Why Charlie’s Death Changed Everything

So, the murder of Charlie Kirk right in front of his family and thousands of students for the crime for the heinous crime of debating with students has a lot of people saying that this changes everything. Now, this is not the first time somebody has been murdered for their values. It's not the first time somebody has been murdered for both either their faith or their political positions. But I agree. I agree that this does change everything. This is going to change the way that we see things going forward. But one of the things I've noticed is a lot of people talking about this changes everything haven't gone into great deal about why it changes everything and what exactly has changed. And if we don't if we don't get those two if we don't get answers to those two questions, why and what, then we're going to come up with a lot of solutions that don't make sense. And in fact, we're seeing a lot of solutions offered as to what happens next that don't make a lot of sense because you can kind of tell who has properly diagnose this and who hasn't. So today, what we're going to discuss is why Charlie's murder does change everything. And we're going to specifically talk about what has changed. And we're going to look at this from the perspective of the left. We're going to look at it from the perspective of the right. And we're also going to look at it from the perspective of people that don't fall neatly into either of those categories. And we're going to analyze all of that. And hopefully we're going to be able to come to some good conclusions. Because without proper analysis, we can't effectively talk about what happens next. Because I'll tell you this much, it cannot continue the way it has before. All of that coming up on this episode of Making the Argument. I'm your host Nick Freighus with me in the studio, my beautiful bride, Tina, Queen of the Bees. >> Hello everyone. >> And then of course we have our political prognosticator, resident historian, the Oracle of Virginia, Christian Hines. How are you, sir? >> Um, all things considered, uh, could be could be worse. >> Yeah. No, it it has been a it has been a rough uh it's been a rough week. Um, I know like I when I was on uh Charlie's show on TBN, uh, that was one of the things I had to admit is like, look, everybody is trying to do this kind of like, okay, you know, let's pull together. I'm like, look, I'm just going to be honest with everybody. My mind's gone to some pretty dark places. Um, over over the last couple of days, um, and and I know it can't remain there, right? That was one of the things I wanted to address. I know it can't remain there. Um, but I think we also have to be honest about what we're feeling about this, what we're thinking about this. so we can get to what happens next. Um, so first things first, we're going to we're going to frame this up. So what are we what are we talking about today? Um, well, when we say that this changes everything, I think one of the first things that we have to address is do we want the same things? Right? But when you when you look at the political spectrum within the United States, when you look at how you know citizens, American citizens are analyzing not just what happened to Charlie, but what we want as a country. What do we think about our past? What do we think about our present? Where do we want to go in the future? What sort of policies do we want to have? When we look at the major political movements within the country, we have to ask an honest question and that is do they want the same things or do they at least want enough of the same things um to be able to peacefully coexist with one another? Which is to say that you know you you might think there should be a 10% tax rate. I might think that no, it should be less than that. We could probably we could probably live in peace with one another even though we we disagree about some of those things. But is that really where we're at anymore? So, we're going to talk about what do what do the different political movements really want and can those things peacefully coexist? Because I've had some I've had some comments on this that generated a a backlash from the speaker of the house here in Virginia as well as some of my other colleagues in the House of Delegates. And maybe we'll talk a little bit about that. The other thing that we're going to be talking about is this idea of is this just fellow countrymen having a serious disagreement or is something else taking place now or are we really breaking ourselves down now into friends and enemies? Um because that is a departure, right? I I would say for there there's obviously been times in American history where people have made those kinds of distinctions, but are we in the process of now doing that again? and if so, what does that look like and how do we proper ident properly identify it? The other thing that we're going to be addressing is this whole idea of um political violence and the glorification of political violence. This was something that tragically and ironically Charlie Kirk had actually been speaking about. He had identified things that he thought were signifying that we were going to see an uptick in political violence. And that's one of the things that we want to address is what causes political violence and are we going to see more of it uh before we see less of it. And then the last thing that we're going to really address from these various perspectives that we're going to look at is this whole idea of critical mass within a movement. Now I don't care where you are on the political spectrum. Everybody has extremes, right? Everybody on the right, on the left, wherever libertarian, everybody has extremes that don't necessarily represent what we might call the mainstream within a particular political movement. That's not to say that they don't play an important role. Samuel Adams himself said that it's it's, you know, it's not majorities that generally achieve the the wide sweeping political change. It's usually very very motivated and effective minorities within those particular groups. And we we see that dating all the way back to the American Revolution. So the question is not whether or not a majority of people within a political movement believes something. It's whether or not you have a critical mass within a political movement that believes something. And then you have to start asking the question of what do they want, right? Do they see their opponents as friends that they have a disagreement or enemies? And do they glorify political violence? Because when you have a critical mass of that within a political movement, bad things are probably going to happen. So, these are the categories that we're going to be talking about today. Before we get into that, um, we need to say thank you to one of our best sponsors ever, Good Ranchers. Uh, Good Ranchers has the guts to actually sponsor shows like this where we're talking about controversial issues. And we love Good Ranchers not just because Ben and Corley Spell are excellent and wonderful people and they run an incredible business. We also love them because they produce an excellent product. This is one of the things that we've always kind of committed to our audience is that if we're going to recommend something to you, it's going to need to be something that we actually believe in. And we absolutely believe in Good Ranchers. We use Good Ranchers all the time. They have a really, really special deal going. If you go to good ranchers.com, you use my code Nick, right? Not only are you going to get $40 off your order, but you're also going to get free meat with your subscription. So, what could be better than getting your steak, your pork, your poultry, your bacon, your wild caught seafood sent directly to your door, $40 off your order, plus they're going to throw in free meat on top of that, which again, you get you get some choices there. You get to choose what sort of free add-ons you want to your subscription. Like I said, Tina and I have been using it for a long time now. We