All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2025 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:06:26
Charlie Kirk Assassinated; NATO Alleges Russian Drones Flew Over Poland, and More

Charlie Kirk was assassinated at the age of 31: Glenn covers the reactions and implications. Plus: NATO claims Russia attacked Poland, showing the ongoing grave dangers of fueling the war in Ukraine. ------------------------------------------ Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

|

Time Text
Charlie Kirk Assassination 00:03:39
Good evening.
It's September 10th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, I am certain that most of you, if not all, have heard the tragic news, and it is tragic, that Charlie Kirk, the conservative pro-Trump activist and commentator, was murdered today while he spoke to a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University.
He was 31 years old and leaves behind his wife and their two young children.
Although there was video widely circulating of a middle-aged white man being taken into custody by the police, with many people assuming that was the shooter, authorities have now exonerated him and have been stating clearly that he was not the shooter.
In fact, up until about 20 minutes before we went on the air, law enforcement was clear that they did not have a shooter or suspect in custody.
But about 20 minutes ago, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that they do have a suspect in custody, and he will provide more details, he said, as the FBI learns more.
So as of this moment, nobody really knows for certain what may have motivated the killer, even if it's reasonable to make some assumptions about the motive behind this violence.
Utah law enforcement officials said it was a political assassination.
I think it's reasonable to consider it to be that, even though we don't actually know anything about the shooter, even their name, let alone what might have motivated them.
And I do think that's important to recognize.
Now, Charlie Kirk was known as a political figure.
That's why we know him, and a highly effective one, and also a quite polarizing one.
So in one sense, it's unsurprising to see his murder being so quickly and overtly politicized, either by those disgustingly celebrating it and justifying it and creating theories why it was warranted, or by those demanding implementation of crackdowns and political repression and the like.
I think that this reaction, all of these reactions, and what is clearly the prevalence of political violence in the United States is very much worth discussing and examining, even though we don't yet know who this shooter is.
So we're going to spend the bulk of the show focused on that.
But then we also do want to cover one other news event that I think merits a lot of attention.
We're not going to spend as much time on this as we are on the Charlie Kirk assassination, but I think it's important to talk about the fact that the war in Ukraine has taken a very dangerous turn as Poland and other EU states allege that Russian drones flew over Polish territory and that they were shut down.
This has led Poland and other EU nations to invoke a rarely used NATO article that strongly hints at, if not overtly asserts, the possibility of Decker declaring that one of the nation states of NATO has been attacked, while President Trump issued a cryptic phrase in response to this news, quote, here we go, after he noted what happened.
Aside from the grotesque waste of human life and resources this war has entailed, the dangers of unintended escalation with a very nuclear-armed Russia has always been near the top of the list as to why the financing and fueling of this war, now in its fourth full year, is so misguided.
So we'll examine the latest dangers and threats in that part of the war as well.
For now, welcome to a new episode of a System Update starting right now.
Charlie Kirk was murdered today at the age of 31.
Kirk's Dialogue Events 00:02:58
He was doing what in many regards made him prominent and well known.
He was at an event at a college inviting young people, not just those who agreed with him, but those who disagreed with him.
Was the point of all of these events, to come and have dialogue and to have him speak, but then have him take questions, especially from people who disagreed with him, and answer, and although sometimes it was a bit raucous, he was, I would say, unfailingly civil in what these events were, and you could say that these kind of events are the model of how our politics should function, namely that we should have open discourse And even if the differences are vehement,
even if they're very strongly felt, that the only real way to resolve these kind of differences is through the kind of open debate that Charlie Kirk has encouraged and has spent most of his adult life pursuing as a way of organizing and reaching young students who might have otherwise been politically disaffected or alienated.
So let's begin first with the actual news events as we know them.
Here from the Wall Street Journal, Charlie Kirk shot dead at a Utah college event.
Quote, conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk has died after being shot on stage during an event at Utah Valley University.
He was going back and forth with a student about mass shootings involving transgender people when he was shot, according to videos of the attack.
Bo Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said Kirk was taken by a private vehicle to a hospital where he later died.
Kirk was shot around 1220 p.m. local time, Mason said in a news briefing.
A suspect is in custody in the fatal shooting.
FBI Director Pilk Kash Patel said he didn't provide a name or any other details.
Quote, thank you to the local and state authorities in Utah for your partnership with the FBI, Patel said on X, adding that he would provide more information when he is able to.
After Kirk's shooting on Wednesday, top figures in both the Republican and Democratic parties offered condolences and condemnations.
President Trump, who announced Kirk's death, called him, quote, a truly great American patriot.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he was, quote, outraged and heartbroken.
Congress's two Republican leaders, as well as Mike Johnson, called for prayers after reports of Kirk's shooting.
Some prominent Democrats also spoke out to denounce the violence, including former President Barack Obama, who said, quote, this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy.
President Biden issued a similar statement, as did former Vice President Kamala Harris.
And there were similar messages posted by people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
All right.
There are all sorts of videos of this shooting all over the internet from every angle, from every distance.
The Grueling Reality Of Campus Violence 00:15:18
You can easily find them.
They're all over social media.
I don't really feel a need to show them.
I assume most of you have seen them.
Every one of these videos is gruesome.
You just watch a 31-year-old man who is engaged in civic discourse, having a speech at a college, a place where ideas are supposed to be tested.
He's not attacking anybody, not waging violence or war on anybody.
And he's sitting in a chair with a microphone in his hand, exchanged in a dialogue with a student who disagrees with him.
And then suddenly there's one shot that hits his neck and he slumps over.
You can see blood, as you would expect, coming out of the neck, the crucial arteries and the like there.
And he was taken by his private security to a car, taken to a hospital, and then shortly thereafter pronounced dead.
