All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 14, 2023 - The Charlie Kirk Show
36:44
Nothing is Normal Now with Alex Epstein and Kurt Schlichter
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Reliable Electricity for Vehicles 00:14:46
Hey everybody, Tanthan Charlie Kirk Show.
Kurt Schlichter joins us to talk about the California primary and so much more.
And then Alex Epstein joins us to talk about global warming, climate change, and environmentalism.
Email me your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Get involved with turningpointusa at tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Get involved with turning point USA and start a high school or college chapter.
Turning point USA is America's best hope.
So go to tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Email me your thoughts as always freedom at charliekirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here, we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
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, his 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 my friends, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage, 888, 888, 1172, or AndrewNTodd.com.
Welcome back, everybody.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com.
Joining us now is Alex Epstein.
Did I say that right, Alex?
I think I mean no offense.
You got it.
Okay, good.
You got it.
Thank you.
Thanks for joining the program, Alex.
I consider you to be the foremost thinker on this topic.
You know, Alex, one of the hardest parts of my job is when I do these college things, I have to be at least fluent or, you know, at least pretty well educated on about 500 different topics.
And the one that kids want to talk about the most is the environmental topic, right?
And so as this was happening, this is actually a clip from early March.
Right afterwards, I told Andrew, I said, we got to have Alex back on the program.
Listen to what he was saying and just ignore my response.
My response was fine.
It was average, above average, right?
But I could have done much better.
And I want you to tell us how we could respond to it better, okay?
Okay, sounds great.
So we're going to play 84 and then 85.
And, you know, you'll see the crowd chanting and stuff.
Play cut 84 and then play cut 85, please.
Given that you believe human beings are exacerbating climate change, shouldn't you agree that we ought to transition away from fossil fuels?
Well, no, I don't agree with that.
My contention is I don't know.
Are there any other contributing factors to rising global temperatures other than human activity?
If so, what are they?
And to what degree do they factor into rising global temperatures?
So how much of the global temperature rising is because of human activity?
No.
What percentage?
Is it 70%, 80%, 85%, 5%, 1%?
Because that's not what the study said.
They're saying that human activity is contributing to part of the increase.
What part?
They don't know.
That's debated.
The next one.
How and where should we dispose of the incredibly acidic, sometimes radioactive batteries that electric vehicles use?
Where should we dispose of them?
But that argument, you see, it's a straw man because you can't.
Answer the question.
I am answering question.
I am answering.
I am literally answering your questions, right?
So you're arguing about this renewable energies and their batteries and how they cause environmental harm, right?
I've asked a question.
I'm not making an argument.
What should we do with the batteries once we use them?
That's a straw man because you can't.
Strawman question.
That's a first.
I've never been accused of a strongman question.
So it goes on, Alex, that video's gone viral.
There's a lot there, but how would you respond when they say, hey, humans are definitely contributing?
Don't you want to get rid of fossil fuels?
Yeah, so both of these are interesting.
So I'd love to talk about both.
Please go ahead.
The first one, I think the first one, what I want to highlight is the framing, because often it's the problem with the question is the framing of the question.
So, notice he said, Do you agree that human beings are exacerbating climate change?
So, based it that is focusing, and I'll give you the quick answer, but I just want to sort of frame, I want to step back and think about how to think about it.
So, one is he's making climate change the only issue.
He's totally ignoring the benefits of fossil fuels, including the fact that fossil fuels make us safer from climate than ever.
We have a 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths, largely thanks to things like fossil fuel irrigation, fossil fuel heating, fossil fuel cooling, etc.
So, the way so he's focusing on just the side effects, and then he's also assuming that they're negative.
Notice he said exacerbating climate change.
In his mind, there's nothing, there's no such thing as positive climate change that we could contribute to.
And yet, part of our climate change is greening, which is very positive overall.
And then, even warming is significantly positive in a world where far more die from cold than from heat.
That doesn't mean it's only positive, but so what I'm going to notice is he's got this bias against climate is the only issue, and then all our impact is negative.
And then he's sort of asking you to respond and just neutralize that.
Whereas, what I would say is, no, no, it's an absolute fact that fossil fuels have dramatically decreased climate danger.
That's the key thing.
What we care about is not the exact state of the climate, but how dangerous it is.
And we've dramatically reduced climate danger.
So, that's what that's what I think.
I think that's super smart.
You said there was a second part you wanted to mention: electric vehicles.
