All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 13, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
35:33
Elon Musk vs. Maoism with Ben Weingarten and Jack Posobiec
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Carbon Copy Diction 00:09:34
Hey everybody, today the Charlie Kirk show.
New Twitter files are dropped.
Ben Weigarton and Jack Pasobic walk us through it.
Email me directly, freedom at charliekirk.com and get your ticket now to AmericaFest.
That's amfest.com, A-M-F-E-S-T.com, amfest.com.
You got to check it out, amfest.com.
Candace Owens, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson, and more, amfest.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit is love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services you can count on, go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
There's so much going on with the Twitter saga.
In fact, in real time right now, there are more Twitter files being dropped.
Twitter files from Barry Weiss, and I'm actually going, our team is going through them in real time, all about staff meetings and Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gaddi answering staff questions as to why Trump wasn't banned yet.
There's a lot of drama here.
But joining us now from Real Clear Investigations is Ben Weigarton.
Ben, welcome back to the program.
Charlie, thanks for having me.
It's always a pleasure.
Okay, so Ben, how read up are you on these recent Twitter files?
Hard to kind of track this while also hosting a show.
Anything new or scintillating that has been broken today?
I think a lot of this is more of the same.
What we see here are the deliberations of Twitter's speech police in the immediate days, 48 hours after January 6th, 2021.
And we see more of this sort of thought crime ad libbing here in the way of executives not being able to find something in their terms of service to justify Trump stretching for incitement or insurrection grounds to try and justify something, which as Barry Weiss rightly notes in this latest threat of tweets, at least as far as I've gotten, that other world leaders were never subjected to the kind of standard that employees were clamoring for when it came to Trump.
And I think it shows you how ad hoc and arbitrary they were here in their censorship, as we've seen in some of the other files.
And maybe the most revealing thing is the dissent internally from one unnamed Chinese employee who basically says, isn't this kind of what we do in communist countries?
Aren't there problems when it comes to chilling the speech of leaders?
Isn't more speech better than less speech?
Et cetera.
So, but I think it shows you the kind of show me the man and I'll show you the thought crime view that prevailed within Twitter.
And there's something, I believe it's quoted to the effect of one employee talking about the fact that essentially that the company came around to the view that this is like a terrorist leader leading a terror army.
And that is really significant.
And I think it's really significant.
I'm not quoting directly there, but paraphrasing.
That's significant because that is the very same standard essentially that our national security apparatus has increasingly applied to dissenters on a whole view of issues, not just MAGA dissenters, but people who dissent on the prevailing COVID orthodoxy, or obviously when it comes to teaching and indoctrinating kids in racial Marxism, CRT, in schools, it's the very same standard.
And that mind meld with the national security apparatus is important because as we know, you had ex-deep state officials working in a variety of positions at Twitter, including Jim Baker.
And I wrote about this in an article in the New York Post over the weekend about the revolving door between the deep state and big tech.
But you also, of course, had the national security apparatus in real time having these weekly meetings with executives at Twitter, at Facebook, and beyond, flagging for them content that they should strongly consider censoring.
And they did, of course.
And that collusion there, in my view, is a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment against dissenters.
The national security apparatus justifies it on the idea that speech is danger.
The big tech folks say speech is harmful and thus we need to curb that harm.
And so there's a mind meld there.
And what it amounts to is a conspiracy against the First Amendment and dissent in this country.
And I think it's the tip of the spear of the war on wrongthink that we've been embroiled in now for several years.
So I'm reading one of these Slack channels and the names are blurred out.
So this one person is justifying banning Trump by saying, well, we started labeling restricting his tweets, his being Donald Trump, when they became a threat to democracy.
Now, mind you, this is January 7th, 2021.
And it seemed like our red line, that was our red line.
Yesterday, he was clearly attempting to overthrow our democratic system of government and showed no sign of remorse.
If this is not a clear reason to suspend him, again, as an unhinged ruler attempting to subvert the most powerful democracy in the world, I'm not sure what would be.
So I'm positive that whoever's writing this went to some Ivy League institution or Caltech or UC Berkeley.
What I find to be striking, though, is in reading these Slack channels, the less sexy lead, in my opinion, is the diction, the word choice, the language they use is carbon copy of that of the regime media, the Washington Post and the New York Times, as if it was uploaded into their brain and then regurgitated into the actions of who we should censor.
Ben, your thoughts on that?
I think you're absolutely right.
They all speak in the same sort of tongue.