So I don't want to show the videos.
Like I said, I presume that you've seen them, but I do want to just show you a couple of interesting facts surrounding this.
And again, I don't think speculation is helpful here, but I do think that showing things that we know without necessarily knowing what they mean is important.
So here was a student.
This was at the University of Utah Career Center earlier today who noticed that at this event, there was a person who was on the roof looking like he was laying down horizontally in what would be the kind of assassin position.
We saw this very similarly when President Trump was almost assassinated in Butler, Pennsylvania last year.
You can see he'd already be in place?
You would think that.
So there's somebody on the roof right there.
Just saying?
He just ran from over, where's my finger?
From over there, ran in.
He's right there.
Just saying.
So there's that.
I mean, it could be security.
It could be anything, but I do think that's worth noting given that, as I said, it was very similar to what people saw prior to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
And news reports do suggest that the shooter did not shoot from close range, but instead was some distance away.
And obviously the shot hit the intended target in quite a precise way.
Now, here's the Wall Street Journal's layout of the university.
Here you see Utah Valley University.
The Sorenson Student Center is nearby where Charlie was speaking.
And then you see shots fired at this location, just to give you a sense of the layout of the school.
Now, there was all kinds of discourse, as you might imagine, that emerged.
I'm not talking about 400 people online.
I'm talking about from people with a prominent platform.
And some of it was basically justifying what happened to Charlie Kirk, saying that he's a hate monger.
He advocates wars, including defending the Israeli war in Gaza.
He has denounced trans people.
And so he's full of hate, said this theory, and therefore got what he deserved.
Like it was some kind of karmic justice, or just that we should celebrate when people who have political differences with us die or are murdered or are killed.
There's an MSNBC segment, I believe we have this, which is quite remarkable because it's Matthew Dowd, who is a former, I don't think we have that MSNBC segment.
Oh, we do have it actually.
It's with Matthew Dowd, who spent a lot of time at ABC News.
And I want you to listen to what he said.
This was before it was known that Charlie had died, but when it was known that he was shot and obviously an extremely serious and grave event.
And this is what Matthew Dowd went on MSNBC to say.
But following up with what was just said, he's been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups.
And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.
And I think that's the environment we're in that people just, you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.
So that was essentially not just justifying this shooting, but blaming Charlie Kirk for his own shooting, essentially saying that he spreads hate and hatred when he spread it like Charlie Kirk did, leads to hatred coming back or to a hateful environment with violence and the like.
And again, he said that without having any idea who the shooter was, what motivated the shooter, what ideology he had, what cause he had, whether he had a cause.
And I find that just so despicable.
Like, it really takes a dark soul to react that way.
And this is what I want to address.
So there's a lot of other claims like that circulating.
A lot of them focused on the fact that Charlie Kirk defended the Israeli assault on Gaza.
He's also had some moments where he's diverged from the strong pro-Israel position, including questioning why the United States has to pay for that and the like.
But overall, he was a defender of Israel, including its war in Gaza.
Benjamin Netya, who just moments ago, posted a tweet lamenting his death and saying what a great friend he was to Israel, how he talked to him about coming to Israel in a couple weeks.
And so there are a lot of people saying, look, he basically endorses a genocide every day in Gaza.
There are innocent people being shot in the head and the neck.
There's lots of reports about IDF soldiers sniping kids in the head and the neck.
Lots of reports from Western doctors about this practice.
People being blown up and starved to death.
We know the whole litany, and because he supports that, and that's something so terrible that we shouldn't mourn his death, or at the very least, we should be indifferent to it.
Kind of setting up a standard that human life isn't really sacred, that if somebody has political opinions that are different than yours, then you should not only refuse to mourn their death, but even in some way celebrate it.
And I understand this temptation.
I understand the temptation to do that.
And by the way, you see this on the right a lot.
If some very, very outspoken critic of Israel were murdered, they would dig through their statements and saying, oh, look, they supported October 7th or they supported Hamas.
They supported the killing and rape of innocent people.
And therefore, I think this person doesn't really have any value.
You can do that.
It comes from every faction.
And you can, you know, pretty much do that about everything.
And I think one of, I just want to make a couple points before I get into the specifics.
So I was actually talking to a friend just a few days ago about the Catholic Church and how I admire its consistency when it comes to what it insists is the sanctity of all human life.
There's a lot of people who affirm that they believe in the sanctity of human life, but the Catholic Church's positions on the question of human life are extremely consistent with that premise.
They, of course, believe that abortion is murder and sinful because it's the extermination of human life.
And they also believe that legalized euthanasia is a sin because that is the deliberate extinguishing of human life.
And that's something that should be regarded as so sacred that we shouldn't have the right as human beings to just deliberately extinguish human life.
And then they also are vehement opponents of the death penalty in all cases.
It doesn't matter how grave of a crime you commit, how atrocious of a crime you commit.
The Catholic Church's position is that the death penalty is wrong for the same reason that the sanctity of life has to always be upheld and that human beings should be barred.
Obviously, they recognize in self-defense and the like, but should be barred, that we should insist on a framework that honors the sanctity of all human life.
And you don't have to agree with them on any of those positions.
You can disagree on their position on abortion or the death penalty or euthanasia.
But I think overall, and of course the Catholic Church is a very flawed institution like any human institutions.
It hasn't always comported with that view, et cetera, et cetera.
But I think it is extremely valuable to do as much as possible to affirm the sanctity of all human life, that we don't celebrate when other human beings die.
I think it creates a very dangerous framework for everybody.
Because if Charlie Kirk can be murdered for his political views, because they advocate death, then anybody could as well.
I mean, most people think the Iraq war was a hideous war crime, the invasion of Iraq.
