Rex Jones and Tim Tompkins react to Charlie Kirk’s murder by Tyler Robinson, a Mormon with no criminal record, amid conflicting claims about political motives. They link the attack to broader free speech suppression, citing COVID-era censorship under Biden and Facebook’s role, while comparing it to Nepal’s violent regime shifts fueled by Western NGOs. Both warn of escalating global instability—nuclear risks from U.S., Israel, Russia, or China—and a generational "horseshoe effect" uniting anti-establishment left and right against the status quo, urging Gen Z and millennials to prioritize cooperation over chaos. [Automatically generated summary]
you know yeah well i mean it's often it's often something like that man It's often like with Thomas Crooks.
It's just someone, you know, kind of out of the blue, someone that really doesn't have a lot of history, someone that just kind of shows up and then plays one of the most pivotal roles in, you know, like history or current events.
It's usually how it goes down.
I mean, you look at famous people in the past that have been killed, you know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.
He was a guy that the Marines deemed to be a poor shot, you know?
This guy is just, you know, he's just a bum, but he's the guy that apparently killed JFK.
You know, Tim, our intention when starting the gray area was to talk about not just the news that may catch people's eye or maybe flash in the pan, but the news that's really important.
And the thing we've kind of bonded on are the geopolitical issues, whether that's economics, war, culture.
What's happening far away from America is just as important, if not more important, than what's happening here because it affects us here and it affects everyone else.
So we've kind of tried to stay away from domestic politic, but the current Charlie Kirk situation is something that cannot be avoided.
It's something that has to be talked about and it has to be covered.
So we're living in a world now where free speech and open public debate has sadly been stifled and possibly even silenced after this event.
I mean, you've got a man with two children.
You've got a man who built the biggest conservative political movement, especially on college campuses.
He founded when he was 18.
He found a turning point when he was 18.
And he was just brutally murdered by Tyler Robinson for no apparent reason.
It shoots a round that with the casing is about as big as the average man's ring finger.
This is a big cartridge.
When I had initially seen the incident and seen what had happened, I assumed that, you know, kind of it would be on brand and especially for someone shooting him.
That's what I thought, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Now, there is a little bit of conflicting information, especially with all the weird people that popped up out of nowhere and started saying, oh, shoot me, shoot me, you know, kind of distractor type events, but it seems to be pretty cut and dry.
This dad and the youth pastor of the sun, they turned the kid in, and it's a very dark, dark situation.
And I believe that there's more to meets the eye with this, but we're just going to cover what happened.
We're going to cover how it happened.
And hopefully our listeners, our viewers can draw some inferences on their own and then do their own research.
Yeah, well, I mean, it's often something like that, man.
It's often like with Thomas Crooks, it's just someone, you know, kind of out of the blue, someone that really doesn't have a lot of history, someone that just kind of shows up and then plays one of the most pivotal roles in, you know, like history or current events.
It's usually how it goes down.
I mean, you look at famous people in the past that have been killed, you know, like Lee Harvey Oswald.
He was a guy that the Marine, the Marines deemed to be a poor shot, you know, and said, right.
This guy is just, you know, he's just a bum, but he's the guy that apparently killed JFK.
And then you look at all these other famous political instances.
It's always just a rando.
But the implications that the rando takes are some of the greatest in history.
So when we look at the situation, we look at this guy, he may or may not have had political motivation to do this.
I'll read it a little bit, but prior to the murder, the investigators were interviewing his family and they had referenced that Robinson had came to dinner prior to the day of shooting.
And he had a conversation with another family member.
And essentially, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk was going to Utah Valley University.
And they kind of talked about how they didn't like his viewpoints.
And the member also stated that he was fully aware of the fact that he was spreading hate speech.
And so it seems like this guy really had, you know, a bone to pick with him.
Yeah, I mean, it says here he's listed as an inactive voter.
So the thing about that, I mean, you'd think someone that's very politically motivated or at least politically inclined, you'd think that they would have voted in the last two elections.
Listed as an inactive voter, but according to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, things had changed.
Investigators interviewed a family member of Robinson who stated that he had become more political in recent years.