absolutely love it. Um, >> we just had the Wu burgers last night. >> We just had the Wu burgers last night. >> They're so good. Good ranchers is that perfect intersection that we're looking for. They're the people that share values, but they don't try to they don't try to just trade exclusively on their values. They realize that if they're going to say that they believe these things and they're people of faith, they're patriots, but if they're going to say that those things, well, then they better produce a superior product. And I am telling you, they do. So, go to goodranchers.com, use my code Nick, get that $40 off, sign up for one of those subscriptions. You are not going to regret it. Okay, now that we've uh we've framed up this argument, we've framed up these categories that we're going to discuss, now we're going to look at the various perspectives. And the first perspective that we're going to look at is the left and how does the left see what's going on within politics? What what does the left actually want? What um how do they see us? Do they see those I mean, because obviously we're not of the left. Do they see us as friends that they disagree with, or do they see us as enemies? um how do they feel about political violence and what sort of critical mass within the left actually believes these things. So I think we got our our first one right here and this is by we got a a post on X from Kevin Bass and it says onethird of young liberals believe it is justified to resort to violence to achieve political goals. And what's interesting about this graph is it shows um people that describe as liberals, conservatives, and moderates. And interestingly enough, it's it you have three brackets aged 18 to 39, uh 40 to 59, and 60 plus. And the liberals, the the lowest one. So, first of all, liberals across the board are more comfortable with political violence than moderates and conservatives at all ages. At all ages, self-identified liberals are more comfortable with political violence to achieve political goals. Um, now when you do 60 plus, it's it's pretty it's pretty low across the board. So, everyone's under 10%. Liberals are the highest, then conservatives, then moderates. When you drop to the 40 and 59, it jumps up quite a bit. It's about 15% of liberals believe that political violence is sometimes necessary. About 8% of conservatives and about 7% of moderates. But then when you get 18 to 39, that's where you see a massive shift. So conservatives, self-identifying conservatives age 18 to 39, about 5% say it is justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals. That that it's sometimes justified. Moderates are 11 to 12%, >> which questions whether they're moderate or not. >> Well, and and liberals liberals are at about 29 to 30%. 29 to 30%. Um, so there's there's no question that when you look at young liberals, so we're looking at the people that Tyler Robinson, the man that that murdered Charlie Kirk would fall into or the man who's accused of murdering Charlie Kirk, um, would fall into this category. A lot of your your college age students, your your younger adults, they would fall into this category of being far more comfortable with political violence than even their, you know, their their parents or their grandparents. Um, >> I mean, I I look at this and it's eyeopening. I mean, >> I felt like this when I was in college because there's so many other surveys and polls. Yeah, >> I don't have it up, but but there's so many other surveys and polls that show that liberals, especially younger liberals, are overwhelmingly more likely to cut off friends and family over political disagreements than conservatives and moderates. >> Conservatives, it's like a tiny minority that say, you know, I can't be friends with you because of your politics. But liberals, especially younger ones, it's like consistently like over 50%. >> Yeah. >> Now, that doesn't mean that every single one of them are going to resort to violence, but I there's a strong overlap. And when I saw those type of polls and and we've seen data on that for years now, >> it it's not surprising when you look at that to then conclude and then see it in the data. Yeah. >> That a portion of those same people are also willing to cheer or in some cases themselves resort >> to political violence to achieve the type of world that they want to live in. Well, and I think it's important because again, we're we're talking about this from the perspective of the left. And you know, again, this is just this is where they're at. Younger younger self-described liberals believe that yes. Now, again, the way this question is worded is, you know, is it ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? I I think that's a poorly worded question to be honest. But here's the difference in what you see, right? conservative moderates kind of keyed into the fact that it's like, okay, we're not asking about was the American Revolution justified. We're we're really asking about more isolated acts of violence, you know, rioting, burning stuff down, things of that nature. Um, which theoretically could also include political assassinations. Is that justified? And what what it shows you here is that from the left's perspective, they're they are far more open to this. the younger the liberal, the far more open they are to this idea that well, yes, it it would be justified. And I I think to some degree you you have to accept that that is a moral framework speaking, right? That this is not just insensed rhetoric. This is not or heightened rhetoric or inflammatory rhetoric. This is a moral framework because typically speaking when we when we look at violence, we look at it as physical violence within what we might call a civilized society is typically seen as the last resort to something, right? Physical violence is meant to be avoided. And you're seeing now that there's an increasing a significantly higher degree of comfort with using some sort of physical violence in order to achieve it. And what's the next thing that we have? >> The next link that we've got is a warning from Charlie Kirk from several months ago. >> Yeah. >> Talking about what's going on within the left. And he was quite tuned into this considering the the work that he did. >> Um I I want to read this off because he posted this back in April. He said, "Assenation culture is spreading on the left. 48% of liberals say it would at least be somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% said the same about Donald Trump. In California, activists are naming ballot measures after Luigi Manion. Uh context there real quick. Luigi Manion was the guy who committed the the assassination of a um CEO of a healthcare company back in December and he's now kind of considered almost like a martyr. He's alive. He's in custody. is being charged with murder, of course, but he's he's being praised by the left. And and that's what Charlie Kirk was getting at here. He continued with this tweet and said, "The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response. This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb. And we know how that ended, unfortunately. >> Well, and this this goes this goes into two things with respect to the moral framework on the left, right? It it's the it's the glorification of somebody that murdered uh the CEO of of a healthcare company. Now, maybe you hate that healthcare company. Maybe you've got massive problems with um healthcare within the United States, which I I could understand both from a personal level and also from just a structural level. But this goes into the difference between when when we look at those two categories that we discussed before in the framing of this of you know do I see these people as friends or fellow citizens or fellow even fellow human beings that I have a disagree with or do I see it as my enemy. This is enemy culture. The other thing that you see is this idea of the glorification of political violence. When when you have this many people saying that it it is at least somewhat justified to that it is a majority of respondents