And I should remind you that 70% at least of Americans supported that.
Essentially, every political leader of both political parties supported the war in Iraq.
So you could easily make the argument that they were responsible and have blood on their hands for thousands and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even a million people.
And not just political leaders, but like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry, but also George Bush and John McCain and Mitch McConnell.
It goes on and on and on.
But also huge numbers of journalists.
Charlie Kirk wasn't part of the government.
He wasn't setting policy.
But all kinds of journalists and pundits who are very popular today also supported the war in Iraq.
And so if you really believe that someone cheering for an unjust war that kills huge numbers of people justifies their death, where do you draw that line?
Does that mean 70% of Americans are now subject to justified assassination or murder because of their political views or that leaders of both political parties are or that journalists and pundits are?
So I think that it's a very dangerous game to start playing when you start justifying the murder of people because of their political views.
But, and I should say, you know, I saw a lot of people today comparing this to what Luigi Mangioni did in the way a lot of people cheered that.
To me, that's very different.
Without commenting on whether it was justified or not, I'm just saying it was a completely different act.
Luigi wasn't murdering somebody because of their political views.
In his mind, he was murdering somebody, allegedly, because he was the head of a company that, in its actions, inflicts all kinds of psychological suffering and death on huge numbers of innocent people.
So you can't say Charlie Kirk did that.
Charlie Kirk isn't the head of an army.
He's not the head of a country.
But I also think, you know, getting back to this sanctity of life issue, I think one of the things that online discourse has done is it has drained so easily the humanity of other people.
I mean, obviously history is filled long before social media with people dehumanizing others and then committing atrocious acts as a result of that dehumanization.
But it's much easier on social media because basically what makes us human is stripped away.
We're just names on a screen or where our tweets or our interviews or political views that define who we are.
And that is an important part, especially of someone like Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk was in his public life and his work a political figure and his political views were an important part of his identity.
But they weren't the only part of his identity.
He had other extremely important parts to his identity.
Beginning with the fact that he was a human being, that he was the husband to his wife, that he was the father of two young children.
And I can only surmise the kind of agony and pain his wife and their children have and are going to have for a long time to come.
And I think it's important to take that into account when you're deciding how to look at somebody.
Not just when they're murdered, but how to look at somebody in general.
So Charlie Kirk just a couple of weeks ago was on Fox and Friends, and he went with his wife and their two young children.
And here's some video of that.
There you see his daughter running over to him.
I don't know if we have sound.
oh wait let me start again all right so this is the video that people put together of charlie with his wife and children so
So if you're somebody who's cheering it or justifying it, because he has a different opinion than you on trans issues or even something as obviously important to me as what I regard as the genocide in Gaza, and I do think advocating for that genocide or defending it is a mark against someone's character, to put it mildly.
I still don't think that, especially, this is not Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is not Ben Gavir or a soldier in the IDF or a general in the IDF who are all valid targets.
And I think it is important to maintain an extremely narrow range of when violence is justified, political violence is justified, not to expand that.
It seems like it's just expanded beyond any recognition.
Basically, like anytime anybody who has a different political view of yours than yours on an important issue, it means that we celebrate their death.
And what you're also celebrating is the grief and the agony of those two little kids and his wife and the loss of a human life at the age of 31.
Why We Hate 00:05:02
And someone at the age of 31 is so unformed, they're kind of in the heading into the prime or peak of their life.
But let's remember that Tucker Carlson, when he was 31, was a completely, totally different person, politically, at least, I'd say personally as well, than what he is now.
And you don't know why somebody has certain views.
I mean, there was a time in my life when I was a lot younger where I did actually hate people who held certain views on the issues I cared about most, where I really personally hated them.
And then at some point, I came to understand that all of us are the byproduct of our social and cultural influences.
We're all the byproduct of propaganda and all kinds of ways that we see the world.
And although I do think certain people in public life merit hatred, the number of people who do is pretty small.
And I don't think that someone merits that simply because their political views are offensive or even supporting horrific things.
Because again, if that is the standard, essentially everybody, I mean, who among us hasn't supported policies at one point in our life or views or ideologies that cause the death of others?
And that can justify the murder of basically everyone.
I mean, that's just, you know, all out with political violence.
But I also think aside from creating a very dangerous framework for society, I also think it, and this might even be more important, I think it's very corrosive to one's spirit and soul to celebrate the death of other human beings.
I'll just tell you a quick story about that.
When Osama bin Laden was killed by the U.S. government in 2010.
That night President Obama announced it.
And I was in the U.S. that day, but I got on a plane to return to Brazil before that announcement was made.
And so I didn't know that it happened.
And I arrived in Brazil and turned on my phone and saw that.
And I also saw this news that people were marching in the street and celebrating like their football team had won a world championship.
And Obama said, this is what makes America great.
What?
The fact that you can go and murder a person who's ailing and with his wives sitting in a home.
I mean, I'm not saying it's unjustified at all.
I think that's a separate question.
I've talked about that before, why I think it's better to arrest somebody and put them on trial.
But I'm not even talking about that.
I'm just talking about this extreme celebration that took place, like marching in the street.
Yeah, we're America, over the fact that multiple human beings were murdered, were killed.
And I remember I got it that day I left the airport and I got into a taxi.
And I don't want to be cliche about this, but I did start talking to the taxi driver.
And he said to me, like, what?
I understand wanting to kill Osama bin Laden, but like, what kind of people go around like partying in the street over someone's death?
Even somebody like Osama bin Laden.
And I wrote about it the next day.
It really got me thinking a lot, like, why do we celebrate this, the extinguishing of human life, especially when it wasn't in self-defense?