The family member referenced a recent event in which Robinson came to dinner prior to the day of the shooting and in conversation with another family member mentioned Charlie Kirk was coming to UVU.
They talked about why they didn't like him, referring to Tyler and the viewpoints that he had.
The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate.
When the first grainy images of the suspect were released on Thursday, it was Robinson's father who recognized his son and confronted him.
Now, you know, why does he look so like messed out and weird in this photo?
Yeah, but like we live in this surveillance state, you know, and everyone, we've got all these cameras and all this information.
I don't know.
It's just fishy to me.
He urged his son to turn himself in, a law enforcement source told the Associated Press.
Robinson refused at first, but then changed his mind.
A family member of Tyler Robinson reached out to a family friend who contacted the Washington County Sheriff's Office with information that Robinson had confessed to them or implied that he had committed the incident.
The family friend, the youth pastor, also a U.S. Marshals Task Force operator.
How interesting.
And he advised Robinson's father to keep him in place until the FBI arrives.
Imagine how uncomfortable it must be as the parent to see your son on the front cover of the news and have to make that decision to basically know that your son is either going to jail for life or he might even face the penalty.
Yeah, this just kind of brings up the wider scope of, you know, I see a lot of people talking about free speech these days, especially after this event.
You've got a lot of people that have come out with a lot of responses relative to the assassination.
I think I saw your dad.
He had a reaction to this as well because this hit pretty close to home.
You got to keep in mind, like, me personally, I've been to dozens and dozens and dozens of these events, probably, you know, probably over 50 in my lifetime.
And that includes all kinds of protests, all kinds of demonstrations, all kinds of like election season stuff where you're flying to different states.
You're going to D.C., you're going to Arizona.
You're going to New York.
You're going to Virginia.
All these different times and places where you just have like 100,000 people gathered in one area or not even that many, like 25,000, 50,000 or 10,000.
And the thing you realize about being in a crowded environment like that is it's incredibly dangerous.
I mean, even if you have the best security, which we, you know, since like 2017, we have had the best security because of the volume of death threats.
Even if you have the best security, the best people, the best teams, you're still in a wide open area surrounded by a million random people.
And like, God knows, and God help, God help you, what's going to happen.
So, you know, my dad had a very strong reaction to this and what happened.
And I imagine it hits very close to home for him.
It hits very close to home for me, you know, even me, just like a minor figure, like going to these events and whatnot, like, especially as a kid, like you really recognize how dangerous these things are and how quickly they can get out of hand.
And I think it's very bad for the country.
And I think it's very bad for America to have that environment where you're worried about such things.
It's very unfortunate.
It's very sad.
We should live in a society where there's free and open debate.
But let's go ahead and roll that clip of my dad talking about.
I mean, you would think, I mean, definitely, you would think that he is like a much more, you know, like extreme political figure than Charlie Kirk.
And I would make that point, right?
Like, Alex is someone that's known for being a conspiracy theorist, being involved, you know, and certain things, whether it's right or wrong, and I believe it's wrong to be considered a scandal, but certain scandals, he's got a lot of people that hate him, right?
And I think a reason why he's been able to stay safe and we've been able to stay safe is we've always been recognizant of that fact.
We've always understood that.
So we have the proper security measures in place.
But I mean, you look at a situation like this, right?
And you'd think that the security team would be able to have like a $400 drone in the air, right?
Isn't that the most simple thing?
And I keep thinking about that.
Why wouldn't you just put something in the air to check the roof?
And I think, you know, if you got to take something positive from this whole situation, even though it's so incredibly negative and now people are going to be scared to go out there to speak, as you see, Alex is even worried about it, right?
I think the positive is, you know, people will be really recognizant of how they need to stay safe and really why it's so important because something like this can happen to you.
But you know what's, you know what I'm kind of proud of?
I see Ben Shapiro, even your father, he's going to go, they're going to do college-wide tours and pretty much carry on the same tradition, if I'm not mistaken, right?
I mean, he said that, you know, freedom of speech doesn't die here, essentially.