And, you know, to extend this kind of mind-meld paradigm that I think we're getting a window into here from these files, which are essentially confirming everything that we assumed and that we could glean from the public statements and what was printed by the deep state stenographers at WAPO and elsewhere,
is it's really kind of Chinese communist-like in the language that they use, you know, a threat to the state, a threat to stability, threat to our democracy, et cetera.
That sort of language and that sort of justification for a crackdown is exactly the kind of language, the orientation that you would have when you look at Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces, rags.
And to me, one of the big takeaways is, you know, why is how is it that our ruling class on the one hand is completely woke and endorses wokeness, but on the other hand, has no problem doing all manner of business, literal and figurative, with the CCP.
And I think it's in part because there's a little bit of envy in terms of the total control that they have.
You know, social credit system with American characteristics.
You start to see the makings of that when you have the digital public square and you have your national security apparatus regulating in effect that digital public square.
But I think you're right.
The language there, the fact that they all speak in the exact same tongue with the same themes.
And so there's a question of is that a conspiracy or is that organic?
And I think maybe the more disturbing thing is that that's organic.
This is for them, you know, true belief.
And obviously, there are those who are cynics.
No, it's a lot of people.
It is.
Yeah, it's an anti-religion is how I've kind of come around to think of it.
And this for them is virtue.
This is kind of their purpose on earth is to purge the earth of wrongthink.
But in practice, of course, but in practice, of course, what does that mean?
That means silencing and crushing anyone who would dare call out their failures, their corruption, and the consequences of their rule.
They want to get rid of all competition, essentially.
And that's why I think, by the way, the backlash against Elon Musk has been so widespread and multifaceted, because, God forbid, one piece of the digital public square of any substantially powerful cultural institution is taken out of their hands.
That simply can't be allowed to happen.
That's why, as I argue in this piece that I mentioned at the New York Post over the weekend, it's telling that you've had so many very senior intelligence community officials come out against big tech antitrust regulation.
Most of them, in one way or another, can be tied to the big tech companies themselves.
They claim they don't want these companies broken up or regulated in any significant way on national security grounds.
But really, I think what you see here is it's in part because the intelligence community was coordinating so closely with all these companies.
So God forbid any of them be taken out of their hands potentially.
And I think that's a major subtext, substory to the Twitter files that ought to be explored more deeply.
Balance of Nature Capsules 00:02:06
Yeah, I think that's really smart.
And just to have a little bit of a window into how they process information and how they justify their own beliefs, that's not the scintillating headline.
That's not the thing that's going to capture people's attention.
But it's remarkably instructive, Ben, to just kind of see how these incredibly elite, well-educated, high IQ, secular, probably childless computer people are like process the complete silencing of half the country.
Just how they justify to themselves, how they celebrate it.
It's really something.
Look, I love fall food, football, fall recipes, church gatherings, Thanksgiving.
And of course, Christmas is around the corner.
The food is amazing.
The problem is there's no room sometimes for fruits or veggies.
It's a serious problem.
And as you know, you need to get your nutrition.
Seriously, if I had to choose between steamed cabbage or a beautiful juicy burger, I mean, come on, I'm going to pick the burger.
Well, look, I've got a secret weapon for you to be able to get your fruits and vegetables.
It happens quickly.
It's amazing.
And I still have room for 31.
That's right, 31 whole fruits and veggies because I get them all from Balance of Nature.
Now, I'm not suggesting you eat with reckless abandon.
What I'm recommending is that you make sure you don't deprive your body of what it truly needs.
The maximum nutrition found in Balance of Nature, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
I want you to experience the Balance of Nature difference for a limited time.
All new and preferred customers receive an additional 35% discount, free shipping on your Balance of Nature order, and use discount code Charlie.
Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code Charlie.
That is balanceofnature.com.
You guys get all your fruits and veggies.
These capsules are great.
They're easy to take.
Balanceofnature.com, discount code Charlie.
That is balanceofnature.com.
Discount code Charlie.
I have the capsules right near me.
You guys will love it.
Balanceofnature.com.
Discount code Charlie.
Yoel Roth and the FBI 00:15:40
So, Ben, you have a really smart piece in the New York Post inside the revolving door between the Democrat deep state and big tech.
I think we're only touching the surface of how deep that relationship actually goes.
So, what do we know?
I mean, talk about the revolving door.
The kind of, let's just say, typical or stereotypical revolving door in DC would be, oh, between Raytheon and the Pentagon, or between, but there's actually another revolving door now between Google and government, government and Twitter.