Again, separate from whether it was justifiable or not, I just think the more you celebrate the death of other people, the more you crave the violent extinguishing of human life, the more your spirit and soul corrodes.
I just think it makes for a very crude and kind of primitive and harsh and brutal culture and society and internal life.
I really try hard to avoid it in every instance.
And again, I'm not immune to these temptations.
I understand why people react this way.
But to take a 31-year-old man who has never killed anybody, has never presided over a war, has never implemented violence, whose greatest crime, I guess you could say, is that he has advocated horrific wars, including the one in Gaza.
I just can't find any remote justification for it.
Immediate Exploitation Of Political Violence 00:15:57
And I actually think it's quite despicable to go on the air like Matthew Dowell did on MSNBC and basically say, oh yeah, he deserves it.
He was a hate mugger.
He had hateful views.
I promise you, whatever your views are, whatever they are, you can think they're as benevolent and benign as you want.
There's a lot of people who are in this world who think that your views are hateful and dangerous.
And celebrating this or justifying this in any way, I think is reprehensible.
But I also think it does a lot of damage to you as well.
Now, I will say I knew Charlie.
I didn't know him well, but I had some interactions with him.
I was on his show, I think, a couple times.
And I always found him to be very genuine.
Like, there are views that he holds that I do with other people might find hateful, but I don't think that he ever was really motivated by malice toward anyone.
I really don't.
And it's easy to say, oh, he was kind to me, therefore he was probably kind to everybody, but go and try and find anybody who has a bad word to say about Charlie Kirk interpersonally.
And that also has to matter.
You know, there are people in politics who are just driven by pure hatred.
And then there are people who have views that, again, are the byproduct of all sorts of things, but still try and treat everybody decently.
And, you know, you could see his kids running over to him, and they clearly loved him as their father.
And I think it's so corrosive to just take a tiny little sliver of someone's existence and identity, mainly their political views, and then justify and applaud their death.
And you can see huge numbers of people doing that all over the place.
And I'm going to give you some examples in just a minute, but that's my view on that.
Now, on the other side, and we have talked about this many times before, this really creepy desire to immediately exploit any sort of political violence before anything is even known about what happened.
And I've talked about this, how the right does this, and the left does this as well.
Every single time, there's like this scramble to say, oh, this person was on the left who did this, the person on the right who did this was a Muslim, this was a white supremacist.
And like, I'm sorry, but the idea that political violence isn't monopolized by the left or the right is complete and utter bullshit.
It is completely false.
And there are so many people claiming that today, like there is when just a month ago, a Christian evangelical who was extremely pro-life went and murdered two Minnesota politicians, or murdered one Minnesota politician, a Democratic speaker of the House, and also murdered her husband, and then shot another couple.
And the FBI said he had a list of 45 politicians he wanted to kill all Democrats.
And a lot of liberals were saying, oh, look, this is the sort of thing that the American right produces, to say nothing of all the murders and massacres by people who do it explicitly in the cause of right-wing causes, like anti-immigration or Muslims coming into the to their to the West.
And there's also plenty of violence from liberals in the left, too.
But one of the ways the American right has tried to immediately exploit this is basically by calling for genuine, severe crackdowns on basic political liberties in the United States.
And I will give some license to some of these people because some of these people knew Charlie Kirk personally and are enraged and disgusted and emotional about watching a 31-year-old man just have his life extinguished in a heartbeat with a bullet to his neck while he's speaking on a college campus and what we actually encourage people to do and want people to do.
So I understand that, but if you're going to speak publicly on a certain issue, I think you have the responsibility to make sure that you have your emotions under control.
So while I give a little bit of license, I don't think that's an excuse for some of these kinds of attempts to really gin up hatred and repression in the name of avenging him or having it prove a point about how the violence really comes from the quote radical left.
Here's Christopher Rufo.
The last time the radical left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years.
It is time within the confines of the law to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.
J. Edgar Hoover instituted what became notoriously known as COINTELPRO, where the FBI infiltrated all sorts of political groups against the Vietnam War, for civil rights.
They persecuted all kinds of people who had political divergencies, but it's also been done to the American right as well.
Do people like Christopher Ruffo not remember that?
The American right has been infiltrated by Homeland Security and by the FBI under the same theory.
Oh, this is an insurrectionary movement.
They're a threat to the democratic order, and therefore we need to shut them down.
The whole January 6th Commission was about taking away political liberties from the American right, basically trying to criminalize the Trump movement.
I've seen that in Brazil here too, where the Bolsonaro Broke is in the process of being criminalized and has been criminalized for a long time.
So just like endorsing political violence with the belief that it's never going to come back to you and your allies or endorsing censorship because it's someone you, whose views you hate, and not realizing that that will come back and eventually be used against you,
calling for political repression by the FBI after the conservative movement, the right wing, the MAGA movement spent years, the last eight years, complaining about the politicization of the deep state and the interference of these deep state institutions in our domestic politics now suddenly want to weaponize it to shut down and you're going to see how broad what Christopher Ruffo means when he says those responsible for this chaos.
They don't just mean people who engage in violence.
They mean what they think is the entire political ideological edifice that motivated this violence.
Liberal NGOs, the Democratic Party, and on and on.
Left-wing groups.
And again, I mean, if you want to create that standard, I promise you, it's already been used against your movement, and it will continue to be used against your movement the next time there's a Democrat in charge of this machinery and that will happen and it'll happen relatively soon, I promise.
Here's Laura Loomer, quote, it's time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, and prosecute every single leftist organization.
If Charlie Kirk dies from his injuries, his life cannot be in vain.
We must shut down these lunatic leftists.
Once and for all, the left is a national security threat.
Libs of TikTok, always sober and restrained, all capital letters, this is war.
Sean Maguire, the pro-Israel fanatic, and by the way, so far, every person who's been saying this, Chris Ruffo, Laura Loomer, who did I just show before?
Libs of TikTok, Sean McGuire, these are all pro-Israel fanatics.
They hate the left because they're worried about the movement against Israel, and that's what they want to shut down.
Here's Sean McGuire, the Silicon Valley whatever investor, who's made some extremely inflammatory statements that got into trouble in Silicon Valley about Israel and Gaza, even for Silicon Valley.
He's gone too far.
He said, we're not supposed to say this, but the truth is we're at war.
So we're in a civil war.
Sean Davis, whose commentary I often appreciate, but also speaks sometimes from emotion, said this, quote, the Democratic Party is a domestic terrorist organization whose most fanatics will not hesitate to murder their political opponents.
This was not a one-off event.
A Bernie Bro tried to murder an entire park full of Republican lawmakers.
A deranged left-winger attempted a mass shooting at the Family Research Council building.
They tried to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett before the Dobbs decision.
Their demonic trans foot soldiers murdered Christian children while they worshiped a church and studied at their desk.
They tried to blow Trump's head off on live TV after failing to bankrupt him and have him thrown in prison for life.
Their race warriors spent an entire summer burning cities to the ground.
Antifa will ambush and kill cops without remorse.
They'll watch one of their own plow a vehicle into a Christian parade and shrug and then tell you to calm down about it.
CNN and MSNBC are deranged left-ling personalities on Blue Sky, deliberately incite violence.
And when it happens, they take the psych copy route of mocking and gaslighting the victims.
Terrorist Democrats will not stop.
Just look at their reactions right now.
They either are laughing about it or lying about it.
But deep down, they're fine with it.
And until they are stopped, until every single nut job inciting this madness and cheering it on is held accountable and removed from civil society, it will not stop.
How much longer can this madness be tolerated?
Now, it is worth noting that pretty much every prominent Democrat, I gave you some examples before, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, and his Pelosi, on and on and on, came out and vehemently condemned this, talked about how dangerous and wrong it was.
Many, many, many journalists and pundits associated with American liberalism or even the left has done the same.
So pretending that this is some sort of pervasive view of Democrats or Liberals that they believe in violence is just as irrational as if, after the massacre of the 10 black people in Buffalo in a supermarket by somebody who believed in replacement theory and believed that non-whites were immigrating to the United States to replace white people, or other similar mass shootings like Anders Breivik in Norway or the one in Christchurch in New Zealand,
Dylan Roof entering a church in Charlotte and purposely killing in Charleston and purposely killing black people.
There's been a lot of right-wing violence as well, politically motivated right-wing violence.
As I said, just a few weeks ago an evangelical Christian, a pro-life extremist, went and murdered two people a Democratic politician and her husband then tried to murder two others.
They he shot two others and they both survived also Democratic politicians in Minnesota, with a long list of Democrats to that he wanted to kill as well.
There is definitely a lot of left-ling violence as well, and there are a lot of people justifying it today.
There's no denying that, but no political faction has a monopoly on this.
None remember all those abortion murders, the doctor murders that we witnessed, and they would try and blame Bill O'Reilly because he was pro-life and saying that abortion is murder.
And so they say, of course Bill Reilly is going to incite people to go and kill abortion doctors like he's done.
Or they tried to blame the buffalo shooting on Tucker Carlson on the grounds that he advocated the great replacement, and so did the shooter.
This is not rational or sober or constructive behavior, to put it mildly, the idea of exploiting Charlie Kirk's death and the emotions around it to call for an FBI crackdown and closing, what, your political enemies, arresting Democratic Party leaders, putting all liberal NGOs in jail.
Mike Cernovich, quote, the Rubicon has been crossed, not by Trump or MAGA, but by the far left.
Randy Paul can shove his book reports up his ass.
Fuck everyone who played footsies with these dark demonic forces.
We will not be scolded any longer.
And then the second tweet was General Franco referring to the Spanish fascist.
And what he's referring to there when he says Randy Paul can shove his book up his ass, he's referring to the Constitution.
Rand Paul just last week objected to the vaporizing of 11 lives with no evidence, no process, no congressional authorization in a boat, a small boat off the coast of Venezuela by saying due process is important.
It's foundational to the American way of life.
And Mike Cernovich is saying, shove that book up your ass, meaning the Constitution, we don't care anymore.
Here's Ron Coleman.
I think every person here so far is a fanatical supporter of Israel except Mike Cernovich.
Ron Coleman, quote, we need to start talking about the things we never dared talk about.
We're going to have to break some eggs.
Matt Forney, quote, Charlie Kirk being assassinated is the American Reichstag fire.
It is time for a complete crackdown on the left.
Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned under Rico.
Every libtard commentator must be shut down.
Schoastic terrorism, they caused this.
Now, obviously, this idea of schoastic terrorism was exactly what was used under the Biden administration to try and criminalize the MAGA movement, as well as the first Trump administration when they really weren't in control of many things.
They did ban Trump from social media after January 6th.
They banned huge numbers of MAGA supporters on the grounds that they were inciting violence and insurrection.
And there was an effort, and I reported on it repeatedly, to try and characterize the MAGA movement as an insurrectionary criminalized movement in order to do exactly these sorts of things.
And you can always say, oh, well, since they did it, we're going to do it to them.
I hear that all the time with censorship.
Yeah, we're on the right and we're censoring people, but they censored us.
That's just fueling a framework you claim to oppose.
And so many of these people have such disgusting inabilities to perceive themselves.
For example, here's Dave Portnoy today, who rose up to condemn those who would celebrate Charlie Kirk's death.
Dave Portner said, quote, absolutely disgusting and disturbing video from Charlie Kirk shooting today, hoping for the best for him and his family.
Anybody who is happy about this is a disgusting human.
And as I said before, I largely agree with that sentiment.
Why Celebration Is Disgusting 00:13:52
Again, I wouldn't go so far as to say someone who's celebrating is a disgusting human.
I understand the instinct, the temptation.
We're all susceptible to that.
I think it's disgusting, though, to celebrate anything like this remotely in this realm.
Except here's a tweet about the same Dave Portnoy where he just said this, just yesterday.
Barstool Sports CEO Dave Portnoy says he hopes a missile hits Greta Thurnberg's boat as she sails toward Gaza with aid, quote, I hope they hit a fucking like a missile on her boat, knock that boat down, Greta or whatever her name is.
So he's calling for missiles to blow up people bringing aid to Gaza, bringing medicine and food to Gaza, mostly to just illustrate the point that there's an Israeli blockade.
He wants those people murdered.
And he's giggy, giggly about it, but then at the same time he turns around and says anyone who is celebrating this death is a disgusting human being.
I mean, if you're going to have principles, this is what I was saying about the Catholic Church and their insistence on honoring the sanctity of human life.
You at least have to be consistent.
Otherwise, you don't believe in anything you're saying.
Here's Elon Musk today with his gigantic platform on X, the largest by far of anybody, who just said this, quote, he retweeted Sean Maguire, that pro-Israel fanatic, and then Elon said this, quote, the left is the party of murder.
I mean, this is the kind of rhetoric, this is like Rwanda.
This is the kind of rhetoric that can absolutely incite civic violence, civil war, more and more of these kinds of political assassinations.
Those massacres that I mentioned earlier were carried out in the name of views that Elon Musk vehemently believes in.
The dangers of Muslim immigration to the West, the way it corrodes Western culture and Western values, the attempt to replace white people, talking about white genocide in South Africa, these are all views that motivated the mass murder of Norway and of New Zealand and of Buffalo and many, many others.
So it's just, it's just very, very like just putting blinders on and ignoring all the murders and violence that happen in the name of your own political cause and pretending that it only happens from the other side.
And trust me, the liberals do exactly that.
The next time some MAGA person or conservative like the one in Minnesota goes and does something like kill political figures in the Democratic Party, they're going to say, oh, look, it's the American right.
They're violent.
While they ignore all the violence carried out in the name of their political views.
The only solution to this is to condemn it as a principle, as an act.
And not just for pragmatic reasons, but because I said, like on principle, celebrating the death of other human beings, except in very narrow circumstances, which this doesn't remotely enter, no matter what your views of Charlie Kirk are, is, it's just, it just corrodes your humanity and the culture and the norms in which our society functions.
Now, there were a lot of people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, as I said, but there were also journalists, so-called journalists, really cable news personalities, who just said some disgusting things.
We showed you Matthew Dowell, blaming Charlie Kirk, saying he spread hateful views and therefore he got hatred back.
Basically not just justifying his death, but blaming him for his death.
Here was MSNBC's reaction almost immediately after the news broke that he was shot.
After one of the Doge employees was allegedly attacked in Washington, D.C., that's what Donald Trump used as a justification to send in federal troops into Washington, D.C. to get things under control, the carjacking situation.
He used that.
And I know it's hard to predict the future, Mark, but you can imagine the administration using this as a justification for something.
I mean, first of all, every single time there's violence of this kind, liberals instantly exploit it to say we need more gun control legislation.
And yes, it is true that Trump Supporters South Day, as we just showed you, without even knowing anything about the suspect, did try and exploit it to call on crackdowns and political repression and the like.
But it's like, right after minutes after hearing this news, to simply say, oh, what my concern is, is not that this father and husband and friend and son and human being was shot in the neck while he was talking, but to start looking for ways to demonize Trump, I think that's demented also.
Here is Hassan Mafi, who cited the fact that Charlie Kirk had said, let's show Charlie Kirk's tweet.
This is something Charlie Kirk tweeted.
I'm not sure how recent this is, but it's about the war in Gaza.
He said, what's that?
This is in 2023, so a lot of people said a lot of things like this in the wake of October 7th, but he's been saying similar things since.
The deaths of women and children in Gaza are the fault of Hamas, not Israel, just like the death in Japan during World War II are the fault of Japan, not America.
When a government engages in unprovoked, murderous aggression, they are to blame for everything that results.
And this person, Hassan Mafi, and this got 129,000 likes and 18,000 retweets as of the time we screenshotted this.
It's obviously a lot more.
Said, by the way, according to Charlie Kirk's logic, his death is his own fault, not the shooters.
And again, I understand the emotions around people who support the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
I share those emotions as much as anybody does.
And I absolutely do think that Palestinians have the right of armed resistance against Israeli soldiers and Israeli government officials who are presiding over this genocide.
But that's not Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk is an activist and an influencer.
And as I said before, if you're going to create a framework where people who support unjust wars are justifiably murdered, essentially everybody is going to be at some point vulnerable to that, is going to be a legitimate target.
Here's a popular Israel critic on Twitter, Mamadou, who, and this was mega viral, who said this, quote, Charlie Kirk recently said to a Palestinian that there's no such thing as Palestinians.
Well, now look, there's no longer such a thing called Charlie Kirk.
Now I'm mega viral.
133,000 likes as of the time that we grabbed that.
And if you're going to take it, if you're going to be horrified by what's happening in Gaza, it should be because you are horrified by the eradication of human life.
And while most of those people in Gaza were innocent people, some of them weren't.
Some of them have themselves killed or repressed political rights.
But we don't go around trying to analyze it that way.
Idea is that extinguishing human life, especially so indiscriminately and recklessly, is despicable and morally wrong.
And this is the Israeli argument, the Israeli argument for killing journalists.
Oh, these journalists aren't journalists, they're propagandists, they spread hatred.
That's exactly the Israeli argument.
So if you're taking this position that, oh, yeah, Charlie Kirk spread hatred and propaganda, how do you object on principle to what the Israelis are doing and saying whenever they kill activists or journalists or whomever they want to kill who are saying things that they dislike in Gaza?
It's the same principle.
And yes, I know everybody who's on one side or the other thinks that they're right about the principle and the other side is wrong.
But once you endorse this principle, there's no limit on it.
There's no limit on who will be subjected to it.
Political violence will just grow and grow and grow based on the disseminated and ratified belief that political violence is justified.
Here's Ahmed Hassan.
He's a Houthi rebel who is very interesting.
If you don't follow him on X, I really recommend that you do.
He said this, quote, yes, I hate Charlie Kirk because he's a pro-Israeli influencer, but that doesn't mean I approve of what happened to him.
What happened here is a crime.
I hate that he justifies crime, so I can't justify a crime that happened to him.
I don't know why that's so hard.
I don't know why that's so hard.
I mean, this is somebody very invested.
This is a Yemeni Houthi rebel who's not just speaking, he's acting in defense of Palestinians.
And so he's saying, yes, I understand.
I also hate Charlie Kirk's defense of the Israelis.
I might even hate Charlie Kirk.
But my whole argument in life is that criminal extinguishing of human life is unjustified and despicable.
And I cannot condemn that if I'm simultaneously justifying the murder of those who are on the other side of me on these debates.
You can hate Charlie Kirk's advocacy of Israel.
You can hate whatever you want about his views.
But to go from that to, and therefore I endorse his murder, I think that is morally depraved.
And I think that the person that, there's going to be a lot of people harmed the more that's endorsed.
But I really think the person who is harmed the most is the person who ends up embracing this really dark and just vacant view of the world.
In any event, condolences to Charlie Kirk's wife and to his children and to his friends.
And as I said, I knew Charlie somewhat, but I know a lot of people who know him very well.
And I understand the pain and agony of someone dying very young, way too young.
And I don't think I would wish that, I'm not going to say on anyone, because there is evil in the world.
There are people who are murdering and engaging in genocide, the like, but I wouldn't really wish that on almost anybody.
And if I'm going to have a standard that says it's sometimes necessary or justified to engage in political violence, I'm going to have as narrow of a standard as I possibly can where that's justified.
And Charlie Kirk is universes away from any kind of remote justification.
And I think those who are celebrating this should really look inside of themselves and ask what it says about them that they are.
You know those nights when you just don't sleep and the next day you're dragging, you're exhausted and everything just feels harder?
That's where CBD from CB Distillery can make a real difference.
But it's not just sleep.
CB Distillery has solutions that work with your body to help with stress, pain after exercise, even mood and focus.
And it's all made with the highest quality clean ingredients.
No filters, just premium CBD.
Imagine waking up rested or enjoying your day without those nagging aches and pains.
That's the real solution of CB Distillery solutions.
I they use.
I don't believe in pharmaceutical products to sleep.
I'd much rather use organic product.
I certainly don't believe in pharmaceutical products for pain.
This is a natural soothing ointment that you can use for common kinds of pain or for reducing stress.
And that's why I feel so comfortable recommending this.
So if you're ready for better sleep, less stress, and feeling good in your own skin again, try CBD from CB Distillery.
And right now you can save 25% off your entire purchase.
Visit CB Distillery and use promo code Glenn at cbdistillery.com, promo code Glenn.
CVDistillery.com specific product availability depends on individual state regulations.
For at least two, two and a half years after the current iteration of the war between Ukraine and Russia began, which was the invasion of Ukraine by large numbers of Russian troops in February of 2020, to...
Russia's War Escalates 00:09:59
I have been vehemently opposed to the U.S. fueling this war, to funding this war, to arming this war, for so many reasons.
And I had all kinds of experts on my show to describe the reasons why this war was not only futile, that Russia was going to win and gobble up significant parts of Ukraine no matter what we did, but also why it was so dangerous.
Russia is the country with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.
And it is nothing short of madness for the U.S. and Europe to fight a war with Russia, a proxy war with Russia, where there's all the reason in the world why escalation can easily happen and climb up the escalatory ladder.
And suddenly you have a war between the U.S. and Russia and/or NATO and the U.S. and Russia.
And we've hinted at this, that this has been, I don't mean we've hinted at it, I mean, this war has come close to that sort of thing on many occasions.
And for whatever reason, Washington and broader Europe just has no apparent concern about broader escalation with Russia or the use of nuclear weapons.
Just like, let's roll the dice and see all over who is going to govern various provinces in eastern Ukraine, which is what this war is completely about.
It's absolute madness.
And over the last 48 hours, that concern has become far less abstract and far more concrete because of the claim by Poland that Russian drones were sent over its territory and they shot them down.
Here from AP earlier today, NATO scrambles jets to shoot down Russian drones in Poland, raising fears of war spillover.
Quote, multiple Russian drones crossed into Poland in what European officials described Wednesday as a deliberate provocation, causing NATO to send fighter jets to shoot them down.
A NATO spokesman said it was the first time the alliance confronted a potential threat in its airspace, meaning in the history of NATO.
The incursion, which occurred during a wave of strikes by the Kremlin on Ukraine and the NATO response, swiftly raised fears that the war could spill over, a fear that has been growing in Europe as Russia steps up its attacks and peace efforts go nowhere.
Russia's defense ministry said it did not target Poland, while Belarus, a close ally of Moscow, said it tracked some drones that, quote, lost their course because they were jammed.
However, several European leaders said they believe the incursion amounted to an intentional expansion of Russia's assault against Ukraine, meaning to into NATO countries like Poland.
And it is notable too, we just covered this last night, that the EU was accusing Russia of jamming the GPS at an airport in Bulgaria where the EU president Ursula van der Leyen was landing and basically accused Russia of trying to crash her plane or put her in danger.
The whole story fell apart.
It was all a lie.
If you want to go watch last night's analysis of that, you can.
But essentially, even mainstream Western media outlets are admitting that was a lie.
And now suddenly there's this similar excuse about jamming GPS and the like.
And now that's not an excuse, according to Europe.
That doesn't really happen.
Here's some of what's being said.
Quote, Russia's war is escalating, not ending.
European foreign policy chief Kaja Kollis told reporters in Brussels, quote, what Putin wants to do is to test us.
What happened in Poland is a game changer and it should result in stronger sanctions.
And then here you see the map of Poland, which of course borders Ukraine.
And all of these red dots show where the Polish government and NATO says they shot down Russian drones all near the border with Ukraine.
Although there's this one up north that's pretty far from the border with Ukraine as well.
So that's the map of what is happening.
Here from the BBC, there's an image of a downed drone in eastern Poland showing up close-up photos of damaged drones near Polish village, which the Polish are claiming was sent by Russia.
Here's Kaja Kollis, who we've been over her many times.
She's the foreign minister of the EU.
She's Lithuanian.
She has, ironically, her husband had a huge scandal because I think actually she's from Estonia.
I'm sorry.
She's from Estonia.
And her husband had a huge scandal because of dealings with Russia in which he was receiving millions and millions of dollars from Russian companies at the time she was demanding Russia be sanctioned.
And now that she's no longer a politician in this tiny little country, but is the foreign secretary of the EU, she's mad with power.
She craves war against Russia.
Here's what she posted on X today.
Quote, last night in Poland, we saw the most serious European airspace violation by Russia since the war began, and the indications suggest it was intentional, not accidental.
I'm in contact with the Secretary General of NATO, and various Polish politicians.
The EU stands in full solidarity with Poland.
And then she added, Russia's war is escalating, not ending.
We must raise the cost on Moscow, strengthen support for Ukraine, and invest in Europe's defense.
The EU plays a major role, and we will support initiatives like the Eastern Border and Shield Defense Line.
That's what they did, by the way, after they blamed Russia falsely for having jammed the GPS at this airport where Ursula van Deyen was trying to land.
They said, oh, this shows how we have to massively increase our spending with arms dealers and defense industry and build up our military because look at how dangerous Russia is.
That's what the EU wants to do, convince its citizens to give up more and more social benefits, to accept a wider breach of economic equality in the name of spending massive amounts more on the defense industry and arms wheelers that fund them and fund their campaigns.
And they're trying to scare people into believing that Russia is going to invade Europe and therefore people have to give up their retirement benefits or retire later or whatever in order to let all this money go to the military industrial complex, something we've seen in the United States many times before.
From the BBC, Poland was, quote, deliberately targeted, says the foreign minister.
In a video from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Radoslav Sikarski says, quote, the assessment of Polish and NATO air forces is they did not veer out of course, but were deliberately targeted.
Responding to Russian statements that the drones are not Russian, he said, quote, this was anticipated.
Lies and denials are default Soviet responses.
Russia has said it had no targets in Poland for the strike, but doubt has been cast over that by NATO allies.
I mean, just that reference to Soviet lies is so telling.
These people are fighting wars from the Cold War, when these small Eastern European countries were dominated by the Soviet Union.
And they're trying to drag Europe into a war and the U.S. into a war with Russia to avenge what, quote, the Soviets did to them two generations ago now.
Here's Donald Trump's comment on True Social.
It was cryptic and vague, but also somewhat alarming.
He said this, quote, what's with Russia violating Poland's airspace with drones?
Here we go.
And obviously a lot of people are interested in what he means by here we go.
Could mean nothing, just kind of a Trumpian expression.
Could mean Trump wants to escalate or believes Europe is going to escalate.
At the very least, all of this should illustrate in a very concrete way why this war is such madness to continue, to continue to fuel and fund and arm.
It's not helping Ukrainians.
It's killing and soldering huge amounts of Ukrainians.
It's not helping Ukraine.
It's destroying Ukraine.
To the extent that Ukraine had any democracy to begin with, it doesn't now.
There's no elections.
There's complete repression inside Ukraine under Zelensky.
And Russia just keeps advancing, no matter how many soldiers they have to lose.
They're a gigantic country.
And that's part of Russian history and tradition.
That's how they fight these wars of attrition.
And they currently rule and possess about 23% of Ukraine.
They're going to end up with at least 25%, 26%.
This was all predicted years ago.
This war benefits nobody and nothing other than the military industrial complex that needed a new war once we finally withdrew from Afghanistan.
And it puts Americans in massive danger, not just through all the money we're spending and wasting and the arms we're sending and depleting our own stockpiles, but also the risk of escalation and some kind of nuclear exchange is way too high, given what is at stake in this war, which, as I said, is nothing other than the question of whether some Russians or some Ukrainians are going to rule four provinces or so in eastern Ukraine where the people are Russian speaking,
Reminder System Update 00:00:49
identified as Russian, as is the case for Crimea.
Everything is about that.
And these risks and these costs and life and money are such tragic wastes.
And far worse, it is gravely dangerous.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, system update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and podcasting platforms, where if you rate, review, and follow our show, it really helps spread the visibility of the program.
For those who have been watching this show, we are needed to say very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 o'clock p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
Export Selection