Oh, that was the second part.
And that ties into our premise of the Biden electric vehicle proposal, but please, yes.
Yeah, so that one, I think, what you know, it's with the EVs.
So, I think the point to make about EVs is people think about them as magic.
So, when they think about fossil fuels and fossil-fueled vehicles, they think of them only in terms of negative side effects.
And when they think of solar, wind, and batteries, they think of them as magically positive, only talk about positives, don't talk about negatives, including the biggest negative of all of those things is not all the mining consequences, though those are real.
It's the lack of positive.
It's that solar and wind can't provide low-cost, truly reliable electricity, let alone all of our energy, and that EVs are not cost-effective for the vast majority of people now, let alone with our declining grid.
So, those are the main points.
I think it is legitimate to talk about the negative environmental impacts, and particularly the fact that the so-called green movement is totally ignoring them.
They're ignoring slave labor, they're ignoring where these supply chains are, they're ignoring that they're in China.
And what this shows me is that the focus is not really on having cleaner, better energy, it's just finding some excuse to attack fossil fuels.
And then, when they discover that green energy is not green, then they'll just attack that too, because the root of this is just a hostility toward human impact.
This is why you see more and more like Greta was just protesting against some windmills.
They are against impact, and if you're against impact, you're against all energy because energy is impact.
I think that's really smart, and you have to call out the inconsistencies on the greeny side.
You have to.
It creates division and schism, and it destroys their uniformity.
But it really is an anti-human movement, is what is at the core of this, right?
It's anti-human at the core.
So, I want to read your tweet here.
I think it's very powerful.
Biden, so Biden has a new proposed electric vehicle mandate saying that by 2030, he wants 67% of all vehicles to be electric vehicles.
Is that right?
Am I understanding that?
Yes, it's technically 2032, and it's but it's really devious, right?
Because this is the Environmental Protection Agency, which, if it's supposed to do anything, is like setting reasonable thresholds for clean air where we have relatively clean air, but we can also prosper and enjoy our lives.
And instead, what they're using it for is to dictate what percentage of EVs we should drive.
It's currently around 6% of new vehicles, and they're saying that within less than 10 years, it should be 67%.
And what does this mean?
This means forcing on us vehicles that we do not want to drive and also forcing EVs on us in a situation where the Biden administration is destroying reliable electricity.
So they have plans to gut the reliability of the grid, which has already been partially gutted in the next seven years.
And then they're saying, we're going to destroy reliable electricity and then we're going to radically increase demand for reliable electricity.
What could go wrong?
This is just classic dictatorial, so-called central planning, but with a hostility toward industry.
So it's even worse than the Soviet kind because the people behind it don't really care about industry.
And they're willing to use complete force to do it, right?
Of course.
And that's the point.
And so, yes.
You see here in the, you say here in the tweet, create a huge new demand for reliable electricity on a grid that is declining in reliable electricity supply.
I think that's really smart, a point you made.
People look at this as if it is, it's magic.
It's now modern day alchemy, right?
You just kind of, it just appears and it just is able to drive.
They don't think about what actually might power it or any of the other costs associated.
So one of the, I want to have you elaborate, force Americans to drive inferior cars.
What do you mean by that?
Yeah, because people will say, I know a Tesla, that's not an inferior car.
But inferiority and superiority are a matter of cost effectiveness.
So how much value do you get for how much you have to pay?
And for the vast majority of people, the most cost-effective option by far is a gasoline vehicle that is cheaper, but maybe even more important, it's more effective.
So it allows you to, you know, it has, it's easier to quote unquote charge.
You fill it up at three minutes in the gas station versus going to some supercharger that takes a long time.
It doesn't have the same range issues in part because of the charging speed, in part because the gas stations are much more, you know, much more, much more common than EV type charging stations.
And this is, this is the, the thing I want to emphasize is the force because I'm all for EVs competing on the market.
There are certain advantages to EVs, but right now, for most people, there are more disadvantages than advantages.
And as I also stress, it's really, really important that EVs make you far more dependent on government because government controls the grid.
This is exactly.
And government is controlling the grid in an anti-electricity way.
So just to give you rough numbers, right now we have about 1,000 gigawatts.
They call it gigawatts in Back to the Future.
We have 1,000 gigawatts of what I would call reliable capacity.
This means capacity you can control.
So this includes hydro, nuclear, coal, and gas.
Those are the main sources of it.