I'm not a fan of it, but it is something that people in the space feel morally inclined or morally obligated to do because, you know, we can't let this stop us at the end of the day.
So, I mean, you look at all kinds of people, not just on the right, but on the left, on the left.
I mean, Dean Withers is one of the biggest, like, not left-wing, liberal streamers around.
He's like a young kid.
He's like probably my age, maybe a little older, maybe a little younger.
And, you know, you see people online like laughing about this, mocking this.
I saw the clip.
We don't have it, but that like a Bob Villain guy, I believe that's his name, something like that.
He did a show.
And, you know, like, whatever you think about that guy, he was celebrating Charlie getting shot.
I saw his pronouns or was, were, and all of this.
I mean, like, would you, God forbid, seriously, don't want anybody to ever get shot or ever deal with something like this?
Don't anyone ever really get attacked, right?
But like, God forbid this happens to you.
And then what are you supposed to do?
Like, what's your family supposed to do?
They're supposed to garner sympathy, you know?
And like, of course, they're owed that and we would give them that.
But it's just, it's really disgusting to see where how quickly, you know, a minority of people, but like a large minority, you know, like I'd say like 10, 20%, they're really openly either celebrating this or real apathetic, you know, like got what he deserved.
It's not illegal to talk, even if you say things that people don't like or disagree with.
And I mean, I disagree with Charlie Kirk's position on Israel.
So I wanted to talk about something, and it wasn't on our sheet, and it'll feed into some more of our clips.
But this George Zinn guy, this guy that we're being assaulted by pop-up ads, this George Zinn guy, this guy that yelled, shoot me, shoot me, shoot me, kill me, all this stuff, who wasn't actually, didn't have anything to do, at least up front with the assassination or what was going on.
This guy's been arrested at political events since the 1980s all over the country.
We've got more people covering this stuff, especially on the left.
So let's go ahead and roll the next clip, Chank.
Yeah, Chank Uger, you know, I've been very, very high on Chank Uger recently because I've liked a lot of his takes.
I agree with him on the Palestine issue, Israel issue, which I know you and me have disagreements on.
But I've been happy to see, you know, a guy that's on the left that's traditionally, honestly, been pro-censorship, a guy come out and say, hey, you know, this has all gone too far.
And we all actually want the same things at the end of the day.
That's the funny part about this.
We kind of got into this whole social media cult on one side or the other.
And like I said, on the gray area, we talk about the middle zones.
But the most important idea behind this is that we all want the same things.
We all have the same dreams.
We want safety.
We want security.
We want a happy life, health, wealth, and happiness, right?
So, I mean, it's nice to, like you said, it's nice to see that it doesn't matter which side of the aisle, a majority of the people minus the 10% of people that are just trolling and trying to get attention.
They're feeling the weight of, okay, something's going on here.
I was made aware of this by my team that I canceled some sort of college tour.
That's bullshit.
I saw those rumors.
They are false.
I will be coming to college campuses, many of them this year.
So will we all, I am sure, because we're Americans and we're not going to be deterred.
Charlie's voice is not silent.
We're going to pick up that bloodstained microphone where Charlie left it.
And to those who would intimidate, who would seek to stop us, who would seek to end free discussion, who believe that they have ownership over public spaces and can violently threaten and kill people who speak freely, we are not going to stop.
And I have two words.
Fuck you.
We will not stop telling the truth.
We will never stop telling the truth.
We will never stop debating and discussing.
We will never stop standing up for what America is and for what she should be.
And we will never let Charlie Kirk's voice die.
Goodbye to my friend, Charlie Kirk.
May your memory be a blessing for your family and for your country and for all of us.
But, you know, I just'm happy to see that people are not going to stop doing these type of events because these events, specifically at the college campuses, they've really changed the world and they've changed the political atmosphere, especially since the first Trump administration.
And when you look back at the time, you know, that was 10 years ago.
That was 10 years ago when all this started happening.
So you look at the last decade of political coverage, political zeitgeist, and it's all been driven by these college campus events.
And when people look at Charlie Kirk and they say, oh, he's just a pundit.
He's just XYZ.
No, Like this guy had as much, as high of a chance of becoming president as Trump did, you know, in like the 1980s, 1990s.
He was an established figure.
He had sort of a political ethos that he had described.
He was someone that people had always looked at, like Oprah looked at Trump and went, you should run.
You should run for president.
People were already saying that about Charlie Kirk.
And now you got to keep in mind, Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old, not eligible to run for president, but we're talking like another decade or two.
That's the type of situation we're discussing.
So to see that snuffed out, to see that killed, it just breaks my heart.
But just to not just be on one side or the other, he did say some, he had some pretty polarizing opinions, you know, and not the fact that you can go and take your anger out on people.
That's why freedom of speech exists and why we have the ability to say whatever we want.
But at the end of the day, I can see why, you know, there are people on the left that don't necessarily agree with him.
And there's some things that I feel like he did for clickbait purposes at certain points, or maybe he, I mean, maybe he has these genuine opinions about, you know, his views on specific topics.
You know, but when you go to the extreme and you say things in such a calcifying way, it ends up biting you at some point.
I've just like I've seen the black Hebrew Israelites on college campuses.
I've seen some real wild stuff, especially up north.
And like those people don't deserve to get shot.
Those people don't deserve to get attacked.
I don't think that they, I think what they believe is insane, but you know, like it's, it's our right as Americans to be in public and to use the public square and to say what we want.
I, I, I just, I don't want to have to justify it at all and go, you know, like this is a polarizing guy.
You know, it sucks what happened, but it kind of makes sense.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
We've drifted so far as a society in the past like 20 years, really, since we've both been born.
You know, in a time where we didn't exist, I think the world was truly different.
Something like this would be considered inconceivable.
I would understand why he has a target on his back.
And it's the same stance I have with somebody like Andrew Tate.
It's the same stance that I have with somebody like your dad at certain stance.
When you push the needle so far, it ends up causing so much friction that you end up having that target on your back.
Like Andrew Tate went to jail.
Your dad had that billion-dollar lawsuit for taking extreme positions.
And it's like, it's not the fact that I'm glad that there are people that are brave enough to say the things that need to be said and that you don't have people that are going to censor themselves because there are people that need to say the things that everyone else is thinking.
Let's talk about how this actually all played out really, you know, since the time of like us being born.
The internet back before 2012 was truly a wild and insane place.
You could pretty much go anywhere and say anything and do anything because people really didn't understand this is the new world.
This is just, oh, this is this thing that we use and it's fun.
And people didn't take it as seriously as they do now.
Right.
And the internet, ever since, I believe 2003, 2004, has been regulated as a utility under Section 230.
Basically, the way that works is these big companies like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, NoX, all of them, they operated under a protection because usually you'd be liable for the things that people said or did on your platform.
And they do act in a certain respect as a publisher, but they are treated as a platform, as a utility, and that gives them blanket immunity against that type of stuff.
Right.
It's the same type of philosophy as like, oh, like you get run over by a camera.
But we kind of drifted away from that during the new political atmosphere because you look at, you know, you look at Bush, Junior, not senior.
You look at Obama.
That political ecosystem, it was still very defined.
You had the Republicans and you had the Democrats and there were differences between them.
But, you know, everyone understood the most the biggest argument you get at Thanksgiving was about like the war or taxes, you know, or like proper stuff.
Yeah, proper stuff.
But then we kind of drifted once Trump came down the escalator.
We drifted into a new world, a world of populism, a world of, you know, modern politic where kind of opinion was taken more seriously.
And when people started giving their opinions, they didn't really stop.
And you saw that both in the left and on the right.
But what really led to Trump being elected was the large bank of populist and kind of center-right, libertarian, right-leaning channels that kind of promoted him and plugged him, like Infowars.
InfoWars had 2.8 billion views at the time of its banning.
And most of those came, you know, during like the 2014 to 2016, 2017 period.
Right.
So you had this giant groundswell of support from people like my dad, people like Ben Shapiro, people like Charlie Kirk, right?
You had all these people talking like no one had ever heard a person talk before.