a majority of respondents said is it at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump. Okay, this this goes into that fourth question, right? Is there a critical mass? >> A majority by definition has >> a majority is a mass, right? A majority is a critical mass within a within a political movement. If you have a majority of people saying that it is okay, like for let me put it this way. Um it would horrify me if one of my friends had said, "No, I'm dead serious. I think it would be morally justifiable to murder Joe Biden." If somebody had said that, I would have been like, "Yeah, you and I do not have the same worldview at all." Um because ultimately what that mean because my moral framework says that well no murder is not justified right even if I really don't like the person or even I really really despise their policies murder is not justified now there there's a big distinction between war >> right there's a distinction between self-defense >> and and so the question becomes how do you how do you get this moral framework to where a majority of respondents say well yeah if Donald Trump was murdered I could justify that. I could morally justify that. And again, that's not just rhetoric. That's the reshaping of a moral framework. And we we've seen that um not just on the political side uh with political figures, but we've also seen um there are some Native American activists who make it sound like if somebody comes in and murders your whole family to take their land back for for their ancestors, you had it coming and that's justified. So, they're they're expanding uh what could be justified and what couldn't be justified. Cuz most of us, I think, um if you walked in and somebody had done something horrible to your child, >> Yeah. >> Uh most people would say that person had whatever was coming to them from at the hand of the father, you know, uh most people would see that as you basically um >> on some level understandable, right? understandable sort of heat of the moment >> um temporary insanity kind of I saw something horrible I reacted um most people would see that and I think that what we're seeing is a shift to expand that and expand what's acceptable and what's not acceptable and which is why we get certain things like the the young lady who was murdered on the train y >> and a movement of people who who did a fundraiser for the bail for the guy who killed her. >> Yeah. Who murdered >> because she was of a me a member of a um a classification of people that they saw as as an oppressor class. They decided, let's go ahead and help this poor man who all he did was get up and stab this girl to death. >> He was he was Yeah. was failed by the system and so therefore he's not completely to blame for his actions. >> Yeah. >> And >> and if and she was of the correct uh category of people that were allowed to show that aggression. >> Let's just be honest. It's it's she was white. I mean there there's a a a lot of people when they're talking about the left's perspective on this, >> it's you know, oh this is all Marxism. >> To a degree that's correct. It's a lot of this is cultural Marxism. I'm not denying that. But it there's something to be said about there's this strain within the left that's just straight up we just hate whites. >> There's also this strain within the left that's we hate men. >> Yeah. >> And there's especially the strain within the left which is we hate western civilization. >> Well, so somebody brought this up and I think it was a good point. They're like well technically Marxism is western civilization in the sense that it it came from the west. And and I get what they're saying by that. When when we're talking about western civilization, I think we're talk we're referring more to that which actually won classical notions of western >> what we thought was the existential struggle between you know fascism, communism and what we might call um you know liberal democracy or or free market economics or things of that nature, right? the idea of property rights and individual liberty and representative government like these things have all been these things have all become somewhat synonymous with western civilization when we speak of it and and there's no doubt that Marxism seeks to destroy that >> when when at least when I'm talking about western civilization I'm referring to twofold combination I can't separate the two of the Greco Roman philosophical tradition with Christianity yeah >> it's it's the fusion of those two things put together that from my perspective and I don't think that I'm alone in that. I I know that a lot of other people would maybe throw in the Enlightenment. I'm not a big fan of the Enlightenment, but I know that some people would do that and that's where you get the the liberal component from. >> But but you're you're you're right that like Marxism, yeah, geographically, right? It comes out of the UK, right? Markx is, you know, living in Europe. But >> there is this explicit attack on Western civilization as through that oppressed oppressor dynamic. And from the left's perspective, like you were talking about this return of the friend enemy distinction, and we haven't really seen that in the US since really the Civil War. Yeah. >> Right. Um >> Well, and even then it it's not like it is now. >> Well, I mean, we were lining each other up in Gettysburg for 3 days, shooting at each other. >> Yeah. But that that that t that speaks to the that speaks to the elevation of violence that was taking place. But if you actually looked at the the differences in world view in the civil war and the differences in world view now, I would argue that there's something fundamentally different. And it like when you look it's more partisan now and more gorilla based and lone wolf based. >> That's not even what I'm talking about. That's about tactics and strategy. What I'm talking about is our interpretation of the world. The there there was a couple of major questions that were at play within the Civil War. One of them was obviously slavery. It it was how do we look at our our fellow men that may be of a of a different ethnicity, right? And should slavery exist a as a as a category? That was that was that was a significant difference in in opinions between the two waring sides. But there was also implications with respect to what was the states what was what were what were considered states rights or what were the states authorities and responsibilities in reference to the federal government. And if you look at that, that was a fundamental question that was being asked with respect to the whole organization of the United States and the federal government in the first place. Right? But everyone understood the nature of that question. Right? So I I think that I think what's happening here is a little bit is is actually fundamentally different in certain ways that are unique to what's going on right now. >> I I I I agree with you on that. I so when I said a second ago that that you were bringing up the return of the friend enemy distinction I was actually going to draw a distinction between the way that it was applied in the civil war versus today in the civil war both sides I mean that's by definition both sides recognize each other as the enemy >> yes >> it it was a like obviously right but when you look at it today in a way yes the left is obviously applying the friend enemy distinction but in a way the left doesn't really recognize that it as enemies. It recognizes that it has pathologies to eradicate. >> Mhm. >> And and so it doesn't really grant moral legitimacy to its enemy because it denies that that it can even have enemies. What it says is we have problems that need to be eradicated. We have racism, white supremacy, sexism, transphobia, islamophobia, fascism, threats to our democracy. These aren't things to negotiate with. These aren't even things to um uh fight out in the sense of like um you know the traditional rules of warfare in the sense of the civil war. Both sides recognized each other as enemies, right? They took prisoners of war. They fought within