It could include oil, but we don't usually use oil power plants.
So we have a thousand and the Biden EPA plus the other Biden plans threatens to reduce that by 20% to 800 in the next seven years.
This, I think, is the biggest energy emergency nobody is talking about.
It's the electricity emergency.
So they have plans to cut the supply of reliable electricity by 20%.
And then they're mandating a huge increase in demand, most notably with EVs, but also, right, no more gas stoves.
We need electric everything.
So you're having centralized control by an administration and by a movement that is hostile to energy.
This is really terrifying, and we really need to wake up.
Centralized control of people that can't run a border or get weapons out of Afghanistan.
That's who we should allow control our lives.
Look, are you concerned about the American K-12 education system?
Are you worried about what your children and your grandchildren are learning or honestly not learning in school?
If you answer yes, my friends at Hillsdale College have a free resource for you.
Hillsdale College understands the importance of education to the future of our country.
They're now offering 10 free print copies of their recent issue of In Primus.
It's titled Education as a Battleground, written by Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arne.
The special issue provides a factual account of the issues in the ongoing battle over education, explaining why parents and teachers, not unelected bureaucrats or activists, should guide what our children are learning.
With Hillsdale College, you can make a difference in your community by distributing these copies of in Primus at your church, local business, or even in your doctor's office.
Do not miss this opportunity to arm yourself with the facts.
Claim your 10 free copies of Education is a battleground by visiting charlie4hillsdale.com.
That's charlieforhillsdale.com.
I love Hillsdale College.
I'm an enthusiastic promoter of them.
So check it out right now at charlie4hillsdale.com.
I want to make sure I mention your book, Fossil Future.
So, Alex, you have a very, I think, effective way of framing this.
Let me just ask you another question here: Charlie, why wouldn't we want to have government subsidies towards electric vehicles or green energy?
It is the future.
Shouldn't the government subsidize what is good for the environment?
Well, I would say if something is, if you're saying it's the future, so you're saying it's superior.
This is parroting.
No, no, no, I'm talking to the questioner.
I'm talking, I wasn't confused about that.
So, if you're really saying it's the future, I mean, you're saying this can be more cost-effective, including giving you more value with less pollution.
And so, if that's the case, what you need is the same thing you need for any other superior product, which is freedom.
So, if you're focused on, hey, I think there are promising forms of green energy, make sure we have things like the freedom to develop land, which we definitely don't in the U.S.
I mean, you notice the Biden administration just shut down a huge mining project in Minnesota after claiming they want domestic minerals.
So, it's really or the nuclear.
Nuclear, we virtually criminalize.
So, I think there are promising alternatives, but they need to be liberated from actually the green movement, which is really the anti-impact movement.
If you're talking about subsidizing, why not subsidize and mandate inferior things?
Well, why don't I just force you to do an inferior thing?
That just means that your life is worse.
You can do less with it.
You have fewer resources.
And with solar and wind, it's particularly insidious because the way the subsidies work is that we, the grid policies, make us pay more money for unreliable electricity as reliable electricity.
So, that's like you go to a rental car place and you're forced to pay more for a car that works a third of the time than a car that works all the time.
Imagine what that would do to the rental car market.
Well, that's what it's done to the grid.
So, we have more and more incentive to shut down reliable power plants and to spin up unreliable power plants, which is why, as I mentioned, we've got a threatened 20% decline in our already too low level of reliable electricity today.
So, stop subsidizing unreliable, inferior things and liberate superior things.
I mean, I can't help but think, Alex, outside of the environmental considerations, there is an agenda, a nefarious plot to just restrict human liberty and freedom.
I think environmentalism is a gateway for technological tyranny.
Am I wrong?
Saving Babies from Anti-Freedom 00:04:21
Yeah, you could put it even more strongly than that, because in a sense, yeah, it's obvious.
I mean, historically, Ayn Rand has this great book, The New Left, where she documented, and others did it too, that the whole green movement was an attempt by the left to continue to support anti-capitalism after capitalism had proved that it could out-produce socialism.
I mean, dramatically.
So, the old left supported socialism, capitalism was clearly superior.
So, what the left unfortunately did was they abandoned industry, right?
Instead of embracing industry and then embracing capitalism, they rejected industry with this whole idea that impact is wrong.
So, in a sense, there's the watermelon phenomenon of green on the outside, red on the inside.
