the very first places and uh actually I believe one of the very first places was me with a sandwich board in Burlington, Vermont uh in a morph suit because it wasn't on campus initially. But the more I went on campus, the more I saw the failures of the institutions. And I want to be really clear about something. This was never designed to um mock, denigrate, or dunk on students who don't know any better. It was always designed to highlight the failures of the institutions because I was dumbfounded as to the fact when leftists would sit down that this was the first time they were hearing mainstream conservative views. So, it was always about highlighting the failures of institutions and that includes media, but certainly academia. And that's why the next step and something we've been trying to put together for a long time, but no one has agreed to do so and why I'll be announcing this publicly and reading it out. We actually going to be starting or calling for formal debates with professors at schools. And the only way we can think to get these people to show up is to offer up $10,000 to the school for whatever cause of their choice to their institution and reach out and Oh, Lane, sorry, your phone locked. Where's Lane? >> Yep. >> Your phone. He See, I have to read this off his phone because I just had to get the list. Can you uh >> Yeah. hold it open. All right. And so we have reached out and any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Karen who will respond and take the $10,000 offered up as a charitable contribution in any of the departments of political science or liberal arts at the University of Texas, at Kansas University, UCLA, Cal Berkeley, Stanford, USC, Penn, Penn State, Columbia, NYU, Harvard, Boston University, any of their esteemed professors in these schools who are willing to have a debate with a college dropout comedian. They can name the time, the place, pick the moderator and the rules. It should be an easy day out. And I encourage anyone who has any friends at these institutions or if you have an association to encourage their professors to do so or we can have a civil dialogue and maybe get to the root cause as to why you've been failed as students. You've been failed. It's time to go straight to the top to the people who failed you. We'll announce this uh publicly and uh post this list publicly and I'll update you guys if anyone reaches back out. No luck yet. I very much appreciate you doing the work that your professors in many cases refuse to do. Thank you. [Applause] >> All right. Now, back to the regular programming, the changing of minds. Meet Andrew. >> So I am asserting that today um by and large the tone the temperature in this country uh and the majority of political violence is coming from the left. >> Okay. >> And it's reaching a really serious boiling point. Uh I've been observing it for a long time. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't mean that violence doesn't occur across the board, but predominantly from the left. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to change my mind. >> Yeah. So, one thing I'm I'm curious where you think that political violence comes from. Um, just kind of as a general >> where the violence on the left comes from. >> Just where where political violence uh Yeah. comes from or on the left specifically. Either way. >> Yeah. Well, I can tell you I can tell you where it comes from on the left. Exactly. >> Yeah. >> I can tell you because I've been on the receiving end many times. So, the reason I stopped doing change my mind for uh years is because every single timeout there was some kind of attack. >> Yeah. >> For exactly the kind of conversation we're having right now. Right. >> Um, and the ones that you've seen, I don't come out on Instigate, but some people yell at me, >> rocks, concrete milkshakes, Molotov cocktails, slashing tires, ducks. Um, with Charlie Kirk, you're just seen one that got through. He had all the security before he was assassinated in an act of leftist terrorism because there were many close calls. >> Yeah. So that then empirically that the recent polls from Yuggov from Reuters show that a majority of those in the left believe that political violence is somewhat to completely acceptable >> in contrast to the right. So I'll address leftist political violence. Um, if you refer to your political opposition, Donald Trump and his voters as fascist, compare them to Nazis, say they're racist, they support oppression of blacks through the police uh force, say that they want to commit genocide and erase trans people because they don't believe that children should transition or biological men and women sports, they're sexist, homophobic, and say, for example, specifically on Donald Trump, and this is the entire DNC as far as national figureheads saying, "And you won't have another election again." Yeah. Because he won't give up the reigns of power. If I believe that, if I believe that, >> I'd be in the street with a gun. >> Right. So, I I guess from my view, >> do you understand that? Would you agree with that kind of premise? >> No. No. I understand where that's coming from. Um, and I think really like what has changed recently is there's been more hatred in politics, I guess. Can we kind of agree with that? >> Um, >> um, I I think that there's been increasing violence. I think that, uh, progressivism um, necessarily is predicated on uh, divisiveness and hatred. I don't think that's the case with conservatism. >> Interesting. Um I guess what part of progressivism do you think comes with that? I mean like >> racial division, racial division, gender division, classist division, >> right? >> Um I mean you don't see the right saying, hey, these people are fascist and they want to genocide you. No. >> Um so and I think it's it's a necessary because for example, leftism, socialism, right? You seize the means of production and distribution, >> right? Yeah. >> That requires violence. lowering marginal tax rates does not. >> Right. Right. I I think there are there are forms of leftist ideology that have violence inherent in them, but I think there also a lot on the political left. For example, my siblings, we get along like fantastic, especially in an age where people lose relationships over politics. I'm I'm really thankful to not have that be the case. Um have two siblings on the left. Both my parents are moderate political right. And >> can I ask you are your siblings like would you say significantly left? >> I'd say um as policywise fairly so. >> How did they respond to the Charlie Kirk assassination? Oh, they were they were like fully insupportive of my devastation at the fact. >> How did they respond to so many people on their side celebrating the Charlie Kirk? >> Oh, they were fully like they were fully against that. And >> well, that's why you can be friends with them, >> right? And I think I think at the end of the day, um I guess I'll just explain my view a little bit. Um as someone who's a man of faith and trying to kind of get less into the political sphere and more towards like how can I be bold in my faith? >> Um I don't see political violence as the problem. I see it as the symptom. And I think the problem is our lack of religion. And I think in order to then solve that problem, we need to just kind of tackle it from the roots. And I know one thing you talk about for example is >> I don't disagree with that. >> Yeah. I think like we see a lot of crime in inner cities, right? Especially with young kids. That's not the problem. The problem is fatherlessness, right? And the crime is kind of the symptom of that. I think I kind of see this in the same vein, right? Where we see this increasing political violence and we have the question of like how do we solve it, right? And I know I I heard you kind of talking before and you said like, well, it's on the left to solve it. But I think >> on the left, what was that? >> That it's on the people on the left to solve the violence problem. That >> No, I I said it's Well, I said it's it's incumbent upon them to take accountability for it. Um, and just even if because I want you to continue, but if I may address your point, yes, I do believe that godlessness is the root. Is that what you're saying? The root cause of it. Okay. Who seeks to replace >> faith in the father with the state? Who seeks to replace God with the state? I mean I think it's the the ideology of atheism more more so than it is the political ideology of the left you look at the marks and angles the symptom though but that is the goal of leftist policies right is replace God with the state is your god >> yeah I mean >> it's the root of the left >> in some vein I I think that's true but again I think religion is comes first and then politics outgrow from that um and it's interesting so one thing when I mean when Charlie was shot I was devastated. Especially as a young conservative man, it it kind of really hit close to home cuz like I was like he was like an older brother to me, right? Like it was like just like a shocking moment and like seeing people celebrate it, I was like they'd celebrate my death too if they if they cared enough, right? I'm not relevant, but if I was relevant, they'd celebrate my death too. >> Um and I caught myself in the day after. I go, I don't know how we can live with these people. >> And I'm kind of mad at myself for saying that. And the reason is >> Jesus never lived like that, right? And his followers never lived like that, right? they endured persecution for the as the cost to spread his message. Um, and I think that as either conservatives or people who are followers of Christ, we're called to do the same thing. Um, and I think that it's not necessarily like awful to say something like this, but I think it can also be kind of pragmatically unproductive. Um, because I don't think it actually goes at what the root cause is. And I think we want to tackle Sorry. >> No, that's fine. Don't worry. You can mess this all up. If we want
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.