I mean obviously there were still >> Yeah. They fought within certain boundaries. >> They fought within certain boundaries. >> Um >> you know that in a way that's like a recognition of a very formal enemy in the same way that like the Romans and Persians were enemies for 700 years, right? But when the left looks at its enemies today, it says, "No, I don't grant you moral legitimacy. Say whatever you want." The Union did not uh um execute every prisoner of war that they took for the Confederacy. They recognized that that there was it's not that they recognized the the claims of the Confederacy as being morally legitimate, but they certainly recognized the humanity in the the individuals that they were fighting. Like Grant famously was very lenient to Lee at Appamatics. The left doesn't look at it that way because I don't think that they really view their enemies as being, you know, >> they don't they don't view their enemies as as really being worthy of humanity. They view them as as intrinsically evil. >> Well, we we talked about this we talked about this before. Like I I mentioned this once before when I said I found myself in enough conversations now where I think I can articulate what I see going on. And that is when I debate with somebody of the left, especially someone that identifies as more of like what we might call the woke left, I'm trying to debate and they're trying to diagnose. So I'm I'm trying to say like, okay, here's my position. This is why I believe it. This is the data um that I use in order to come to these conclusions. This is the logical framework that I use. And their response is usually diagnosing me as something. Oh, well, you're a bigot. Oh, well then you're a xenophobe. Oh, then you're an Islamophobe. Oh, then you're a transphobe. And it's like, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what I respond with to say, well, no, I'm I'm not a racist because I don't fit the definition of what racism is. They simply adjust the definition of racism to mean what they needed to mean in that particular situation in order to disregard my argument. >> Racism means enemy of progressivism. >> Yes. And and and a lot of things seem to be have now fall into this category where it it is it has become with certain people impossible to explain a different perspective that they don't then automatically diagnose as being categorically evil. Because if we can agree that bigotry, racism, sexism, right, and and the actual meaning of those words, not the not the malleable, you know, are are evil things, right? you should not denigrate someone because of their sex. You should not denigrate someone because of their race, right? You should not have an irrational hatred for someone. Um, if we can categorize those things as evil, well then the moment they're saying this is who you are, well then now it's you're evil. >> And what can you do to evil? >> You don't negotiate with it. You you fight it. You defeat it. You destroy it. like it it one side has claimed a set of universal principles completely divorced of transcendence >> and that's actually incredibly dangerous when you take a universal set of principles divorced of of a religious framework like Christianity >> because >> then you can say anybody that doesn't adopt those principles is evil. Yeah. >> Because these these are supposed to be universal principles that should be applied everywhere. So therefore anybody that rejects the universal principles is rejecting the good. >> Yeah. Granted, it's their twisted version of the good divorced from transcendent good. >> But that creates the moral framework. >> Guess what that's done? You've now created the circumstances where you can initiate violence against them and claim to be committing it in an act of self-defense and simultaneously you can claim to be the victim the entire time. It's the whole, you know, you're crying out in pain as you're striking your opponent type of situation. They can literally try to kill you and claim to be the victim at the same time. >> Yes. Well, and this is so I I did a tweet that I had in 2023 where and and I was talking specifically about the transgender argument and I was like, you know, it used to be that when the left called you a sexist or a racist, it was because they were trying to shame you into silence. It was a way of shutting down debate is if I can discredit you um if I can discredit your argument by discrediting you, right? a form of ad hominemum attack. Well, then now no one listens to you and I get what I want. All right, so it was it was a form of I'm I'm silencing you or I'm diminishing you within the public space. I said something different is going on now. Whenever they start saying, well, your speech is violence or when you say that I don't believe that transgenderism exists as an actual category. I believe it's a mental illness, not a person. They said, "Well, then now you're engaging in trans genocide." I that's where I started to say they're not using these terms to silence you. They're using these terms so that when they attack you, and I don't mean verbally, when they use physical violence against you, they can come back and say, "I was just defending myself from genocide. That's what they're doing 2023." And we we see it now. I said that is that is the creation of a moral framework. As soon as it became what you believe is bad to what you believe and what you say is tantamount to violence, it's like, oh, I know what's happening next. I know what's happening next. You're going to use you're going to engage in aggressive violence and claim that it was justifiable. Now, to to illustrate this, I think we have a clip of um kind of the Charlie Kirk got what he deserve thing from from the left. Um >> yeah, listen to this. This is a great compilation. >> Inscriptions on the three unfired casings read, "Hey, fascist exclamation point. Catch exclamation point." >> Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist? >> Yes, I do. >> No one has ever been more dangerous to this country than Donald Trump. And he is a fascist to his core. >> And shut down the city. We are at war. >> We're in a war right now. >> We are at war. So you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country. >> And that's why the gloves are off. >> Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. >> And yes, there are many threats to democracy. We see it with these extreme candidates. >> I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be. >> You can only push people so far and then they start to take matters into their own hands. What the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight. >> You know, this is literally called to arms. >> The MAGA movement is a threat. >> Michelle says that, you know, when they go low, we go high. >> With all due respect, if they go low, we don't go high. >> When they go low, we kick them. >> We take them to the mud and choke them out >> and make sure that they stay down and and you know what? Kick them when they're down because they deserve it. Get up in the face of some Congress people. >> We are going to be in your face. We are going to be on your >> We have to fight this in the streets. >> We're going to fight it in the streets. >> It's time to step out of your comfort zone and step out into the streets. >> To a Republican colleague. If you do not see the light, we will bring the fire. Resist. >> You and your little friend off of Twitter. Y'all about to find out. >> And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd >> and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere. >> You are not going to have a good time. He may not be the last few days you woke up thinking there might be news. Um, just saying, just saying there will be news sometime. Just so you know, there will be news. >> Okay, so every single one of those people was not a was not some French person in their mother's basement. These were the leading voices within the Democratic party. These were their elected leaders to run for president. These were senators. These were governors. These was that this was the current House leadership. >> One of them is running for governor right here in Virginia this year. >> Yeah. Abigail Spamber running for governor this year in Virginia. So again, let's let's go back to the questions, right? Do we want the same thing? Obviously not. Is there this return of friend versus enemy as opposed to citizens civily debating things? Obviously. Obviously. Is there a glorification of political violence? Obviously. Is there a critical mass on the left which now buys this? Obviously. Abigail Spamber. Abigail Spamberger is constantly held up as this is the moderate version of the Democratic party. She's a moderate. She was in that clip. She was in that clip. And and so this is the part where again when we when we look at this and and I say I tweet out this is no longer a civil discussion among fellow countrymen. This is a war between diametrically opposed world views and Dan Helmer and Don Scott and you know Candy King. You know, I can't believe I'm not at war with anybody. How dare he say this? This is horrible. They're all liars. >> Really? 