And that coincided with the left.
The left got more extreme.
The right got more extreme to meet it.
And things just kind of germinated into an atmosphere of where Trump is elected, but these social media companies have become increasingly more and more and more to the left.
And Trump had a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude to it.
And he famously said after my dad was banned, he said, as long as I'm still on Twitter, it's okay.
That's what he said.
As long as I'm still on Twitter, it's okay.
And I mean, of course, they shortly banned him after.
Well, I mean, to preface what you're talking about.
Okay, it's kind of like a double-edged sword because I would say right as soon as that 2016 period, that's when you had real changes in the social media space beyond just Trump coming in.
I mean, that was like kind of an inflection point where social media really started to become a little bit more mainstream.
And it wasn't just people on Facebook posting, hey, I just had a new selfie poke.
You know, it became more content based.
There was a lot of more people coming into the space, realizing that you could monetize this, that you could do a lot of things on social media.
Also, keep in mind that people were a little bit more san, had a little bit more sanity in the early 2000s, right?
Because you didn't have the exposure.
So the things that people were talking about and had opinions, there was a little bit of softness to it.
There was a little bit of like political correctness to certain things.
And as we kind of saw the president in 2016 being able to throw insults at the other candidate, it kind of opened up the door for different types of.
Well, and I mean, you talk about things being advertisement driven, right?
I mean, pre-COVID and even during COVID, I would say that the advertising space, these companies, these big companies, there's an adage now that people say, they say, go woke, go broke, right?
But that didn't used to be the case.
I mean, the left-wing or just liberal strain of ideology was very, very popular and huge in all these big companies, really for the past decade leading up until the end of COVID.
And once things became more content driven, once things became more, you know, advertisement revenue driven, there was a real change in what was allowed and what was not because these companies, these big companies started to throw their weight around.
They say, okay, yeah, we're not going to advertise with you.
We're not going to advertise with you if you have this person on.
And then these companies that operate under Section 230, they start to operate now really as publishers and not as platforms.
And that's what we saw leading up to COVID, right?
I mean, my dad's banning.
The incident that led to my father being banned, the third strike, which got us obliterated everywhere, was there's a guy named Oliver Darcy, a media correspondent for CNN.
He's had all kinds of jobs, really working to stifle free speech.
And he went to Congress and he took part in a hearing, I believe, and he said that Alex is dangerous and he must be banned.
And, you know, it's incumbent on you, the elected representatives, to keep our country safe and to take this guy off the internet.
He doesn't deserve to be on the internet.
So I've been to Congress.
It's a public place.
You can walk around.
It is what it is.
It's the people's house, after all.
And Alex went up there and he confronted Oliver Darcy.
And we have that clip.
And I think you'll see in that clip that what he says is not a threat.
It's not warrantive of taking a man's income away, much less his company, you know, and the people that are employed by him are like this guy, this guy's an employer.
This guy runs a media outlet.
And you take a guy that runs this media outlet and you say he can't face his accuser and you ban him because of it.
So we're going to go ahead and roll that clip.
And I think once you see it, you'll be quite shocked if you haven't seen it already.
And if you've seen it already, congratulations to you.
It was something before that, but it doesn't matter.
It's irrelevant.
The point is, when you look at this Oliver Darcy guy, this is a dude advocating for people to be taken off the internet.
That's his job.
And then what does he do?
He works for a media company.
This is the point I'm trying to make.
CNN, all these big, all the big stations, they claim that there are WMDs in Iraq and they help push that narrative and they help get us into that war.
And I mean, that killed like a million Iraqis.
That killed, I believe, 20, 30,000 United States soldiers, probably more.
Forgive me for not knowing the exact figure.
But I mean, these companies, these media companies, they've done real damage in the past.
So for someone that works for these media companies to come out and say, no, no, you're the problem.
You're the problem.
I'm going to testify against you.
And you don't get to be in there with me, giving your counterpoint.
I'm just going to slink on in here and advocate for your livelihood to be taken away when this guy has no moral issue working for a business, working for a media company that has actually pushed death.
And I would make that argument that they have pushed death, especially with all the foreign wars and entanglements that they always seem to promote and get us involved in.
Well, and that's why I'm excited the fact that you had people like Elon Musk come in.
You got X. You had other people coming out with companies like Rumble.
You have all these alternative media sources, people like us who get to give our opinions and talk about what we feel about certain situations.
And media is one of those things that has become a double-edged sword for the government because initially they were like, okay, well, we can control the narrative, but now you're starting to see that they can't control the narrative as much, you know?
And I mean, like, you make an excellent point here talking about, you know, just how embedded are the intelligence agencies with the media and the government.
And it's all just one big giant snarl of cables and they're all kind of working with and for each other to push narratives and whatnot.
And I believe that's true.
But you look at why they have to kill someone like Charlie Kirk.
And I just used the word they ominously, not pointing to any group.
Why do they got to kill someone like that?
Well, I mean, he's not really beholden like that.
He's the one man.
He's the boss.
And that's the problem.
Whenever you got one guy that's the boss that you don't control, then you have some sort of shadow handler over.
And I believe whatever you think about Kirk, I think he was running his own operations.
You got the one guy that stands up and you just gotta, yeah, you just gotta get the one guy and then you kind of just, you know, maybe take over, reconstitute, or just kill the old operation.
You push someone towards some place, you know, it's more favorable to the narrative the government wants to push.
And that's what makes me just very suspect about the whole thing.
I mean, you look at what happened during COVID.
They banned like 100,000 posts.
They banned like 10,000 profiles.
I guarantee that there's more.
I guarantee that's a low number for the COVID misinformation.
But we really reached a point a few years ago where I saw no way out of this.
I was like, how is this ever going to change?
Because the way things are now, they're so restricted.
People, literally, people are not allowed to have free speech or communicate online.
And then you just see this populist resurgence of Trump getting back in.
Even before that, you know, Musk buying Twitter, now X, and the rumble resurgence or just surge and how that's grown.
It's a completely different atmosphere than it was, even, you know, just two, three, four years ago.
I mean, when you have a big screen that has the death toll, which we don't even know was accurate or not, and they're just counting, numbers are just going up.
And it's like a doomsday clock.
And they're just kind of fear monger, fear monger, fear monger.
Wow.
It was a lot of that.
And you would sit there on the couch and you'd be watching with your buddies and just be like, oh my God, so many people are dying.
And so when you didn't have masks and you would go out, you'd go to the grocery store, people would look at you like you just murdered a baby.
It was awful.
And I fell prey to that.
I was basically slut shaming people for not having masks.
I was telling people, oh, you should get the vaccine.
And I don't want to get into the weeds about the vaccine, but I was forced to take it.
I didn't have the proper knowledge to know, okay, what does it do to my body?
What are the repercussions?
I was just trusting what Fauci was saying about the, you know, the benefits of it and the effectiveness of it.
And so the problem with that is, they said if you don't get the vaccine, you can't go back to college.
You can't go to classes.
You can't be part of the campus.
You can't see your friends.
You can't do any of that.
So natural response from somebody who's like, okay, I'm just following the man in charge because I trust the people in place that you're giving me the right information.
You have to go and take those two if you want to be able to attend classes.
And it's just sad because now all the information's coming out after the fact, you know, when people are able to speak freely, you know, ever since ever since X came out and then you had a little bit more broadening and then you have more information coming about the vaccine and all the things that were wrong with it.
I'm just upset because I didn't have a chance to have the right information.
And I want to watch this video because did you see back in the day when Zuckerberg went on trial and he spoke about what the Biden administration was doing about the misinformation?
I want to see this clip because this puts it in perspective.
Back then, I would not have known that these things were happening, but my social media feed was being controlled by the government.
In a significant admission, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed on Monday that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor content related to COVID-19 and acknowledged that stifling the post coverage of Hunter Biden's infamous laptop was a mistake.
In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg detailed how senior Biden officials repeatedly pushed Meta to remove certain COVID-19 content in 2021, including humor and satire.
Zuckerberg expressed regret over complying with some of these demands, stating, I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret we were not more outspoken about it.
Zuckerberg also admitted that Facebook made an error in suppressing the post report of Hunter Biden's laptop ahead of the 2020 election.
He explained that this decision was influenced by an FBI warning about a possible Russian disinformation campaign involving Zuckerberg now acknowledges that the story was not disinformation and that it should not have been demoted.
The same propaganda that we are spewed and that brainwashed me as well as a lot of people in New York is the same thing that the people who are working in these organizations are consuming.
So it's kind of like one big mess, right?
Because Zuckerberg is getting his information from CNN and he's getting his information from a lot of these companies, a lot of these news media outlets, as well as maybe some insider information.
But I feel like a lot of the employees are consuming the same way.
It's like if you're leaning left, you're leaning left.
I think it's more of they understand perfectly well that they're pushing a fake narrative, but they feel good about doing it because the government tells them that it's good.
But they say, oh, Trump, election interference, election interference.
This is one of my biggest talking points.
This is one of the biggest reasons that, you know, I have pro-Trump views really is because of what they did to him in 2016.
They had Christopher Steele, an intelligence asset, just completely cook up a fake dossier saying that he was getting peed on by Russian hookers in Moscow.
Totally fake, totally out of blue.
Hillary Clinton paid Fusion GPS to make this dossier, and then Trump is tied up.
This is like one of the reasons for the smear campaigns.
You see, you go to extremes and you see what happens.
So the situation with Nepal, just to give a little background story.
The video doesn't explain this, but essentially what happened is you had social media works the same way as it does here.
People have access.
All the young people are on Instagram, YouTube, X, all of those accounts.
People started posting about the nepotism that was happening in the government, in the government, right?
So you had, you know, the sons and daughters of these wealthy politicians posting with like, I saw one guy with a stack high Louis Vuitton bags and just being like, oh, look at me.
I've got all this money, essentially.
But we all know how you got that.
While your country, the average person, is struggling.
They don't have jobs.
A lot of them are in that blue-collar working class and they're struggling.
And then you see that on social media and you see these kids using that nepotism to their advantage.
They're overseas.
You know, like 25% of Nepal's GDP and their money comes from money from overseas, from people sending back because a lot of people have to leave because they can't afford to make a living in their own country.
And they send the money back home, essentially.
So this clip kind of shows what's been going on.
And I really hope America doesn't ever get to this point because there's no way we would let this fly.
what's going on right now with them um essentially they i have to catch more up on the details but i think this was kind of a regime change i think They installed the first female president.
Yes, there's a temporary person that's coming.
I forget her name, but she's kind of acting as the government right now.
And you know what's interesting?
I've been kind of following the trail of this.
This actually might be another one of America's playbook regime change, a little color revolution.
Yes, I'm not kidding.
You're seeing the, if you trace the roots back to the group that's organized this, they have NGOs that are paying them money in order to incite this money.
And do you know where some of that money's coming from?
So, Hami Nepal used Discord app to mobilize protests.
Sudan Garong and team proposed cabinet changes focused on youth involvement.
Protests against corruption lead to 51 deaths, over 1,300 injured.
That's pretty crazy.
So, a former DJ and his obscure nonprofit, as we're saying, probably funded by some of those big NGOs used a social media, popular video gamers, Discord to drive massive protests and become the unlikely power brokers and installing the country's new interim leadership.
Yeah, I mean, so, like, where did it begin?
Did the operation begin with the like they saw vulnerability with how the government was behaving, so they used the youth to counter-strike, or do they make the government overreact and ban all these apps to trigger the youth rage to install?
I'm going to be honest, I don't know where the trace my it seems like either the government, I don't understand how the government would make that big of a mistake to begin with, but if they did, they saw that as personal.
We live in that new world order of viral situations being the new driver for history with kind of popular response and popular opinion driving the way that governments act and behave.
And this is what we talk about on the gray area.
This is what we're going to talk about every time, not this situation every time, but situations like this and situations that have global ramifications, or we can point to a situation that happened somewhere across the world and say, hey, the logical conclusion of what's happening here domestically is what's happening in these foreign countries.