Explain.
Yeah.
The person of Jim Baker, who was the deputy general counsel at Twitter until just several days ago, when Elon Musk found out that he was actually vetting the Twitter files in advance of them being released to the public, and then he gave, I guess, unsatisfactory explanation as to why he was tasked with vetting those files.
And we don't know, by the way, and Musk has indicated that some of those files might have been scrubbed or deleted.
Jim Baker himself had been the general counsel at the FBI, specifically during the height of Russia Gate.
As I describe him, he's sort of a Forrest Gump figure in Russia Gate.
They're at virtually every turn of scandal after scandal, hoax after hoax that our national security apparatus continued to foist on us in straining to try and find any shred, iota, of a tie between the president and Vladimir Putin.
Baker himself is seen in the Twitter files as justifying the censorship of the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story internally.
And of course, as the number two to Vijayagade is essentially a subordinate to the arguably the top censorship officer, along with ex-officer Yoel Roth and others within the company.
But it's very telling that you had the FBI and other national security apparatus agencies, by the way, meeting with the likes of Twitter and others in the run-up to the nuking of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Then you have the former general counsel, top lawyer at the FBI inside of Twitter while the decision was made to censor that story.
And of course, all manner of other suppression of Trump-related content and anything conservative, basically, as you well know, because you're a subject of the files yourself.
So he was in that position.
A main target, I guess, do not amplify.
And I just, it's so funny.
I was reading, where's this thing right here?
I got to show this to you, Ben, because we only have a couple of minutes remaining.
So I don't make a habit to go read Pravda or any of these other degenerate low-life papers, but this is what's so amazing, Ben.
Okay.
This is Rolling Stone, which I don't know why anyone takes them seriously.
But you know how that they're covering this?
They say the latest Twitter files allege the blacklisting of conservatives.
Are we still in the alleging arena, Ben?
I think we have more than a few smoking guns here.
By the way, I think there are more guns here than there were found on Capitol Hill on January 6th used to justify nuking President Trump's account and the accounts of myriad other people as well.
You have document after document here, internal deliberations and beyond, showing here very clearly what they did, which was to suppress views they didn't like in the run-up to a presidential election where they wanted to do everything in their power, as Molly Ball showed in that timepiece, this conspiracy to control the flow of information and to stop the bad orange man from winning again.
That's precisely what we saw happen in this scenario.
We're way past alleging.
And what this goes to is, again, there's a question of is it organic or is it coordinated?
I think there's a case to be made.
It's probably a little bit of both in the way of the fact that you have Baker and numerous other people at virtually every big tech company with substantial ties to the national security apparatus.
You have people on Capitol Hill like Chuck Schumer, whose kids work in prominent positions within these companies, or Zoe Lofgren on the House side, who oversees antitrust issues on the House Judiciary Committee.
Their people are kind of positioned everywhere, and they all have the same view of speech, which is they want to suppress that speech, which constitutes dissent, which they claim is dangerous.
And so you have on all sides an anti-speech bent, and it always cuts one way.
And so it's a major problem that you have a revolving door here because you're talking about the digital public square.
And again, you're talking about First Amendment violations by proxy here.
There's obviously corruption in all manner of industries when you have political officials, where they're kids or relatives or on the payroll, and that might influence policy or steer contracts towards a certain company.
And of course, we know we've seen that in big tech, but it's even more dangerous when you're talking about the First Amendment itself being eroded by proxy because all of our other liberties rest on that.
I wonder what the recourse is going to be, hopefully robust.
Ben, great job.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for having me.
Charlie Kirk here.
Look, I've told you about producer Andrew and how Relief Factor has really improved his life and relieved the pain in his knees and back.
Now, let me tell you about Yvonne in California.
She says this: quote, both my husband and I are in our 70s and so grateful to have found Relief Factor.
We've tried so many other solutions, but none of them have given us the freedom from aches and pains like Relief Factor.
I hear Yvonne, Relief Factor works for me too.
Relief Factor is a 100% drug-free solution developed by doctors based on scientific research to help your body attack the underlying inflammation causing you pain.
Three weeks from now, you could be doing the things you enjoy doing.
Your first step to becoming pain-free could be just to order the three-week quick start for only $19.95.
After trying Relief Factor, over half a million people have gone on to order more.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 8004Relief to find out more about this offer.
That's relieffactor.com or call 8004Relief.
Live your best life and feel the difference with Relief Factor.