5 minutes ago you were calling us all fascists bigots. Every single one of those people and more especially especially people like >> Helmer >> have have built an entire career around demonizing their political opponents, stripping them of moral legitimacy and teeing up stuff like this. >> So look, we're we're going to we're going to get to I want to get to more of this because we're going to go some of this stuff. But I just I think it's it's worthwhile to point out that this idea that this is not a common belief on the left or something that has not been carefully organized, crafted, and pushed out on the mainstream is a joke. >> The problem is that they they were totally fine with it as long as we didn't recognize it and act accordingly. And now I think we finally we started recognizing it, but I think we're finally I think most people finally >> Charlie's death. >> Well, wait a second. We're getting ahead of ourselves. All right, because everything we've talked about before, here's what's important to understand. Everything we've talked about so far on the perspective of the left was before Charlie's death. This is before, >> right? >> Okay. This is before Charlie's death. >> So surely they've changed, right? This is why I'm saying there's been a groundwork and now we had Charlie's death. Okay. So, how did the left react to Charlie's death? Because clearly these people that assure me that this is not a battle between diametrically opposed worldviews, assurely the people that have told me, Nick, your rhetoric is is incendiary and inflammatory and I don't have enemies and I like you and and we're we're fellow country. Surely, surely the response to Charlie Kirk's death was something that we can point to and say, "Oh, you know what? Nick was wrong. Nick was wrong. The left saw this and realized, wow, this is a pivotal moment and it's an opportunity for the left to come forward and say, "Hey, let's tone down the rhetoric, right? And let's just commiserate with a woman and her children that just lost a husband and a father, right? That's what happened. Oh, wait. Nope. That's That's not what happened. Destiny Steve Bonnel said, "This Charlie Kirk memorial is indistinguishable from a Nazi rally and f anyone who wants to pretend it's not." Let's look at the next one. Let's look at another one here. This is from uh Ilhan Omar says, "Charlie Cook should be left, his legacy should be left in the dustpin of history. She echoed the assassin's words claiming that he spread hate. She refused to apologize for sharing a video that called him Dr. Frankenstein and said his monster shot him through the neck because remember and Don Scott, Speaker Don Scott spread this lie as well was this idea that oh he got shot by his own side. I mean, no sooner had the shots rang out than you had people on MSNBC saying, "Well, we don't know if this was somebody c this was a fan of Charlie Kirk shooting celebratory and it just it just happened to hit him." Like just >> like like we're a bunch of morons, you know? >> Yeah. We're not the ones that don't understand how guns work, right? And then you had you had people like, you know, Dowed getting right there on MSNBC going basically, well, this is just what happens. This is what Charlie Cook spread hate and he spread this and he spread and now he's he's been killed by it, right? Let's look at another one. >> You you were hinting at this just a second ago. >> Yeah. Only 10% Wait, scroll up here real quick. I'm going to read this. All right. Only 10% of Democrats are aware that Charlie Kirk's killer was leftwing. Right. Only 10% Only 10% is aware. 68% of Republicans know he was leftwing. 32% of independents, only 10% of Democrats, 37% of US adult citizens know that he had left-wing beliefs. A plurality, but three times as many Democrats think he was right-wing than think he was leftwing, by the way. >> Well, that 16% that believes that that something other than his political beliefs were at play are probably the people that recognize this is trans violence. This is yet again trans violence, but people don't seem to recognize that that largely occurs on the left, that the trans issue largely occurs on the left. >> So, you know what's even more disturbing? >> Yeah. >> Um, now that enough news has come out to I mean pretty >> it is definitive at this point. you were denying that this guy who because their their claim their claim initially was it was MAGA that shot him and they were basing that off of what his parents apparently believed but then again he went off to college right and he so he goes off to college he's living with a man who is going through the process of transitioning which again you can't transition into a woman you can simply start removing pieces of your own anatomy but it doesn't make you a woman so this man is in a homosexual relationship ship, right, with somebody who's identifying as trans. And he's he's he's in a a Discord chats talking about what he's doing, why he's doing it. He's etching things into bullets, which absolutely fascist catch. >> There's just at this point, if you if you are willing to believe that he was actually secretly right-wing, I don't know how to have a rational conversation with you. It was a total lie that came out of nowhere where they were trying to be like, "Oh, well, he he shot Charlie because he was he didn't think Charlie was rightwing enough >> and and he's, you know, right?" Like, it was a total lie. There was no evidence for this at all. And >> well, his parents were more on the right. Um, >> but his classmates said that he was extremely leftwing and said that he was associating with very leftwing people. It was uh >> his mother talked about him clashing with his father more and more in the past couple of years and how his views had become very left-wing and that there had been a lot of heated discussions as a family. >> So, so the lie that the mainstream media, the lie that elected Democrats like Don Scott tried to push that this was MAGA and Don Scott had to change his tweet because of course he was lecturing us because that's because remember they're always the victims. But here's what's amazing. And as soon as it bring up that blue sky tweet. >> Yeah. >> What's interesting is that on few of them Okay. What's Okay, go up to the one where it actually explains what's going on. That's too small to read. >> Um what what ends up happening is >> you have people in Blue Sky going anyway probably for the best if everyone asserts that he's a groper whether he is or not. The narrative really does matter a lot more than the truth on this one. This is very important. >> The gropers are like Fuentes. >> Yeah. the the griper is just like the, you know, yeah, the the anti- Jewish, anti- Israel, anti- you know, whatever. The point is is that this right here actually explains a lot. Um, because this wasn't the only person saying this. In fact, go to the go to the original tweet that you had that showed the explanation of what all these different tweets on Blue Sky meant. Hard >> No, there was another one that was scrolling up. It was at the top. Uh, >> there we go. So, what they did is they did a screenshot and they said, "Blue Sky Libs are freaking out that their fake narrative has collapsed and are now admitting that they have to continue the propaganda even if it's a total lie." This is one of the things that is so important to understand and which more people now are understanding on a level that I don't think they have before. The truth doesn't matter to them. What matters to them is the end state, the objective, the goals that they're trying to reach. And so therefore, if the truth in a particular case doesn't reinforce the narrative, the narrative will win. And and you need to understand that when somebody adopts that kind of moral framework, the question that you have to ask yourself is, is it possible to have a rational conversation with them? Because that's a big question coming right now. Can we still continue to have the sort of conversations that Charlie was attempting to have? If someone is willing to resort to this where they say, "Okay, it's fake. I know it's fake and I'm going to perpetuate it anyways because it's too important to achieve my instinct." How are you supposed to have a how are you supposed to have a reasonable rational communication or or conversation with someone like that? >> The answer is you cannot. Unfortunately, it it gets worse because you were talking about reactions after >> the shooting. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean, we saw this one from Destiny, but >> there's a much more disturbing clip from him. >> Uh after you got to understand this is after the shooting. >> Listen to this. >> Well, no, that's on Omar. You want to >> Oh, sorry. Um I I moved it around. This is it. This is it. Listen to this. Democrat podcaster Destiny is. He said, "You need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events." Go ahead and play this. >> Acting like Charlie had it coming. >> If you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn't have been president for the second term. You need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature. The issue is right now they don't feel like there's any fear. >> That guy's name's Destiny. >> Pause. and he just learned his fate. He's fired. >> So, see what he said there because there's there's something that's really interesting about his logic or his reasoning. Destiny is someone that has been put forward by the left as someone that can go out and contend with the Jordan Petersons of the world or um the the Charlie Kirks or the Ben Shapiro, right? He's he's actually debated some of these people and and it was because for a while there I I would watch Destiny debate and I would disagree with them but I could follow his line of reasoning on certain things. Um what what's interesting here is is if you look at his line of reasoning, it's if you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn't have won a second term. So what is that? Well, he died because Donald Trump is a fascist or is evil or is bad and because he got elected, the left was forced to resort to these sort of ends. He goes, "Conservatives should be afraid when they go out. That way, they'll change their leadership to bring down the temperature." So, think about that for a second. >> That's actually terror tactics. >> Well, we'll think about that for a second. It's like conservatives, we will continue to murder you until you bring down the temperature. Like, think about that reasoning for a second. Think about what it takes to arrive at that kind of logic. Not when you're in like a shooting war, right? You could you could understand if you were involved in a war and you said that the way that I'm going to end this war is I'm going to make the war so devastating that you quit. That's how you would talk in a war. That's how they're using that same language. >> That's why Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground. He He was like, "We're going to go total war because I want war to be so horrible that they stop. It was one of the reasons why we dropped the bombs in Nagasak Nagasaki and Hiroshima." It's like, "We don't want to send millions of Americans in into a land invasion of Japan, and so we're going to create this weapon of such devastation that the other side gives up." That's the logic that's being used here. That's the logic that you use when you're talking about an enemy you're at war with. So, I want people to understand it's not that it's illogical, it's that we keep thinking, oh, this Democrat is, you know, is is being irrational or is being unreasonable. No, Destiny is intelligent enough to understand what he's saying and to construct the arguments in such a way as to accurately convey what he believes. And what he believes is he is at war with us and enough of us have to either die, feel fear, or be intimidated in order to elicit the sort of political response that he wants. So once again, when I say when I state diametrically opposed worldviews at war with one another, this is not me creating something out of thin air. This is me listening to people like this and recognizing what they're saying. Now, the obvious response is going to be like, "Oh, fine. You found you found one liberal podcaster. Okay, let's go to the next one." Well, except that we didn't because we also just showed a bunch of liberal leaders doing saying some very similar things before the assassination. >> Here's another liberal podcast. >> David Pac-Man, Charlie Kirk's funeral is absolutely disgusting. Riddled with speeches that only dial up the temperature. Steven Miller's was particularly vile. I love it when they talk about us dialing up the temperature. Okay. Well, the temperature was set by someone who murdered somebody in front of their family. How did we dial it up from there? >> You know what's funny? >> And not only that, but the temperature was also set by everyone just cheering over this. I mean, the left was ecstatic, and they had a really hard time not showing it. >> So, this is what he said in Reddit. >> No, no, no, no. This is what's going This is the conversation that's going on within his subreddit. >> Oh, okay. Okay. and and somebody replied this this account Reddit Lies said meanwhile on your subreddit this is the sort of conversation that's going on >> on David Pacman's own subreddit >> David Pacman is accusing Steven Miller of raising the temperature which I I looked back and I was like oh my gosh Steven Miller must have gone out and murdered two leftists in order to raise the temperature from the left murdering one conservative nope Steven Miller just said things okay well what was going on on David Pacman's you know Reddit thread Look, we all know they literally hate everyone who isn't white, straight, or Christian. They are not compatible with people different than they. Therefore, they don't belong in such a diverse population like the US. We don't need the ethnosentrism from the deplorables. this. So again, David Pacman again, if you want to if you want to dismiss Destiny, which you certainly weren't dismissing him recently, >> this guy is also another mainstream person within the left, but now I want to go to a an individual named >> and let's not forget that the whole word deplorables came from >> Hillary Clinton calling us saying we're all in a basket of deplorables. So they they've been they've been separating us out for ages. >> It doesn't end with Pacman and and >> now we're going to go to Hassan [ __ ] And so we're I want to thank Amala for putting this compilation together. The reason why we brought up Hassan [ __ ] is because if if you go out there and you do a Grock search for Hassan the left-wing response to Joe Rogan, you're going to find all of these, you know, hopeful articles on the left saying, "Is Hassan Per our response to Joe Rogan?" Now, keep something in mind. Joe Rogan is not a conservative, right? Joe Rogan is not a conservative. >> He was just genuine. He would ask questions in a genu genuinely curious manner. >> Yeah. >> And allow people to answer them. >> So Hassan [ __ ] there there's multiple ar articles out there talking about Hassan [ __ ] being the the left-wing Joe Rogan or the left-wing podcaster or the person that could go into these environments and debate the Charlie Kirks and the Ben Shapiro and win. Right? That was their guy, Hassan [ __ ] Right? We're going to show you a compilation of some of the things that Hassan [ __ ] has done. Go ahead and hit play. >> Here's his clip. >> Kill them. Kill those [ __ ] and murder those motherers in the street. Let the streets let the streets soak in their red capitalist bloods, dude. >> That I mean that that that's pretty ridic. >> Yeah, it doesn't end. >> Let the streets run red with their blood. >> The red capitalist blood. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead and play a little bit more. I want to see some of these other ones. Murder those [ __ ] in the street. Let the streets Let the streets soak in theiring red capitalist bloods, dude. >> All right. Right. Um Right. These people are crazy. >> Yeah. You think? >> Yeah. Go to the next one. I think I thought there was another one with Hassan. >> Oh, yeah. There's another one of this is him before Charlie's. >> Yeah. >> Uh like like he's been doing this before and after. >> Yeah. Yeah. Keeping keep in mind Hassan Hassan [ __ ] had made these kind of comments when the left was elevating him as a potential, you know, Joe Rogan of the left. So listen to this. This was >> Yeah, sorry. The last one. >> There's going to be some rough language for the live audience. It should be edited out every other word from Hassan who who loves to drop the fbomb. But listen to this. >> I'm sick and tired of it. left-wingers, liberals, you need to be [ __ ] showing your opponent's guts on there, okay? You need to be gutting them. You need to be shanking these mother and letting their [ __ ] letting their intestines just ride on stage. What the [ __ ] is this [ __ ] man? Slice them up. Slice them anding dice them. What the [ __ ] is this? You cannot have a bigger layup. You could not have had a bigger layup than a horrible candidate like her. >> So there you go. Again, we we brought up Hassan because the left 20 minutes, five minutes ago, the left was like, "Oh, this is going to be the guy." In fact, Charlie Kirk was scheduled to debate him. And then when Charlie Kirk got murdered, Hassan [ __ ] was like, "Well, the real concern is what could happen to me." Well, >> yeah. This is >> Look at how the media is portraying this. Here's Politico. What Hassan [ __ ] told his millions of followers after Charlie Kirk was shot. If it wasn't an apology. >> Yeah. >> I I mean, you know what's crazy is that the mainstream media is still platforming these guys. >> Yeah. >> Like at at the same time that that we went through years years of cancel culture, right? None of us, nobody on the right was saying anything remotely as vile or violent. Yeah. >> As what people like Destiny, Yeah. people like Assan [ __ ] were saying. >> And I don't understand why they're now saying I'm so worried about political violence against me. What do you mean you're worried about that? You just you were out there telling people to gut people on the right on camera in front of everybody. Like you want this to happen to people on the right. And now you're worried that the right is now awake to it and and that somebody could retaliate. You're worried about someone retaliating against what you've been desirous of this entire time for people that oppose you. >> And to keep in mind with Destiny, this is not the first time Destiny has called for political violence. Actively called for political violence. when when the assassination uh or the assassination attempt on Trump took place and an innocent man was murdered in the audience, Destiny took to social media to specifically call out and mock that person and say that he was glad he was killed. So this this is and and when he was doing all this, was the left like, "Oh no, we've got to tone down the rhetoric." No. No. So again, four questions. Do we want the same thing? Is there a return? Is there a return at least by the left of this idea of not viewing the people on the other side as your fellow countrymen for which you have disagreements but rather your enemies which need to be defeated and eradicated? Right. Is there a glorification of political violence? And is there a critical mass on the left that actually believes these things? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. >> Yeah. I mean, if you go if you go back to the the original um graph that Christian had up showing um who believes political violence is okay, you'll also notice that moderates are above conservatives as well. So, people you people, okay, people that self-describe themselves as moderates also have extreme enough views to believe that people deserve to be punished for disagreeing. So, so all these people that are like, "Oh, well, I'm a moderate." It's like, "Well, >> what is a moderate anyway? Clearly, clearly you're not that moderate. You're not very moderate if you think that people that disagree with you need to be killed or hurt." >> So, I I think we've made the argument the left wants a a very very different United States than the right wants. Um, they absolutely see us as enemies. I don't care what I don't care what Candy King decides to say later when it's politically convenient. They do. There has been a steady glorification of political violence of of the worst possible kind. And there's no question that this has reached a critical mass on the left. When when you have a compilation of all of their top tier candidates repeatedly saying these things, you you cannot argue that they don't have a critical mass for all this. Now, what we're going to do next is we're going to talk about what we might call uh the moderates or the people that haven't really fallen into either of these camps. But before we do that, I want to thank our other sponsor and that is True Classic. Like I said before, it takes a certain level of courage to be able to sponsor ads on a show like ours. And we love True Classic. Once again, not just because they have the courage to be able to allow public discourse to take place, but because they also create a great product, right? If True Classic was willing to sponsor with us, but they didn't create a great product, I wouldn't be recommending it to you. But they do both. And I know this because I was using True Classic long before I had ever met any of them, we had talked to any of them, or long before they had ever offered to be able to advertise on our show before. And the reason why I love them so much is because again, guys, I'm not a big clothes shopper. My wife was the one that found True Classic. It was It started, it all started with a pack of five t-shirts. And I remember putting them on going, "This is the first time in a long time I felt like I've put on a t-shirt that fits me the way I would like a t-shirt to fit me." But they didn't stop there, ladies and gentlemen. They came out with workout equipment. I am right now I am wearing a button-down. I don't typically like to wear button-d downs, but I like these because it gives it gives a little bit more of a formal look. It's still incredibly comfortable. And again, it fits you the way you want to look, right? Because again, if your wife is the one saying, "Hey, I like how that looks on you." That's a good sign, gentlemen. That is a very, very good sign. So, go to trueclassic.com/nick and check out the different bundles that you can get. Again, maybe you want to date true classic first. Fine. Get a pack of the five t-shirts. See what I'm talking about? Maybe you're just already convinced. Really take a look at their dress wear. Take a look at their their formal shirts. Take a look at their workout gear. Like they've got it all. Plus plus you can also find True Classic now at stores like Costco, at um Target. So again, you can get True Classic a lot of places right now. Check the link in the description to find out more. Again, I am super happy with with the product. I wear it almost every day at this point. So, true classic.com/nick. Check them out. Okay, the next thing we're going to do is we're going to go into you, we we struggled with how to we struggled with how to categorize this. Um, but when it comes to the whole idea of do we want different things, do we see as friend or enemies? Is there a glorification of political violence? Is there a critical mass? Um, when we look at these people as we call them the moderates because we couldn't have come up with a better term, but honestly this is comprised of people that are liberal. They describe as liberal. It's certain Republicans. It's certain libertarians. And the best way I could describe this group is they look at the murder of Charlie Kirk and and let let's clarify something real quick because right off the bat, we've already answered one of these questions, but I want to make sure it's very clear. One of the things we said is why did Charlie's death change everything? And I I need you to understand this. It wasn't just that Charlie was murdered. It was the left's reaction to Charlie being murdered. Because there are any number of people on the right that if the same thing would have happened, it would have been equally as horrific. It would have been equally as wrong, but it wouldn't have had the same impact. There was something unique about the fact that they murdered Charlie in front of his wife, in front of his children. They murdered the guy that wanted to have conversations with them that was not afraid of going onto their turf and having those peaceful conversations. And then they were perfectly comfortable with gleefully celebrating it online that this man had been murdered. So, I want people to understand, I really want the left to understand. Killing Charlie was bad enough in and of itself, but your reaction to it is what signified to so many people that something had changed forever and we couldn't continue as we were except to the category we're talking about right now. They still believe certain people left, right, and center within this category. They still believe that this was just about insightful rhetoric. This was about mental health. This was about guns. This was about lowering the temperature or raising the temperature. >> This was about both sides. >> This was about both sides. This was about we need to stand together in in unity and solidarity during this difficult moment. These are the people that don't get it because they refuse to. Right? This is the liberal that wants to say, "You know what? But I didn't agree with, you know, obviously with what happened to Charlie. I didn't agree with the with what he said, but but this is horrible. And this is why we need to tone down the rhetoric. Ah, because if we just tone down the rhetoric, that'll make it all go away. That that will make that will make the moral framework that has been created over decades now, that will make that moral framework just instantly go away tomorrow. To to the people on the right, you honestly think I saw somebody I saw somebody just today. This is, you know, I saw this Republican, this Democrat shaking hands on the campaign trail. This is the Virginia way. Yes, I'm very familiar with the Virginia Way. What it's supposed to be is the idea that we recognize that we're all Virginiaians. Or you could expand this to the rest of the country and say we're all Americans. We just have some different ideas. We want our people to be happy, healthy, prosperous, and free. We just have different ideas on how to get there, right? And and so that's what we should do. That's what we should be focused on. And then one side of that conversation leaves five minutes after you've made this declaration and they call you a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a fascist, a threat to democracy. I'm sorry. The Virginia Wade died. That that method of looking at things died before Charlie was murdered. But if you still can't see it after Charlie was murdered, after the left's reaction to Charlie's murder, after prominent members of Congress, governors, >> the very person you're glading with, >> you can't see it that you still can't see it. I I'm sorry. I I don't know what to tell you anymore. >> Some people just simply don't know what time it is. >> I don't know what to tell you anymore. I've got some examples that I want to blitz through to demonstrate this. Um uh here's Senator James Langford in uh Oklahoma. Um he gave an interview to CNN and immediately turned it into a this is a both sides issue. He was citing uh you know he he talked about white supremacy and Timothy McVey McVey that was like >> oh my gosh >> 30 years ago in >> the 90s it was it was last century ago. And uh >> oh, and by the way, by the way, name me all the Republican politicians. Name me all the people name all the people that wrote articles saying, "Well, I don't agree with Timothy McVey blowing up the the building, but I that did not happen. That did not happen." Universally condemned by every prominent person on the right. Universally condemned. Can I just say that the the Virginia Way that that died probably over a decade ago and I'll give you one example as to how that died. When Ed Gillespie was running for governor of Virginia, the left put together commercials of some redneck with an Ed Gillespie sticker on his vehicle running down imig immigrant children in his truck. It was a campaign commercial. The Virginia Way has been dead a long time on the left and the people on the right were just in denial as to when it died or if it died or if it could be revived. I'm sorry, your Virginia Way died. It died a long time ago and you let it die. >> Yeah. >> Um here's an example from Shawn Davis quoting Bari Weiss. Uh you might be familiar with her. She uh >> she's actually said a lot of really good things. >> Editor of the Free Press. Well, unfortunately Bari does not understand what time it is. >> Yeah. Uh, she had a tweet about talking about the Jimmy Kimmel thing. First off, she fell into the trap of thinking this was the FCC that took this down rather than that it was ABC that used this as an excuse to pull the plug on a failing program. >> Yeah. >> And all these people came out on the right and were celebrating the fact that Jimmy Kimmel's show got pulled. And I think rightfully so, considering that Kimmel lied on the show about the shooter being MAGA. He literally said the shooter was apparently one of their guys. Yeah. Total lie. Total lie. And then he got canned and Bari came out and was like, you know, the typical uh you know, those on the right who who are seeing this, remember the Democrats will wield this power again. When have they ever not wielded this power? >> This is this is why this >> this whole both sides thing and and setting a dangerous precedent and well, you can't do this because they might retaliate. When have they ever restrained themselves? We we will sit there and we will obey the rules. We will obey the process. we will not wield power against them because that goes against our principles. Right? We don't want to live in a world where the government's being weaponized against our enemies. And then they will get into office and they will do all of that >> without any without us ever triggering them in response. They just do it out of principle. >> Here's what I would say and I and I want to caution everybody because we're about to get to the other side of this. The right that I would say has, no pun intended, woken up. But um the the the argument of like can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot? Yes. Like well imagine if Democrats were were wielding this kind what do you mean imagine? What what do you mean contemplate? What do you mean think about? I know already what it looks like. And so here's what I would say as someone who still believes that we need to be very very cautious about government power. Right? I'm not going to stop being worried about that because I'm pissed right now. But as someone who still believes in that, I am so tired. I'm so tired of this kind of reasoning because it it f