So, I really hope that we shy away from the accelerationism.
I really hope that we're able to find ourselves again as a country.
I really hope that we're able to live in peace with one another.
But sadly, it seems more often than not, extremism is the direction that people go to.
Yeah, and there's not just the, I don't know why it seems like the world is on fire.
It's either my feed is doing that in X, or social media is doing that, or you've got the mainstream media, but it just always seemed like something's going on.
And then you've also, I think there's, I don't want to get into the whole UK situation with Elon Musk and what's happening with that.
I think they're preaching it's a free speech, but that also might be more immigration.
But it just seems like where are we going with all of this?
What happens at the end of this entire episode of Love Island season 50, where the United States and the rest of the world is just battling for each other's attention and all these different things that are going on?
The West has for decades and decades and decades now at this point tortured these third and second world countries, taken their resources, declared war on them, set up color revolutions to take away the people that live there.
It's agency.
And a new power is rising in the east with Russia and China and BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
And it seems like we're being left behind.
And it seems like the governmental reaction to that is not to try to join and try to become a new power in the new multipolar world.
It seems to be to, you know, accelerate further down the path of violence, intimidation, and just general accelerationism or accelerationist behavior.
And, you know, I'm trying not to be too doomer.
I'm trying to be more positive.
But we look at this situation, you know, besides people still being brave enough to give their opinions, and that's awesome, there's really not a lot positive you can take from this Charlie Kirk situation and just the overall things that we've covered here on the gray area today as a whole.
So do you have any closing remarks that you want to give on this whole situation?
But I think things have to get bad before they get good.
I mean, every there's a time period where, you know, you can't always be on a high, and sometimes the roller coaster has to come down on the other side.
And I think that what this will do is realign everybody a little bit more after you're starting to see more and more chaos.
I think people are going to get tired of the chaos and we're going to start seeing a real world order change, not just in America, but just across different countries where maybe globalism will start to come back and we'll all start being able to see the reality of like what we were talking about before where everybody just wants to be happy and everybody wants the good things in life.
Because like the way that the globalist system is set up, it's you got this tiny little group of people at the top, but they're from everywhere and they all backgrounds, all walks of life, but they got the money and they're able to kind of use these big countries that are established as weapons to torture the smaller places that take their resources, take their wealth.
We're living in an age now where that kind of thinking has taken us to its logical conclusion, which is America is the weakest it's ever been.
We're overextended everywhere.
It's crazy.
And the youth is not for it, both on the left and on the right.
The left wing raised on anti-colonialist narrative, sees the Western imperialism as antithetical to everything that they've been taught.
Ironically, the stuff that they were taught by the same globalist leaders that wanted them to kind of bring down the country.
And then the right, you see with the rise of Trump, you see an alternative promise to the establishment GOP, to the Republican Party.
Even if Trump doesn't embody that necessarily, you see these two groups, left and right.
It's kind of that horseshoe effect where they meet in the middle.
In Nepal, it's like seven-year-old people running their cabinets and stuff like that.
They have the same situation.
As those people start to phase out, We, as a younger generation, growing up with a different mentality and not having as much control over our narrative that has been happening as we've been growing up because people are getting discernment, people are understanding.
Religion is not becoming as hard fast as a weaponizing tool, even though we do see it in areas, but it's becoming less of a tool that people can use to galvanize.
Overall, I have high hopes for the future.
I think this generation is the one that's going to change the status quo.
I think we can get to a point where everybody can kind of see the bright side of the situation and we can come together as not only just a country, but just a global society and kind of come to the conclusion that enough's enough.
That's really something that I rail against and really disgusts me.
That's the thing I'm most worried about, right?
Is kind of the political instability and what happens when one of these countries, whether it's us, whether it's Israel, whether it's Russia, whether it's China, they decide to do a first strike.
They decide to usher in the new age, so to speak.
And that's the thing that I really hope the youth can stop.
And I hope we can do a lot of coverage on stuff like that, because that's what we're really facing here.
We're all facing death at the end of the day if we can't just get along.