Jack Pasobic is with us.
Jack, what do we make out of these latest Twitter files?
They're almost being dropped in real time.
Catch us up to speed here.
Right, Charlie.
And I've had time to go through a few of this latest batch of the Twitter files.
And at first, I think like a lot of people, I had this thought that, oh, look, we know they banned Trump.
We know that they said it was incitement to violence when he said he wasn't going to the inauguration.
We've seen it publicly.
What's new here?
Well, Charlie, there's actually two things that are new here.
First of all, was the fact that you did have pushback internally at Twitter from members of the trust and safety team that said unequivocally that they assessed Trump's tweets and did not find any direct or coded incitement to violence.
They did not find any of that.
And they have that in their own writing.
So in order for Twitter to take down not only those tweets, but consider them to be in violation, they actually had to override and overrule their own team.
But secondly, Charlie, it's the descent into absolute madness that you see through these exchanges internally.
Someone at one point just repeating over and over, and this is in a public work server talking to their bosses.
We have to do the right thing and ban the account.
We have to do the right thing and ban the account.
We have to do the right thing and ban the account, just over and over and over.
I want to say tweeting, but I guess it's a slack.
Why aren't we doing this?
Why aren't we doing this over and over?
And just repeating it like some sort of pagan incantation again and again at their bosses.
But Charlie, the one that really stood out with me was, and it's blocked out.
So I can't tell if it was a guy who said this or a woman who said this, but there is a quote in here that I want to read for you specifically, Charlie.
It's from Thursday, January 7th, 2021 at 10 in the morning.
I'm guessing that's California time, Pacific time.
And this is a quote from a Twitter employee inside the trust and safety team.
And I want you to read these words because they struck me so deeply.
Maybe because I am from China, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.
Maybe because I am from China, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.
And you read between the lines there, what they're saying is what you are doing at Twitter is akin to the Chinese Communist Party and the censorship of the internet.
And look, understanding the background of Maoism, having lived in China for years speaking Mandarin, I mean, that line specifically, that, you know, for this person, it was amazing to me because they sat back and clearly, and you don't know.
And if you've met people from China, they're not outspoken.
They're just not outspoken.
They're happy to come.
They're happy to work.
They'll work very hard, but they don't usually like wading into controversy like this.
And so that's a very, very nice way for them to put this, probably the nicest way.
But when you're hearing someone like that, that should have been an alarm bell going off inside Twitter.
And we've got the story up as well at the post-millennial that says essentially Twitter decided to apply their terrorist group strategy to Donald Trump and to Trump supporters in the wake of January 6th that essentially painted him as a terrorist leader.
And that all even they use the phrase American patriots as rioters and insurrectionists.
And that not only should be banned, but must be banned in order to stop an insurrection.
And they wrote, members of the team came to view Trump as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence or deaths comparable to the Christ Church shooter or Adolf Hitler himself.
And on that basis and on the quote, totality of his tweets, that he should be deplatformed.
So even though you've got members of the trust and safety team saying, we've read the tweets, there's no violation.
Even though you've got members that have come from China, so you've got Chinese nationals sitting on the team saying, you're acting like the Chinese Communist Party, you had this sort of revolutionary core at the heart of the trust and safety team.
And Charlie, we also can't just look at these outside of context because you've got Yoel Roth, who sat at the head of this, and his weekly meetings with the FBI, his weekly meetings with the Department of Homeland Security, that didn't just stop at the election.
They continued and intensified after the election.
And we have him in his own words from over the weekend saying that he was in meetings with the FBI talking about the status of Trump's account.
And so I said this at a speech in New York this weekend, and I've said it on the show today.
It looks to me as though this was an asset relationship, that the FBI viewed Yoel Roth as their asset at Twitter.
And I'm sure there's Yoel Roths at every single one of these tech firms out there, Wikipedia, Google, take your pick.
We know about these connections.
Elvis Chen, we've got in his testimony in the Missouri case with Eric Schmidt, saying that he went to Twitter to build relationships with Twitter officials.
Yeah, we understand what it means when the FBI says they're building relationships with people.
You're being run.
Okay.
You're being run as an intelligence asset.
And when you look at a guy like Yoel Roth, his proclivities, his background, this guy's clearly someone who's mentally unstable, has a ton of triggers that you can push in order to get him to dance on the pin of a needle, right?
This guy could easily do whatever they wanted.
They knew exactly which way to play him.
And he was clearly being handled by the national security state, probably directly by the FBI in all of these meetings.