But from another perspective, the green perspective is just fundamentally anti-freedom because it says human impact on nature is immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
Well, if impact is immoral, we survive by impact.
That's what we do.
So if you believe that our means of survival is immoral, the only way to prevent it is to stop us from acting.
So anti-impact equals anti-freedom.
Yeah, I was just looking this up as you mentioned it.
I'm familiar.
I've read a lot of Ayn Rand's work.
This is really well summarized on Ayn Rand.org.
Again, I have plenty of disagreements with her, but this is really powerful.
She disagrees.
She analyzes the campus protests of the 1960s and the ideology of the new left, concluding that far from rebelling, they were slavishly following every basic idea of their teachers, and that far from being idealistic, they were attacking the key foundations of a rational, free society.
Riff on that for a minute, Alex, as we conclude.
Sure.
So this is, this is, there's a book called The Cashing in the Student Rebellion.
I'd highly, highly recommend it.
It's basically saying that these people who are so-called rebels were actually just employing like the subjectivist relativist ideas that they got from their stodgy old white professors and also collectivist ideas.
And what she's saying is the radical ideas are individualism.
And that's what she's advocating, what I advocate.
That's what we need a movement for is individualism and freedom.
And we should see that as the most progressive thing.
Collectivism, statism, anti-freedom, those are regressive.
That's why I don't call them progress.
Yeah, tribalism, sectarianism, trying to say that your rights come from a group.
It's regressive and it would bring us back.
That's what they're trying to do.
Alex, thank you.
Remind us of the two books again.
So the main book, the only one you need is Fossil Future.
It replaces the moral case for fossil fuels and you can get it anywhere, including fossilfuture.com.
And for answers to every question that Charlie comes up against, go to energytalkingpoints.com.
At least any energy, environmental, and climate question.
I got all the answers for free there.
I didn't know that.
So now I'm going to it right now.
Alex, I could be somewhat fluent on this, but nowhere near you, but I'm trying.
Cause I tell you, these college students, it is a religion.
It is a cult religion of earth worship.
I think one out of three questions I get is on the environment.
Alex, thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
You'll have everything you need.
Thanks so much, Alex.
You bet.
Hey, everybody, this is Charlie Kirk.
And you know by now that we're helping save babies with our friends at Preborn.
With Mother's Day coming up in less than a month, can there be a better time than right now to stand for life?
When you introduce a girl to her baby by providing an ultrasound, more than 85% of the time she will choose life.
You're giving her access to a two-year mentorship program and the chance to receive maternity clothes, baby clothes, diapers, parenting classes, but perhaps most importantly, someone to walk alongside her and be a friend during this most crucial time of her life.
You see, $140 gives five mothers a free ultrasound and saves babies.
$200 can save 10 babies, and just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day.
And $15,000 gift, well, that will provide an ultrasound machine that will save lives for years to come.
Whether you want to save one baby or five or hundreds, join me in supporting pre-born.
I financially support them, and you should too.
Go to preborn.org or go 833-850-BABY.
That is 833-850-2229.
Go to preborn.org.
That is pre-born.org.
Joining us now is Kurt Schlichter.
Love having Kurt on the program.
Kurt, lots to talk about.
Let's start with your latest piece.
I think it's really smart.
Do not fall for the normalcy presumption.
Nothing is normal anymore.
What do you mean by that, Kurt?
Well, great to be here, Charlie.
Legal Process and Hypocrisy 00:09:44
My new town hall piece basically argues that the left uses the idea that everything is normal, that the institutions are functioning, that everything works, that, for example, we have a justice system that's not a biased machine designed to free criminals and persecute the political opponents of the regime.
And, you know, a lot of these sucker squish Republicans fall for.
You know, when you hear them say, Well, we need to hear what the jury has to say.
No, no, we don't.
Because when you take a key component out of the system, it breaks the system.
The system changed.
What Soros did by going in and buying the district attorney offices in a bunch of counties across the United States, what he did is he took a position that had a lot of leeway, a lot of discretion, because where it was a Republican or a Democrat, they usually just prosecuted criminals, but now they abuse that discretion.
So you see people using self-defense like Daniel Perry in Texas or the family attacked at their own home in Missouri, and suddenly they're being prosecuted for self-defense.
Well, actual criminals are going free.
And of course, two words, Alvin Bragg.
And so there is this attitude that exists in especially 60 or 70-year-old Republican circles where they're outraged on the surface, but then you really dive into it and they say, oh, I mean, there's no way this can continue.
There's this built-in.
And I will say this: you know, Eric Weinstein is a liberal.
He's interesting.
He has a term for it.
And he said it's specifically boomer called the ego, the embedded growth obligation.
That things are just always going to get better, no matter what.
Yes.
And yeah, I think that's related.
I think people are thinking this is still the system that we always had.
And look, when I was growing up, because I'm about 108 years older than you, but 307 years younger than Biden, everything was getting better.
The 70s were kind of problematic, but the 80s were great.
And then the 90s were pretty good.
And they're in the 2000s and it starts kind of going downhill.
These guys seem to think, hey, we've got a system.
It's not broken.
You know, we just need some minor tweaks.
But the problem, Charlie, is that our cultural Marxist enemies have come in.
They've taken over the system.
They take over the institutions.
They destroy everything that gave the institutions their credibility.
Yet they still demand credibility.
They said, like regime media people still demand to be treated as neutral truth tellers who are speaking truth to power and afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.
That's all baloney.
That all changed.
The system changed when they changed components of it, when they stopped doing the things necessary for the system to exist and to function.
And when they did that, we stopped having a system, but there are a lot of Republicans out there who are afraid to face the reality.
Yes, that's right.
Well, and you know, that old expression, obviously, ignorance is bliss.
There is some truth to that.
I don't think people are comfortable admitting the country they grew up in is dead.
We can refound it.
We can bring parts of it back.
But it's almost as if the lie of acting as if the country you loved is still around is more comfortable, is more comforting.
This really bothers people when I say it.
Yeah.
It's denial.
It's the stages of grief.
It is.
It's look, it's also human nature.
In the Battle of Kenai, when Hannibal surrounds all the Romans, Romans, toughest soldiers in the world, and they're getting butchered.
And when they found, and after the Carthaginians killed them all, they found some of the Romans had just buried their head in the sand because they couldn't take the fact that the world had turned upside down, that they were no longer the strongest, no longer the best, and that they were, you know, they were going to die.
Like ostriches, they bury their heads in the sand, literally.
And that's what we have here.
Because if you admit there's a problem, the next step is: okay, senator or congressman or governor, what are you going to do about it?
And many of them are afraid to step up.
You know, Ron DeSantis steps up.
Greg Abbott, to his great credit, stepped up and said, I'm going to go through the process of pardoning Daniel Perry.
I can't do it tomorrow because of the way the law is, but I'm going to do it.
And then I'm going to go take out these Soros DAs who are doing so much damage in Texas.
We've got to stop pretending it's 2005.
I know it's hard.
I know it's tough.
Too bad.
Sorry that.
you know, sorry that this happened on your watch, but it happened on your watch.
Your duty is to fight for our interests, not to pretend, not to try and have an easy way out, not to stick your head in the sand, but to fight for the interests of the American people.
And I think that really is the issue: people do not want to look over the edge of the abyss.
They'd be rather like, oh, this is fine.
Like, I mean, I got in a debate.
I got in a debate with somebody the other day.
They said, Charlie, this Trump thing, it's really going to be a good thing because then he'll be able to fight it and he'll get acquitted by a jury of his peers.
And we have to let the process play out.
No.
That's crazy.
Look, it's not a legal process.
It's a power process.
Yes, that's right.
I'm a lawyer.
I look at this.
It's ridiculous on the face of it, legally, but that doesn't matter because it's not a legal process.
It's a power process.
And you make a mistake if you treat it as a legal process.
Now, let me give you a caveat.
That's an important one.
Some people are saying, well, you know, Andrew McCarthy and a baseball crank on NRO, they're analyzing this as if it's a legal issue.
They don't get it.
I think we need to do that for the folks who are not based, for the normal people who are out there going, you know, there's something wrong.
I can't put my finger on it.
You need guys like Andrew McCarthy and baseball crank to go ahead and explain legally why this is all nonsense.
But guys like you, guys like me, who've been in the fight, guys like you're on.
We know exactly what it is.
I don't need to hear the convoluted legal theory, right?
Yeah, so it's not for us.
That needs to be done, but it's not directed at us.
It's directed at the people we need to persuade who need to understand why they're feeling everything's out of control.
Guys, here's why you're feeling it because you're right to feel it.
So in that case, we need to understand.
But I got to tell you, I don't want to hear anymore about, well, could you imagine if Biden did what Trump just did?
Or can you imagine what would happen if Trump did what some Democrat did?
Yeah, we get the hypocrisy thing.
That's over here.
We're about two miles down the road this way, guys.
We get it.
Thanks.
Hypocrisy was very like 2011.
Okay.
Yes.
That was 12 hours ago.
Right.
That is for the normals.
That's for the people who are not based.
For us, it's about power and how you wield it.
And again, when I say wield power, I do not mean doing some of the things Democrats are doing.
They are literally trying to frame Donald Trump.
They are trying to use the criminal process to unjustly convict him of a crime he did not commit.
That is framing.
I don't advocate that.
That's un-American.
The Bible tells you you don't do it.
You don't do it.
But you do stop with the presumption of, you know, we're not going to investigate our political opponents, even when it smells really bad.
I would like to know, Charlie, how Nancy Pelosi became America's preeminent stock picker.
I mean, she doesn't seem that bright to me.
She's a little cunning, but you know.
She's the oracle of San Francisco, Kurt.
Are you kidding me?
She runs circles around Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett.
Well, maybe she just went, looked at what Jim Kramer said, and then did exactly the opposite.
I don't know.
Yes, that'd be right.
No, I mean, it would be very interesting.
Think how under the new paradigm, that's something we should look at where we wouldn't have 10 years ago.
Well, I mean, but yeah, I mean, just an easy one that I keep on floating.
And I've called a couple attorneys general, and they're worthless.
They're gutless wonders.
I said, Why are you not indicting BLM?
Let's start there.
They are a holy organization on the American left, and the crimes are right there.
It's charitable fraud.
They have donors that have come from every state.
They have jurisdiction, right?
This is not some sort of a stretch.
So, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, they have donors that were defrauded.
So, they have jurisdiction.
Why is there not been an indictment of that?
That is a great question.
That is definitely see.
And that's not framing them.
Well, no, it's taking action.
They stole money from they stole money from upper-middle-class white liberals in like suburban Oklahoma City or Norman, Oklahoma, and they bought a mansion in Malibu, California.
Look, look, I think an aggressive attorney general should be doing that.
But there's not asking those and going through the legal process because we have to let the legal process play through, right?
Or do we only do that for conservatives?
We don't.
And I think part of the issue, and this is human nature, so I want your thoughts on this on this as we close out this segment, Kurt, is that the trappings of America, the trappings of Western society, we have a lot of wealth, a lot of free time, a lot of luxury.
Live and Let Live Principle 00:02:40
And I think people are afraid, literally afraid, to leave comfort and to go into the fight.
The only good wrinkle I see out of mass inflation and America becoming poor is that people might actually be willing to get involved in political activism again is because you're actually going to be super poor.
And I know that sounds really sick and twisted, but it's actually true.
It's like, okay, you can't go on a vacation.
Maybe you should actually fight for your country.
But, you know, you look human, human nature is like that.
Most people want to live nice, comfortable lives.
Unfortunately, and I think it's going to be a problem for them down the road.
The cultural Marxists have decided they can't tolerate that.
They have to afflict these people.
They have to go and hassle them.
You know, somebody was saying, you know, somebody, again, another conservative is just not basically goes, well, you know, I'm tolerant.
I think we should just live and let live.
Dude, I tried living and let living, and you had grown men working in thongs in front of little kids' faces.
Don't tell me about tolerance.
That is not a tolerance.
Live and let live is the most basic system.
Me lets you live, but you got to let me live.
And if you're not letting me live, we don't have a system.
It's like, and I, I, isn't an example, you know, exactly right.
Young people go out on a date, the guy doesn't buy dinner, and she's like, well, I can't believe he didn't buy dinner.
Also, I'm a feminist.
Okay, a system.
Chivalry's a system.
It's a system.
It's a system.
And if there's no system, if all the parts aren't working, it's not a system in your obligation.
That's exactly right.
So, so if a tranny was on the show, right, they would say, live and let live, right?
Charlie, I'd say, are you going to live and let me live?
And exactly.
It doesn't go both ways.
It has to be mutual cooperation or the contract falls apart.
Yes, there's no, we are free of our obligation under the social contract they invented.
I like live and let live.
I think live and let live is the best way to do things.
Yes.
But some people don't get power out of it, so they don't want to do it.
It only works if it's mutual.
I have a whole article right now on humanevents.com hilariously called The Lie of Live and Let Live.
It's exactly this, which is if you do not have mutual cooperation and we're the only ones that are living, it's live and let them rule.
Right.
And so it's over.
Sorry, you guys broke the peace.
You guys decided to cross the Rubicon.
It's not live and let live.
So, now one people, somebody's going to be in control, and the mature adults that want to protect children are going to be in control, not the perverts or the twerking trans peoples.
Kurt, I want to ask you about California politics.
The Lie of Live and Let Live 00:02:12
Diane Feinstein is not going to run for re-election, so it started the most bizarre Game of Thrones situation we've seen.
It's basically who can be the greatest trans anti-racist.
And I mean, this thing is a total clown car.
I mean, we have a lot of different people.
We got Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, Representative Barbara Lee.
I can't even keep track of all of it.
Kurt, what's going on?
RoConna?
Wow.
It is like Game of Thrones, except everybody's Joffrey.
And they're all trans.
Let's look at these.
Barbara Lee is the one person who voted against fighting back against Al-Qaeda.
She's from Alameda County, which has Oakland.
She is the perfect embodiment of the total failure of the kind of left Democrats.
But then so is Adam Schipp, who's from Los Angeles County.
He's just terrible in every single way.
You know, he looks like the guy idling in a van outside elementary school.
And Katie Porter, I mean, she's just a monster.
I mean, she's just literally.
I mean, did you read the last allegation?
She threw boiling potatoes on her husband's head and then called him stupid and, you know, a blanking, blank, blank.
There's no way she would let good potatoes go to waste.
Impossible.
Well, exactly.
I mean, you know, as a noted carbohydrate advocate, you would think that that would be a very, very cheap.
She definitely gets her, she gets her fair share of carbs.
I mean, you look at her and she is just like, she's every obnoxious, woke, Trader Joe Chardonnay swilling wine woman who screws up your PTA meetings.
You know, and she is, you know, she definitely drives the Prius with the saddest suspension in all of automotive history.
And on the back of it, she has both a coexist bumper sticker and an exterminate right-wing lunatics bumper sticker.
She's just like the essence of evil.
Blessing Conservative Culture 00:02:58
You know, I'm trying to think of an okay Democrat in California.
I think Ro Conna, who's a socialist, comes closest.
And we're saying, you know, the guy who's merely a socialist is probably the best of all these bad choices.
That doesn't say much for my state.
Is Eric Swallow running?
I can't keep track of this.
Well, he's going to be running from the Department of Justice with our Republicans.
Seriously, no kidding.
That statue of limitations gets extended.
Yeah, Toots Swalwell.
You know, maybe I put him in charge of, you know, patching things up with the Chinese.
I heard that he's foreign espionage.
So, Kurt, it's not inconceivable then, because of California's goofy system, that two Democrats could go to the wrong.
No, I think it's likely.
And the thing is, the California Republicans don't have much of a bench out here.
We really don't have a lot of great candidates.
And, you know, when I got here to California, Ronald Reagan was governor, which tells you how old I am.
And for 30 years after that, we had a great state.
It was the greatest place to be.
It was wonderful growing up in here in the 70s and 80s, just an amazing time.
And then people began voting Democrat, and it has just completely gone off the rails and gone downhill.
But we don't have that bench we used to have.
You know, there's no George Luc Majin, no Pete Wilson, nobody really to come and run.
So we're, you know, we are a cautionary tale to the rest of America.
You do not want to do this.
You red states out there, particularly you red states.
You guys, you know, you get soft, you get squishy, like you were bringing up, Charlie.
They're not out there aggressively using their attorney generals to prosecute you.
Not a single one.
No, but they're going to be invited to country clubs this weekend.
Yeah, and it's sad.
It's sad because you get these red states.
Everybody who wants to be in politics becomes a Republican, including people who'd be a Democrat elsewhere.
And then you get them voting down school choice, you know, trying to allow gun control, all sorts of nonsense.
Yep.
Don't do what California did.
It's really smart.
Kurt, plug your book, 30 seconds remaining.
Get Inferno.
It is the newest of the Kelly Turbo novels.
It's number seven.
I'm writing number eight now.
I followed what Andrew Breitbart says.
If you like conservative culture, make some.
And I have people love these books.
They're funny.
There's guns.
There's action.
And the good guys, as the conservatives always win.
Very good.
Kurt, hope to see you soon.
God bless you.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.
Export Selection