And of course, they were sitting there telling him, I'm sure, saying this is for the good of your country.
This is for that you are being a patriot.
You are in service to the stars and stripes.
You're going to go down in history.
You're going to be a hero.
In interrogator parlance, you would refer to it as a pride and ego up approach.
And so that's to butter somebody up.
So, Jack, you alluded this morning that the FBI was willing to look past something else that Yoel might have been focused on.
What do you mean by that?
Well, I mean, these interests, these very nefarious and sinister interests that we see from Yoel, not only from his tweets from his main account and also, we believe, a burner account, the throwaway account that he seems also to have been public about.
He was constantly tweeting about hardcore pornography.
He was constantly tweeting about these strange questions about children in the past, including one tweet, which I uncovered over the weekend and Elon Musk later highlighted as well, talking about are there times where a child can consent to engage in sexual relations with their teacher in a classroom setting.
And then we go, and Elon Musk, of course, has gotten a lot of heat for posting Yoel Roth's own words from his PhD dissertation talking about the use of the Grindr hookup app and the fact that he uncovered that there were teenagers on the app,
but not saying that the teenager should be kicked off of the app or that minors should not be allowed to use a hookup app, but actually how to best protect the users who are on it, how best to protect the users of this hookup app.
And so Elon Musk said, you know, this guy doesn't seem to have a problem with minors using a sex app.
And so we see these same themes throughout his work.
We see these same themes throughout his tenure at Twitter.
And this is also something that, you know, you look at in terms of when you want to run an intelligence asset, right?
You want to look at, is this a person that we can potentially have leverage over?
Is this a person that we can potentially go to them and say, look, we think this person is going to be amenable to our guidelines, amenable to our guidance because of certain behavioral aspects.
And that's obviously something that any FBI case officer or profiler would look at and say, well, look, this guy is clearly the target here.
And I used to say, I actually tweeted kind of flippantly last night that I used to say that the most obvious person connected to government or public life to compromise that I've ever seen has been Hunter Biden.
I mean, anyone can figure out how to compromise him, any intel agency, foreign or domestic.
And I used to think Hunter Biden would be the easiest one until I found out about Yole Roth.
So Yoel Roth, let's play a piece of tape here.
He said one of the reasons that they censored Donald Trump is because of his personal trauma.
Now, I hope it's important people recognize and realize no one's picking on Yoel Roth.
This guy was the de facto CEO of Twitter, according to Elon Musk.
He was one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Pre-Born Misinformation Bans 00:03:27
Let's play cut five.
The events of the sex happen.
And if you talk to content moderators who worked on January 6th, myself included, the word that nearly everybody uses is trauma.
We experience those events, not some of us as Americans, but not just as Americans or as citizens, but as people working on sort of how to prevent harm on the internet.
And we saw people dead in the Capitol as a whole.
Why not before?
30 seconds, Jack, your reaction.
We'll talk more after the break.
I think these are lines that are being fed to him by a handler.
I think he's repeating things and then putting it into his own parlance, talking about trauma that he never actually personally experienced.
But I think this guy was being handled.
And I think those are lines that were fed to him.
I want to tell you about pre-born.
What if I told you you could save a baby's life for just $28?
Well, it is true.
Pre-born is a wonderful ministry doing just that with the help of people just like you by offering free ultrasound sessions to pregnant women and girls who might otherwise choose to end their pregnancies.
We know that pregnant girls and women who can see their babies on ultrasound are far more likely to choose life.
Your gift today can save baby lives right now for so just $28 can give a mother who is abortion-minded the chance to see the truth of the baby that is growing inside her.
$140 can do this for five girls and women.
A $15,000 gift will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
This Christmas season, it's important to not just receive, but to give.
What better place to give?
So you guys just go to charliekirk.com and there is the pre-born banner right there or call 833-850-2229.
CharlieKirk.com, check it out.
Pre-born is a fabulous organization.
There is no better time to save a baby's life.
And right now, your gift is matched dollar for dollar, doubling your impact.
That is charliekirk.com.
Click on the pre-born banner to save a baby's life today.
CharlieKirk.com, click on the banner right now.
Pre-born, they do a wonderful job.
Portions of this program are brought to you in part by Pre-Born, CharlieKirk.com.
Check out the banner.
Jack, immediately after suspending Trump, they then discussed suspending some people for talking about how vitamins could reduce COVID risk.
Tell us about that.
Yeah, Charlie, I knew that since this would be right up your alley and I'm pulling through, there's a ton of these messages that have just dropped from Barry Weiss, but this is one that I thought was very interesting because listen to this.
Very excited to see us handling more categories of misinformation.
So immediately, just like any revolutionary movement, any revolutionary secret committee, once they've purged one of their great enemies, they don't immediately stop and shut down and say, congratulations, we've won the war.
No, they move the chains and they decide to do more because you have to keep feeding the alligator.
And they wrote, for the longest time, Twitter stance was that we weren't the arbiter of truth, which I respected, but it never gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling because, of course, here we are, absolute power.
Napoleon on Elba Treachery 00:04:42
That said, my dad is an MD and medical misinformation is a really hard topic.
Even for COVID-19, we only covered a narrow category of information.
As an example is take vitamin C, vitamin D, elderberry, and xylitol with GSE Daily to produce COVID-19 risk, good information, creative marketing, or misinformation.
Personally, I'm not sure.
And I suspect there are views on both sides.
Charlie, they wanted to ban people for saying take vitamin C and vitamin D to reduce your COVID risk.
They were actually talking about even in January of 2021, which remember, this is right as the vaccine push was beginning.
They were immediately talking about banning people.
And again, I'm not just saying, I'm not just saying reducing the reach or slapping someone on one of the secret lists like they did to you, the Do Not Amplify.
They're actually talking about taking down accounts for this.
Yeah.
And so, Jack, one of the things.
So someone messaged me the other day and I said, Charlie, I don't understand why this is such a big deal.
We've known for a while that they were kicking people off of Twitter, but privately and secretly assigning threat tags of non-amplification or non-searching or non-trending, such as Bongino, myself, and Bhattachara, that was all done without our knowledge.
So it's censorship without, of course, not consent, but without any sort of awareness.
Now, for example, if I were to be banned off of Twitter, then I would just go spend my time somewhere else.
But they did it in a way, almost these sneaky half measures.
Your thoughts on that, Jack?
Well, they do it for a purpose, right?
Because they want you to continue to try to use the platform.
And they also don't, they also probably know that given your, let's say, given your other platforms that you have out there, like this show, like so many others, they don't want to make you a martyr.
They don't want you to have the ability to turn around and say, look, I've been taken off of Twitter.
Then, you know, you can go to Congress.
You can go to other officials to be able to deal with this.
No, they did it behind the scenes because they wanted to take you down, but they didn't want to do it in such a way that you would be able to actually action it.
Or publicize it or call them out for it, et cetera, et cetera.
This is a different level of treachery than just banning somebody because it shows that they're actually cowards, isn't it?
It shows that it was done below the radar.
Can you build that out a little bit more, Jack?
Because people say, oh, yeah, Twitter censored you.
I said, no, no, no.
And not only did they censor me, they were too afraid to censor me and then also tell the world they censored me.
It's actually amazing to see these committees and the way they act.
I mean, you saw these revolutionary committees be set up during the Cultural Revolution when Chairman Mao decided to go after members of his own party.
And numerous levels of punishment were taken on them up to the level of public execution, by the way.
But at the same time, you had situations where people like Deng Xiaoping, for example, were purged.
But because his support level was so high, he eventually just sort of escaped into the countryside.
And Deng had this sort of, he had a train with one locomotive and one car on it that he would just kind of use to travel around in the countryside.
And that's what they want for you, Charlie.
They want you to be, they put you in exile.
They're not going to give you the publicity.
They're not going to give you the honor, right, of a public trial or a public execution.
They're just going to exile you and put you off on one of these islands, like John the Apostle on Patmos, right?
And you get stuck there.
Or Napoleon on Elba.
Napoleon and Elba, exactly.
Well, he got off Elba.
And then they eventually, well, then the last time we got there, some interesting diaries from that.
And they want you to know that you are not able to speak, but they also don't want other people to know that.
And because I'm sure, Charlie, that you would get it every day.
And that's why I don't talk about it even when I get shadow banned for this very reason, because I know that if I say, oh, I'm shadow banned, then the immediate response, even from people on our own side, is, oh, you're just complaining.
Your account is fine.
Your tweets aren't good enough.
You're just not relevant anymore.
That's what, no, it's not what it was at all.
Jack, great job.
See you this weekend at AmericaFest.
Actually, we'll have you back on later this week, amfest.tv.
Phoenix, Arizona.
Get your tickets, A-M-F-E-S-T.com.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection