Netanyahu’s Crude Exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s Death to Get the American Right Back into Line; Plus: Q&A With Glenn on Charlie Kirk's Assassination, Online Civil Discourse, and More
Netanyahu exploits Charlie Kirk's death to get the American right back into line. Plus, Glenn answers your questions about the future of online discourse, Tucker's Sam Altman interview, and more. --------------------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday, starting at 7 p.m. Eastern promptly, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to engender very intense emotions, as one would expect.
And as a result, it also presents all sorts of opportunities for those seeking to exploit those emotions for various ends.
This always happens in the wake of some tumult or crisis.
We saw it after 9-11 with COVID with January 6th, where all sorts of emotions were exploited for various ends.
But whenever there is chaos and fear and anger, these emotions are easily directed to try to use them to advance whatever most suits one agenda.
Last night we examined how the intensity of these emotions are being exploited by many on the right to impose very authoritarian policies, including attacks on free speech and the weaponization of the FBI against one's political enemies.
But as usual, when it comes to brazen opportunism and deceitful exploitation of Americans' motion emotions, there is one and only one undisputed world champion, and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu has been so pervasive in American media day after day since the first minutes after Kirk's killings that one would have thought he was Kirk's best friend or is in deep grieving and mourning, using television interviews as some sort of therapy to get him through his sadness.
But Netanyahu's mission is not, I'm sorry to say, entirely benevolent.
It is instead as transparent as it is sinister, namely to insist that Charlie Kirk was Israel's greatest friend and greatest defender, with the obvious goal of whipping the American right back into line when it comes to Israel by deceiving them into believing that if you admire Charlie Kirk, you must support Israel as he did.
In reality, Kirk was a longtime supporter of Israel, but he was anything but a blind and faithful supporter of Israel, especially over the last six months as he clearly began to wander away and question a lot of those views in a way that made many people uncomfortable.
And so we'll explore and document exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu, who is up to.
And then as we do every Friday night, we will have a QA segment where we take questions from our locals members who submit questions all throughout the week.
As always, we have a very provocative and interesting array of questions, a lot of them about the aftermath of Charlie Kirk assassination, but about other topics as well.
And as always, we look very forward to getting to as many of your questions as we can.
Before we do a couple quick programming notes, 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 all the major podcasting platforms.
Where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As an independent journalist, we do rely on the support of our viewers and our members, which you can participate in by joining our locals community where you get a wide array of exclusive benefits and exclusive video footage and streaming, including the ability to submit questions from our local supporters that we do every Friday night, but mostly it's the community on which we really do most rely to support the independent journalism that we do here.
Simply click the red join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
As a final reminder, I will be traveling for much of next week to an event where I'll be giving a speech on the state of civil liberties and privacy and freedoms and the like.
And as a result, we'll be out much of the week, maybe all of it, but I'm going to try and do a couple shows.
But in my stead, we'll have guest hosts, at least including Lee Fong, who will do several, if not all of the guest hosting stints.
He always is a favorite of our audience, always does a great job of kind of keeping a similar ethos to the show, but at the same time bringing a different perspective.
And people generally enjoy him, and I'm sure you will next week as well.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
System Update It's been a frequent theme in my reporting over the years on this show over the last several years that emotions are often easily exploited when they're at their peak moment, their peak level of intensity.
And then they're misdirected opportunistically for all sorts of ends that people end up regretting.
Talked a lot about how that happened when Russia invaded Ukraine and the propaganda was so intense, showing grandmothers in Ukraine who were dying and people got very emotionally invested in Ukraine, and four years later now we're still funding it, we're still arming it.
And a lot of people have come to regret that.
Same thing happened after 9-11, of course, where people ended up cheering for all sorts of things they've come to regret.
Last night was September 11th, the 24th anniversary of that attack, where we examined many of those lessons that I would hope people have learned about guarding against exploitation of their strong emotions after an event of a kind like that attack or the COVID attack, uh the COVID uh pandemic or the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
But one person who understands very well how to exploit the opinions and emotions of American citizens, that's not just my assessment.
He's boasted openly about how adept he is at manipulating American public opinion for the interest of Israel, is Benjamin Netanyahu.
He really is talented at being able to deceitfully exploit emotions that attach himself to them and then redirect them towards Israel's interest.
And I've never seen him do it quite as brazenly as he's been doing this week ever since the moment that Charlie Kirk was shot.
Benjamin Netanyahu was all over Twitter attaching himself to Charlie Kirk, depicting Charlie Kirk as some sort of ultimate and supreme supporter of and loyalist to the state of Israel, and therefore, if you're having a lot of emotions about Charlie Kirk, you're sad that he was so brutally assassinated.
If you're angry about it, if you uh are remembering all the things to admire about Charlie Kirk, he's trying to take those emotions and get you to believe that the only adequate vehicle for expression of them is to believe everything that Charlie Kirk believed,
and that includes, according to Netanyahu, that he was a one of the greatest and most stalwart defenders of the American financing of Israel and arming of Israel and support for Israel and subservience to Israel, and in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
You can for sure find a lot of statements from Charlie Kirk, particularly over the la uh the many years, where he absolutely expressed support for Israel.
He talked about how his Christianity made him view Jerusalem in particular as a very holy place and what he called Judea and Samaria.
He was definitely pro-Israel in a lot of statements.
There's no doubt about that.
But as the American right began to become more about America first, as they became more non-interventionists, as young people in particular began to turn against Israel and the war in Gaza as all polling show they did.
Charlie, at being part of this youth movement, being part of the younger generation, began openly questioning Israel in a way that was very alarming to Israel, especially after Tucker Carlson had been doing that, after Candace Owens had been doing that, after a large part of the American right, especially younger people were starting to question the U.S. relationship.
This has been a major, major source of alarm on the part of Netanyahu and Israel and the US, uh, the Israel lobby in the U.S. And one of their main goals is to whip the American right back into line where they've always been when it comes to Israel.
You've always had some prominent people on the American right, like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul be extremely critical of Israel, extremely opposed to U.S. funding of Israel.
But they were kind of dismissed and shunted to the side of the fringe in large part because of those views.
But it was really only after the last 18, 20 months, 21 months, when we saw not just this intense Israeli bombing and killing and slaughter and ultimately genocide in in Gaza, but also the wars that the US got involved in in Yemen and then bombing Iran with Israel and on behalf of Israel.
That the serious questioning of wait, why are we financing this country?
Why are we always serving it?
Why do our politicians just talk incessantly about the importance of it?
And they don't care that that happens on the left.
They kind of wrote the left off.
That's why Netanyahu often demonizes the two groups Israel regards as most threatening to their hegemony in the United States, Muslims and leftist, and he always tries to fuse those together to make you believe that Israel's enemies is your are your enemies.
That's been a tactic of Israel for as long as I can remember.
That's why Ben Netanyahu was so excited about September September 11th.
He understood that, oh, this can be an American war against Islam against the Muslim world, which is what we want more than anything.
And he came to the United States in 2002 when emotions about September 11th were still very high, and he sold the Iraq war, not saying that's the reason the U.S. did it, but he was a vocal advocate of the Iraq war, connecting it to 9 11, promising how it would transform the region.
The Israelis openly wanted the U.S. to go and engineer regime change in seven different countries, including most places where we've now done that Libya and Syria and Iraq.
And also in Iran, that still is uh their goal.
So exploiting the emotions of the American people on behalf of Israel is something that now indisputably is extremely good at.
And he's been ubiquitous in the American media.
I mean, he's presiding over a genocide.
Every day Israel is slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza and destroying Gaza.
But he believes, and he probably is right about this, that this is an extremely important opportunity for Israel to exploit the death of Charlie Kirk, to exploit his memory, to exploit the positive emotions toward him, the admiration for him being expressed on the right, to basically can construct him as a martyr of Israel.
So that any admiration you have for Charlie Kirk means that you are revering somebody who was one of Israel's closest friends.
And that is simply false.
You'll be surprised to learn that Ben Netanyahu is not telling the truth about that.
And there's a lot of other Israel supporters who are engaged in the same mission.
Earlier today, Tucker Carlson, who is one of the main reasons that a lot of the American right has started to turn against Israel, was on with Meghan Kelly.
And they were talking about Charlie Kirk and specifically this kind of anti-interventionist, especially anti-war when it came to the Middle East and questioning of Israel that he had been exhibiting over the past, at least since the beginning of the Trump administration, in a way that has been deeply worrying to Israel.
Here's what they had to say.
He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved.
He loved Donald Trump, like personally as well.
And I think the president really loved him in a real way.
But he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country.
I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position.
He didn't need to express it.
Oh, of course.
And he did it again.
He didn't have some weird agenda.
He wasn't mad at anybody.
He was for his country and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing.
And he said that.
He went to the Oval Office to say that.
He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see people.
And he loved his donors.
It wasn't a hostile thing, but they had a different view, a lot of them, not all, but a lot.
And they expressed it to him in a very intense way, I know because he showed me.
And he said, Look, I understand your perspective.
This is my perspective, and we're gonna do what we think is the right thing, the wise thing.
In that way too, he was the voice of young people.
I mean, there are no young people in the country anymore supporting this war and wanting Israel to continue its bombing campaign.
That's just the truth.
Look at the polls.
And he was in touch with them.
And even where his own opinion may have differed from their opinion, he felt like he owed it to them to bring their message to the sitting president of the United States.
I mean, it was that's what's been snuffed out.
I mean, I think that's actually an extremely important point that Megan made there, which is that okay, it's one thing for Tucker Carlson to really become vocal against the words that Israel is fighting.
Uh And they are worried about that.
It's also very worrying when someone like Candace Owens does it, who's roughly Charlie Kirk's age, even though she doesn't quite have the influence among, say, young people.
I think she is more of a broader influence in the conservative movement, but it's very worrying when she does it.
But Charlie Kirk, you know, I said this about Nick Fuentes about the enormous amount of influence that he has assembled when it comes to young people on the American right.
Charlie Kirk is one of the people you could, you know, say might have even might have more influence, have had more influence among especially young conservatives than anybody else, more than Ben Shapiro, more than Tucker, more than Nick Fuentes.
And he was very entrenched right at the peak of Republican power, of conservative power.
I mean, he was close friends with Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, and you know, that's the president and vice president and everybody down the line.
So for Charlie Kirk to start representing this massive change in American attitudes toward Israel, given that Charlie Kirk had always been a supporter of Israel, given that many of his donors are extremely pro-Israel, as Tucker said.
In a way that could have been the most alarming danger for Israel possible.
The thing they were most worried about, that he was clearly moving away from that pro-Israel stance in a way that might have been almost a tipping point in in right-wing politics.
Just to give you one example of what Tucker was talking about, in April of 2025, Tucker Carlson had basically said he was in touch with people very closely at the White House and knew that there was a serious movement to have the United States abandon its diplomacy that Trump kept promising was going to resolve the problem with Iran, and instead to bomb Iran to go to war for Israel and with Israel in Iran.
And Tucker came out with a big dramatic statement about how dangerous this is, and right around the same time, might have been the same day, day before, day after, it was really right around the same time.
This is what Charlie Kirk posted to X, quote, it's going unnoticed because so much other news is happening, but the war drums are beating again in DC.
The warmongers worried this is their last chance to get the white whale they've been chasing for 30 years, namely an all-out regime change war against Iran.
So he's denouncing and warning about the co-called warmongers, who he says have as their primary goal on all-out regime change against Iran.
Who is he talking about there?
Neocons, Israel supporters, Israelis, obviously that's who had as their white whale an all-out regime change war against Iran.
He was denouncing them and warning of their dangers.
This is what he said, quote, a new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.
Our military stockpiles are depleted from three years of back in Ukraine.
Our effort to restore manufacturing has only just begun and will take years to bear fruit.
War could worsen our already immense deficit and national debt.
Iran is larger than Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan combined.
A war would not be easy and could easily become a calamity.
Thanks to President Trump's restraint during the first term, America has a golden opportunity to pull away from the Middle East quagmire for good.
We shouldn't throw that opportunity away so that some DC hasbins can feel tough by setting young Americans to die yet again.
I mean, it's hard to overstate what a significant statement that was.
He wasn't just warning about the dangers of a war with Iran.
He was denouncing a very specific group of people in Washington in the Republican Party in the conservative movement, calling them hasbands and warmongers, and warning about how they were pushing for regime change in Iran in order to benefit Israel.
Now, what Charlie Kirk also was was very loyal to President Trump, and oftentimes he would express these things and he would find a way to still support Trump, even when Trump did them.
You can debate that.
But in many instances, Charlie Kirk's become increasingly outspoken about his discomfort with the US-Israel relationship.
And now that Charlie Kirk can't speak for himself any longer, because he was just savagely assassinated, Benjamin popped up immediately to speak for him, to tell you who Charlie Kirk was when it came to Israel, not in Charlie Kirk's words, but in Netanyahu's.
Here's what Netanyahu said on Wednesday.
So this was the day after Charlie Kirk was killed.
Quote, Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom, a lion-hearted friend of Israel.
He fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization.
I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel.
Sadly, that visit will not take place.
Note that Netanyahu didn't indicate that Charlie Kirk had accepted that invitation or plan to go.
And several sources very close to him indicate that he did not.
Netanyahu added, we lost an incredible human being.
His boundless pride in America and his valiant belief in free speech will leave a lasting impact.
Yes, Netanyahu is a very fervent believer in free speech.
Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.
I mean, he just swooped in.
He saw that opportunity, and you notice what the only thing that mattered was he was a stalwart friend of Israel.
I spoke to him two weeks ago.
So there's this outpouring of love for Charlie Kirk, and in comes Benjamin Nathan would say, I loved him too.
I'm mourning with you because he was such a stalwart defender, champion of Israel.
And every chance Netanyahu gets, he defines Western values as Judeo-Christian.
So that Jews and Christians unite against Muslims.
Or so that Christians who dominate in the West Jews in Israel as an essential part of their agenda because we're they're united.
Everyone is united in Judeo-Christian values, which he says is what Charlie Kirk most vigorously defended.
I've heard Charlie Kirk talk a lot about his religion, his Christianity.
As I said, I've been on his show, I've talked to him before.
And I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu should be talking for him.
There's a lot of evidence of Charlie Kirk speaking on these issues himself, but this is what Netanyahu is absolutely up to.
The next day he went on Newsmax.
I'm saying he's all over American media, multiple media appearances today, all over X, all over social media, inserting himself into this national upheaval around the assassination of Charlie Kirk, obviously for Israel's purposes.
And he was on with Greta Van Sustern, and this is what he claimed happened.
You know, they're trying to delegitimize the state of Israel.
Charlie Kirk said to me that he wrote me this detail.
You have to fight the slander.
These untruths, these vilifications have consequences.
And he was right.
But I'll tell you one thing.
And he was fighting on the battlefield of ideas.
And I think he was winning.
He was going to win.
That's why they shot him.
I hope they don't silence him.
I don't think people will uh give in to these ridiculous, ridiculous lies.
Now, a lot of people who are very close to Charlie Kirk, like Candace Owens, said that the letter Charlie Kirk wrote to Netanyahu was wildly distorted and misrepresented by Netanyahu.
I mean, if he's going to talk about the letter, he ought to release it so that we can actually see whether Netanyahu is accurately describing it.
Here is Netanyahu on Fox.
This was also yesterday.
I'm telling you, Netanyahu's primary mission this week was exploiting Charlie Kirk's assassination.
You would think he's like someone with nothing to do.
It was just like the best friend of Charlie Kirk, and he's in mourning and grief and grieving.
That's why he's all over the media.
This is his number one priority, and you should really think about why.
Why is the assassination of Charlie Kirk and his desire to speak to the American people about it such a crucial priority to him while his country is engulfed in not just wars, but all kinds of political crises that he's at the center of scandals and crises, upheaval.
Here's Netanyahu and Fox.
This was yesterday, where he elaborates on this letter that he alleges Charlie Kirk wrote, and makes other claims about Charlie Kirk to his about Israel.
Prime Minister, You have your own memories of Charlie Kirk.
Please share them.
Well, Harris, before I do that, I have to say that we're just heartbroken.
Myself, my wife, my family, my son, actually, on his 2019 visit to Israel, had lunch with him and his wife, Erica.
We're shattered first as human beings because a great human being has been taken from us.
He's and was an extraordinary friend.
He um, you know, he he said, he wrote me a letter on on May 2nd this year.
He said, one of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances to defend Judeo-Christian civilization.
A few weeks before the tragedy yesterday, I I called him and I spoke to him and I said, please come to Israel.
I invited him to Israel.
And sadly that visit will not take place.
But he was he was a defender of our common Judeo-Christian civilization.
He was unbelievably excited to walk in the footsteps of Jesus here.
And while, yes, Netanyahu says he was excited to walk in the footsteps of Jesus here.
And while Netanyahu is spouting this noxious garbage about Charlie Kirk trying to plant the emotions of the Fox audience.
On the screen, it reads, Netanyahu, quote, Netanyahu says, Kirk is an was an extraordinary friend of Israel.
I mean, the propaganda is so brazen.
Can it get more propagandistic?
And Harris Faulkner is really, she's one of the just absolute dumbest and most mindless personalities on Fox.
I'll never forget one of the best TV moments that she ever provided, which is when she had Condoleza Rice on.
Condoleezza Rice after the Russians invaded Ukraine, and Harris Faulkner said to Condoleezza Rice, look, how can this not be a war crime?
My understanding is that if you invade a sovereign country that hasn't attacked you, that's by definition a war crime.
Like not remembering that she's sitting next to the woman who was one of the main architects of the invasion of Iraq.
It's like she does not, nothing connects.
She's just an absolute vacant propagandist for the Murdoch agenda, very loyal to the Fox agenda.
But in any event, so she's the perfect person for Netanyahu to come on with.
She's never going to get to ask him even like a minimally challenging question.
She's going to let her speak and then talk about how beautiful everything he said was.
But on the screen it says, Kirk is an extraordinary friend of Israel, in case you're wondering what the purpose of all this is.
HE WAS A BORDER, HE WAS A BORDER.
HE WAS A BORDER.
HERE'S THE REST OF THIS IF YOU CAN BEAR IT.
HE VALUED OUR BOND, THE BOND BETWEEN AMERICA AND ISRAEL.
He had his truth.
He stood up for it.
But he said, You can you can come and debate me.
He invited that debate.
He certainly didn't invite the violence, the horrible violence that tried to silence him.
And you know, this is a worldwide problem.
The the people on on the, you know, on the extremes, the the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and the their union with the ultra-progressives, uh, they often speak about human rights.
They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies, whether it's President Trump who's been almost assassinated twice or you know, they tried to kill me here too.
Uh, but they got Charlie Kirk, and it's just heartbreaking.
They got Charlie Kirk.
I don't think Muslims had anything to do with either of the two assassination attempts on President Trump.
And I, from everything I understand, don't believe that anything to do with the assassination on Charlie Kirk.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk.
What he's trying to do is he knows who Israel's two main enemies are.
The American left and Muslims.
Now, he's also very aware that the American right, large portions of it are also starting to turn against Israel, which is why this is such a priority.
But you notice how deceitfully he sees like, yeah, Muslims and the the union of them with the ultra-progressives.
This was before anyone, this was yesterday, before anyone had any idea Who the person was who shot.
We still don't really know much about this person.
I know that everyone on the left is saying he's a groeper.
Everyone on the right is immediately saying that he's some sort of DSA socialist type.
There's a lot of conflicting signals, as there are in a lot of these cases with young killers who are obviously radicalized in like on the internet with memes and the like.
I don't think that they're overwhelming, his overwhelming uh there was like a discernible right-left ideology.
But more will come out.
I don't know, not really attached to that, I really don't care.
My point is that Netanyahu, before anything was known about him, is saying, telling the Fox audience, that's who killed your beloved leader.
Muslims and the super progressives.
That's who's against us, and he's always trying to tie himself to Donald Trump.
He has corruption charges against Trump, so of course he's against Netanyahu's criticism, oh, they're doing to me what they did to Trump.
He's claiming they tried to kill him, and he's saying that's what happened with Trump as well.
Everything is always trying to imply to Americans that Israel and America are like this.
There's no separation.
We're basically part of exactly the same country, the same mission.
And exploiting Charlie Kirk's death to do it in such a brazen way, I think is extra repugnant.
Now, it isn't just Netanyahu's doing it, it's huge amounts of Israel.
Uh, here is a tweet today from Hillel Fold, the fanatical Israeli propagandist.
And here's a picture of an IDF soldier, helpfully uh blurred out.
You wouldn't want to expose him.
And he's holding a gigantic missile, which I'm sure was either sent by the United States and or paid for by the United States.
These are the ones that are used to blow up all of Gaza and kill children.
And he wrote it there in memory of Charlie Kirk, and then he posed for it.
Just in case you're not understanding.
This is Israel's loss as well.
Israel loves Charlie Kirk everybody as much as you do.
And Hillel Fold, the tweet was direct from Gaza.
He'd be so proud.
Do you see how they're talking for Charlie Kirk?
Like he'd be so proud to have a missile with his name on it that's going to blow up kids in Gaza.
As Megan Kelly said, he he was representative of the younger wing of the conservative movement that was turning against Israel and turning against his wars.
Nobody has the right to say that about Charlie Kirk.
I'd be so proud to see Israel blowing up kids in my name.
Here is Yaqui Lopez.
Don't know who that is, but who cares?
Uh, who wrote, oh, he's an Israeli official.
Yeah, that makes even more sense.
This afternoon in Tel Aviv, Israel remembers hashtag Charlie Kirk.
And then there's a picture of some sand castle that someone made.
Can we where it says Charlie Kirk, his legacy will continue to shine.
And there's a cross and a star of David.
And then two Israeli flags at the top.
I mean, could you imagine that if you like if you if you died and then people just started trying to use you as an avatar of things that you didn't actually stand for or represent?
I talked about that last night with all the calls for censorship.
Or even the broader theory that the people with blood on their hands aren't just the ones who pulled the triggers, but the ones who speak and give opinions that inspire that.
He was contemptuous of that theory.
It's one of the things that he and I like very much had in common ground.
Charlie Kirk was an absolutist free speech defender.
There are a lot of people on the right who claim to be, and we've seen over time that many, if not most, are frauds.
But Charlie Kirk was a genuine free speech advocate.
And he, in that tweet we read, was responding to a lot of the reaction on the right after that couple got killed outside of the Israeli embassy in May in Washington.
And he was like, look, I born this couple, they're beautiful couple, they have all their lives ahead of them.
This is a horrible tragedy.
The person who killed them should be punished to the maximum stent of the law.
But he said, I'm seeing a lot of conservatives saying it's not just he who has blood on his hands, but also people who demonize Israel or were against the war or called it a genocide.
He was like, No.
That's not how it works.
Words are not violence, he said, violence is violence.
So stop trying to say that people who never engage in violence have blood on their hands because of their views that they expressed.
And he was telling that to his fellow conservatives in the knowing that this theory is extremely dangerous and has been weaponized against the right.
That if you express certain views, you're causing these people to be endangered.
You know, the first time I ever encountered that theory, this theory was back in the 1990s, there was like this spate of murders of abortion doctors.
And you know, they would be in their home and somebody would come and just snipe them or outside their office, getting their cars, some would just shoot them.
And there was this extreme effort by the media and liberals to blame pro-life activists for those shootings.
And there was one shooting in 2009 of an abortion doctor.
And this abortion doctor happened to be somebody that Bill O'Reilly frequently talked about and highlighted on his Fox program because he was a very prolific uh abortion doctor, but he also performed later term abortions.
They were legal, but Bill O'Reilly was morally opposed to them.
And Bill Riley would go in every on the air every night and say that this guy was a murderer.
In fact, his name was Dr. Tiller, and uh uh Bill O'Reilly would always say, Tiller the killer.
And so the media tried saying, look, it's not just the guys going and shooting these abortion doctors, it's the people on TV and the pundits constantly saying abortion is murder and abortion doctors are murderers, because if you keep telling people that, of course it's predictable they're gonna go and kill abortion doctors.
And maybe that's true.
But Bill O'Reilly didn't tell anybody to go kill anybody, he didn't advocate violence.
There's no view that you could express that doesn't have the possibility that someone listening might not get inspired to go kill somebody.
And it's extremely dangerous to free speech and just to the truth to try and transfer words into violence to say Bill O'Reilly has the blood on his hands for the murder of abortion doctors or Tucker Carlson has the blood on his hands from the massacre in Buffalo because the guy who did it wrote a manifesto talking about the grace replacement theory, and they claimed Tucker Carlson also talked about that.
It wasn't true, the guy had a totally different worldview than Tucker.
But even if they had identical mindsets, Tucker would not be responsible for that.
Any more than some liberal is responsible because some fanatical fan of Rachel Maddow goes to a softball field where he knows Republican members of Congress are playing and tries to murder them after having spent two years posting Rachel Maddow clip saying that Russians that Republicans are Russian agents.
You have to separate words and violence.
And this was a foundational view of Charlie Kirk.
Now, one of the things that Charlie did recently, because he was getting very kind of torn about the Israel issue, because he was somebody who was concerned about anti-Semitism.
He didn't want opposition to Israel spilling over into anti-Semitism.
He also did have a spiritual connection to Israel the way a lot of Christians do.
Because it's where Jesus was born and died, and a lot of other events of that kind that are regarded as holy by Christians.
And at the same time, his America First ideology, his anti-war views were leading him to also start questioning U.S. support.
And he also knew that a lot of Gen Z conservatives were very much against Israel.
And so he kind of assembled some turning point interns and uh other members who are Gen Z to talk about Israel to try and kind of get to a consensus point about where young conservatives should be, and this is part of what happened.
Resonate with you.
Oh, yeah.
Exactly.
You're not anti-Israel, you don't wish them harm.
You know, you're not, you know, like cheering on Iran.
No, I support Israel.
I think there are allies.
I want them to be a good idea.
But you would be called an anti-Semite by some people for saying this.
And I think that's ridiculous.
I don't hate Jews because I think a nation should defend themselves.
Exactly.
Like I think that's the most ridiculous thing ever.
I feel like it's becoming like the word racism.
Like we just disagree with them, so we just have to call them a name.
I don't think they're actually anti-Semitic.
I think people just can't agree with them and they can't prove them wrong.
So they just throw a word out and be like, you're anti-Semitic for because you think that we should stop sending our money there.
Something that's Oh my god, how I didn't realize, I forgot that that uh that guy made that point.
So true.
He's saying, like, we spent all these years criticizing liberals who just scream racists and anybody disagrees with them.
But now I'm watching all these conservatives scream anti-Semite the minute you question whether the US should be supporting Israel.
And you can see Charlie Kirk having being very sympathetic to that view, saying, Yeah, just because you don't want the US financing Israel anymore doesn't make you an anti-Semite.
I see amongst the people I'm around, I do see more like general disdain towards, I mean, just being honest, Jews people.
That's correct.
Just because they're constantly being told that you hate Jews, and it's like, fine.
If you're gonna say I hate Jews over and over and over again, like if I'm gonna be convicted of the crime, I might as well do the crime.
I fear the same thing happens with all the talk of race, the more we talk about it, the more we're the more racism actually happens.
This is like I try to tell I thank you for saying this, like because like this is I'm trying to tell these people, and they're like, we must get more aggressive.
And so, like, let me ask a question.
If we were to say, if we were to remove, like, if people said what Tucker said is anti-Semitic, I don't hold that view.
But it's like a lot of people on Twitter are like calling us out and like whatever.
That's not gonna happen.
But um, if we were to cancel Tucker, would anti-sem anti-Semitism increase or decrease?
I think increase because that means any supporter of Tucker Carlson's statement, therefore makes them uh anti-Semitization association 100% exactly.
But the binary that's presented is that if you don't passionately talk about it, you are a hater.
That's probably destructive for everybody involved.
So for me, I'm trying to find this new path, which is I love Israel.
I visited there.
My wife and I had the best experiences ever.
I saw where Jesus rose from the dead and he walked on water.
But also I'm an American and I represent a generation that can't afford anything, and that we are like flooded with illegals and no one speaks English and our hospitals are clogged.
I think we need to have the prudence to reject the Jew hate.
Like, okay, we're not gonna put up with that, that's dumb.
But also, if you call everyone an anti-Semite, if they don't take a puritanical view of the Netanyahu government, then I think that's it's bad for everybody.
I mean, you can just see him kind of grappling with this issue, and he has a bunch of young turning point people there with him saying, like, yeah, I I'm sick of this.
I'm sick of the fact that you can't question Israel without being accused of being an anti-Semite.
And like, if anything, it's gonna make us actually become anti-Semites.
And he was pushing back instead of trying to say, I don't we don't want anti-Semitism, but what's breeding it is this like demand that you just bow to Israel and cheer Israel and support more money for Israel and more wars for Israel.
That's what Netanyahu is doing.
He's jumping into this breach where Charlie Kirk can't speak for him anymore.
That's why monuments are being built in Tel Aviv, and his name is being used on missiles, and Netanyahu is on TV every day talking about Charlie Kirk being the greatest friend that Israel has ever had.
Charlie Kirk went on Megan Kelly, and I'm showing you this because I want you to see Charlie Kirk speaking for himself rather than Netanyahu doing it for him.
And Megan Kelly in particular has been a stalwart supporter of Israel.
Like pretty much the standard conventional view on the right, that Israel is our ally, we should support them.
They're in a sea of radical Islam, which is our sour enemy.
And you know, she's a very fervent supporter of Israel.
She has been her whole career in a way that aligns with Fox and fits right in there.
And you know, that's uh Megan Kelly has some pretty standard views of foreign policy, very much aligned with like the Bush chain era, where she emerged from.
But she's also been questioning a lot of those.
I've been on our show a couple times debating with her, and she's very open to those debates and has started questioning things that she would never have questioned even a year ago.
And Charlie Kirk was doing the same, and as a result of their even slight deviation from the pro-Israel line, Charlie, much more than Megan, but both of them, they started getting accused of anti-Semitism in the Israeli media, Charlie was being attacked as some sort of like in following the footsteps of Tarlson.
And they were both Very angry about it.
And Charlie Kirk went on Kelly, and they both kind of aired out their anger and sort of said, like, look, back off.
Or, you know, you're gonna drive people away from you even more.
I I feel the connection to Israel.
And I, but at the same time, simultaneously, when the hostile reaction is that now Megan and Charlie are enemies, right?
Boy, I'll tell you, like, you're you're you're you're you're gonna, you're not gonna, I won't say lose, but you will weaken and just basically deflate two of your strongest advocates if that continues.
Right.
And it to me, I laugh because it's like I've been bullied by the best of them.
The best.
And it didn't work, and it's not going to work with them.
And then the more you try to tell me I can't criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it, to focus on exactly what you're doing, right?
Like what what are you doing that you're so defensive?
You don't own me.
I don't, I don't take one dollar of money from any Jewish affiliated group.
That's not, it's never been what my what my show's model.
I take, you know, Cozy Earth is my sponsor, uh, people like Gen Yell.
Those are the people I take, and I and I probably would feel reluctant to criticize Genizel, which is a great product, so I probably wouldn't do it anyway.
My point is simply I have my honest opinions, which is why I had credibility for the two years I've been defending them, right?
And I still have that credibility, and I don't need lectures from my friends who are more pro-Israel than I am, or who are just American Jewish people who are concerned about what's happening.
I don't need lectures on my coverage, okay?
I'll call it like I see it.
And you have no right to come on this show and demand a debate with me because I've said something you disagree with.
It's my show, and I'll decide the coverage we do.
Okay, I mean, that was a month ago.
I mean, does that sound like Charlie Kirk is the most stalwart defender of Israel?
Here's a little bit more uh from what they talked about on that day.
A text about you, Megan, saying, why is Megan like doing the bidding of Hamas?
I was like, what are you talking about?
Megan's the best.
Like, what she's amazing.
And I said, Why are you texting me about Megan?
And I at that point, and so this is what they don't understand.
You and I, Megan, and Tucker is in the same category, and they've tried to go after Tucker.
Yeah.
Is that the and and the more you attack our moral character, the actually the more we're gonna double down in the direction because screw you?
I don't do it that way, okay?
Right.
Like when it tell me I'm wrong.
Cool.
Tell me if I've got my facts wrong.
By the way, on the Epstein thing, now if Tali Bennett says he was an Epstein agent, we have to be pursuers of truth, they've denied it.
Fine.
Let's keep digging.
Okay, fine.
But the the By the way, that's another thing.
Charlie Kirk was speaking openly about the possibility that Epstein was tied to the Mossad to Israeli intelligence.
He wasn't just like wondering about it as one of the many instances.
He was clearly uh suggesting that the evidence he's seen is enough to make him strongly suspicious that Epstein was tied to the Israeli government and to the Mossad.
Is this the person that sounds to you like some is this Ben Shapiro?
Is this Barry Weiss?
Like some sort of agent or asset of the Israeli government doing its bidding.
There might have been a point where Charlie Kirk was that.
But that isn't who he's been over the last several months.
And uh don't listen to Netanyahu about Charlie Kirk, listen to what he says himself.
The the thing that I don't think it I think is being lost is like on some part of the population, you can scold them into silence, right?
But if I have any deviation of a purity test, any deviation whatsoever, such as hosting a focus group, right, Megan, with a bunch of our students that went viral, having Dave Smith or Tucker at my event, it is all of a sudden, oh Charlie is a uh he's he's no longer with us and all that.
So wait a second, what do you mean?
What is with us mean exactly?
That's the other thing.
The turning point uh annual conference Is has become an extremely important stage for conservatism, especially for young conservatives.
And not only did Charlie invite Tucker to give a keynote speech, which he did and talked about the wars in Israel and the like, and did it aggressively.
I mean, he gave Tucker a major platform at Turning Point USA, despite the fact that Tucker has been under massive attack by Israel and its supporters in the United States for supposedly being an anti Semite for not supporting Israel.
He also had a debate on Israel, where he invited Dave Smith, the very uh harsh critic of Israel, who's a libertarian, and invited some neocon who defended Israel.
So there was a lot of questioning of Israel at the turning point conference.
And that enraged turning points, founders and donors rather, who are extremely pro-Israel and a lot of people in the conservative movement, that's part of their what they're reacting to.
Exactly.
Right?
I'm an American, okay?
Like I I represent this country.
And I I don't even understand that paradigm.
But Megan, I think you would agree with this.
I want to make sure we fast, like really zero in on this personality types like you, myself and Tucker, the more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question, which is not isolated, right?
Megan, it would be one thing if it was one text or two text.
It is dozens of texts.
Yes.
Then we start to say, hold the boat here.
And and to be fair, some of my really good Jewish friends are like, that's not all of us, it's all, but these are leaders too, though, right?
These are these are stakeholders, right?
So there you have it.
And I find it utterly obnoxious.
Like I said, imagine that you die and you've devoted your life to various political causes, and in the wake of the emotions left by your your death, your murder, in swoops bend of Netanyahu to try and recapture the American right as his little pet to say, oh, you love Charlie Kirk?
Well, then do as Charlie did.
He was a unwieldy, unyielding and passionate supporter of Israel and of the American-Israel relationship.
It's despicable.
And I think it's so transparent that it's unlikely to work on anybody other than people who are already ready to believe whatever Netanyahu says and believes in the pro-Israel uh fanaticism.
All right, let's get to the mailbag from our locals viewers.
We'll try and answer as many questions as you can.
The first one of which is from Carl Malone, who asked this quote, what is your Glenn, what is your view on the death penalty?
Do you believe it immoral in all cases, no cases, or perhaps an objection based on the expansive nature of state power?
I have mixed feelings and have had personal experience with a murderer confessing to the torture, rape, and murder of a classmate when I was 10 years old.
I'm sure this makes my opinion much less flexible than it should be, and I'm sure you are one of a handful of people who could eliminate the aspects of the argument without partisan hackery.
This is what you know.
I I think I've had some evolution on this view, and I talked the other night, like the day the night uh when Charlie was assassinated, about what I believe in the kind of uh supremacy of the sanctity of human life.
Like I think whether you think there's real sanctity to human life, I think it's absolutely vital in the organization of our society that we base much of what we do on a belief in the sanctity of human life.
It without it human beings are can easily become sociopathic savages.
If the sanctified human life has no meaning, it's not something we believe in or embrace, then essentially anything becomes justifiable.
And I talked about my admiration for the Catholic Church in that with res with respect to their consistency on that question, that they believe abortion is murder and sinful because it extinguishes human life.
They oppose legalized euthanasia because they believe no state and no person has the right to take human life, which was created by God in their view.
And then it also extends to their steadfast and unequivocal opposition to the death penalty in all cases.
That it's the greatest sin to take human life, to extinguish human life.
And I used to be much less conflicted about abortion.
I just took a very, I guess you call it libertarian stance that adults should be in control of their own bodies and they should be able to at least up until the point where it's a recognizable human, be able to do what they want.
And maybe there is a part of me that still thinks ultimately, especially like in the early stages of abortion, that should be legal or permissible.
But either way, I do find abortion much more ethically difficult than I did previously, because of this question of human life and the need to always affirm its supremacy and worth.
And same with euthanasia.
I mean, I still, I guess, support the right of human beings who are suffering from terminal disease and in great pain and seeing no more quality in life to decide to end their own life and not be left with the choice of having to blow their brains out or swallow poison, but instead be able to go do it in a sanctioned medical way that doesn't entail pain, that's quick.
I I guess I still believe in that, but I definitely understand extremely much better than I did before why that's so dangerous.
How you can so easily see that expanding.
Think like one of the big dangers is a lot of people.
I have a friend who is a trust and estates lawyer, and he basically litigates fights over the estates of people who die, often by their own the fights are with their own children.
It gets super nasty.
They fight over every last spoon and fork and you know uh bed sheet.
They just want that money.
They just like that's their money.
They didn't earn it earned by their parents, but the parents dead, and now it's theirs, and they will go to war over it.
And you can easily see, and I've seen people who say this, you know, you uh with modern medicine, people live longer and they live longer, but they still need assistance.
Oftentimes they need 24-hour care and nursing homes and the like, and that's really expensive.
So if a parent saves up, you know, five million dollars, and you're just waiting for them to die to get that, and you know they have dementia, and they might live in a nursing home facility for the next 10 years, consuming that $5 million and leaving with nothing, there's gonna be a part of all some people that think this way.
You know what?
I'm gonna like, isn't it better if they die?
Like, why consume all that wealth just to keep them alive when there's no quality of wealth?
And then suddenly older people are starting to be pressured by their children to go euthanize themselves.
Maybe it's even with good intentions, but it's not like entirely their autonomy, especially if they're sick, you're very vulnerable, very easily influenced.
And then I think the same about the death penalty.
There's been a lot of cases where people have been consigned to prison for life, and then technology uh documents and proves that they're actually innocent and they're let out of prison, they sue, they generally get millions of dollars, as they should for having those years of their life unjustly taken from them.
And of course, there are cases that are so heinous where you think to yourself, yes, death is absolutely warranted.
I want to see the person killed.
It's a natural instinct that it may even be a benign one.
But empowering the state to kill people is also cutting against that sanctity of human life in a way that I think is not just disturbing morally, but also very dangerous pragmatically.
And so I'm starting to I I've been reading like Catholic Church idea uh theology about this, but also, you know, just other people who are raising serious concerns, not just like shrill moral concerns about things like euthanasia abortion and the death penalty.
And I think there's a huge amount to the dangers that can happen once we start undercutting or eroding or justifying the termination of human life.
In even if the cases that we begin with are well-intentioned, I definitely see the dangers of that.
All right, the millman.
Many online speak of the coming, quote, civil war in order to justify preemptively, uh preemptively censoring or banishing their political opponents.
But have you ever noticed when you go outside and talk with real people that no one seems even close to engaging in political violence?
Most people seem somewhat humble, or at least are forced to pretend to be humble about their opinions.
If there's an online civil war, what weapons will be used?
If there's an actual civil war, where will large groups of Americans pointlessly killing each other over what are almost certain to be poorly thought-out disagreements?
How could that happen?
Are we on our way?
Yeah, it's a great question.
There are definitely a lot of very prominent right-wing politicians and pundits.
We've shown many examples over the last couple days, who, sincerely or not, are claiming to be so enraged by Charlie Kirk's assassination that they're calling for not just utter political, I mean overt political repression, but they're even saying this is war, meaning civil war.
The right is now at war with the left.
And there are tons of people on the left who have similarly taken positions that are incredibly incendiary while they're online.
Yeah, these are Nazis, these Nazis deserve to die.
And I do think there's a lot of online culture which incentivizes that sort of maximalist super incendiary views.
I mean, you could just go online and do an experiment where if you put a statement up that's kind of nuanced or thoughtful, or it has words like, I think it might be reasonable, no one's gonna pay attention.
It's not gonna resonate.
What will resonate for sure though is if you take the most extremist position.
Because people online often are in this mode where they just want to think see things burn.
They want to, you know, it's almost like a video game.
I was about this uh on the day Charlie was killed, that a lot of people can celebrate it because they see him as not as a human being, a fully fledged human being, but it's like a as like a character in a video game.
They know him by his screen name, by his podcast, by his tweets.
And when you're just online, you're not connecting to humans as humans.
And it's very easy to disregard the value of their life, or to just say, yeah, civil war.
And you don't really have to deal with the consequences of it.
You're not actually starting a civil war, you're not going to fight in that civil war.
You're just trying to draw attention to yourself.
Or maybe you're just venting emotions.
And uh online discourse, social media does reward the most extremist views.
There's no doubt about that.
The people who succeed online most are generally people who plant their flag in a particular faction, a partisan faction, ideological faction.
This is where I am, these are my people, and every day I'm gonna validate what you think, and I'm gonna demonize the people we hate.
It's very tribalistic.
But I absolutely think it's extremely important to remember, and I've never really liked this cliche, like Twitter's not uh real life.
I do think social media is incredibly influential and becoming more and more influential all the time.
And I don't think you can separate real life.
Maybe there was a point 10 years ago when you could, but I don't think this is where people go to speak and hear about political debates.
It definitely has an influential impact.
But it is important to separate people who are just, you know, and I include myself in this, whose career and work is to immerse themselves in political conflict and political debates, and who therefore see it as the most important thing.
I mean, that's normal.
If you're a doctor, you're gonna be always focused on health and biology.
If you're cardiologist, you're gonna think the most important thing is the heart.
If you're a pilot, you're gonna think about the safety of plane and on and on and on and on.
So it's normal for people who are always immersed in politics to see it as the most important thing, to give it the greatest amount of weight possible, and therefore to see it as just existential.
Like, yeah, if there's people on the other side of my politics, then I want to go to war against them.
And there are lots of tangible benefits from being the loudest and most extremist voice.
There's no doubt about that.
But I don't think most Americans are that polarized about politics.
I think they can be influenced to be and they can become enraged.
I mean, plenty of societies have had that.
But I don't think that most Americans view most other Americans as their enemy.
Certainly nowhere near enough to want to go to a civil war with them.
And so a lot of times the people on the left, the people on the right who think this way are doing it for very self-interested reasons.
Maybe they're just too disconnected from humanity and too immersed in social media.
It can be dangerous.
Some of the people saying it probably mean it.
But you hope that the kind of more, I guess, humane sentiments prevail and understand that tit for tat violence just goes on forever.
And yes, you have a lot of loud voices declaring war.
Maybe some of them are doing it so because they're so emotional about Charlie.
I'm sure that's true for some of them.
But I don't excuse that kind of extremely incendiary and dangerous rhetoric.
And I do think a lot of it is the online culture that does not pervade, at least fully or close to fully, into the broader society and culture.
All right, let's uh have this last question.
It's from John System who asked, Glenn, did you see the Tucker interview with uh Sam Altman?
It slipped by this week for obvious reasons, but I wanted to know what you thought.
He gave some pretty robotic answers.
I strongly encourage you to watch this interview if you haven't yet.
Tuck Carlson interviewed the CEO of and primary stakeholder of Chat GPT, Sam Altman.
I don't really know why Sam Altman agreed to this interview.
I can guarantee you afterward he regretted it.
I think he only agreed to do it for an hour.
That's how long it was.
I'm sure Tucker would have gone longer.
I almost felt sorry for Sam Altman by the end of it.
Tucker came extremely prepared for that interview.
And was very, I don't even, I wouldn't say aggressive, but unflinching.
Because he knew he was talking to somebody extremely powerful.
He's in he's in control of technology, the power of which we don't fully understand, that he doesn't even fully understand.
That becomes very evident through this question.
I think one of the things that it's important to realize about this interview is that I wouldn't even say Sam Altman is a poor communicator.
It doesn't a poor communicator is somebody who struggles to coherently express their ideas or articulate their ideas in a way that makes manifest to other people what they're trying to say.
But you say someone's a poor communicator, it generally means they struggle with it.
It's kind of hard to follow what they're saying, they're not very charismatic, they're not very persuasive, they're not very articulate.
But at the end of the day, you kind of get it.
Sam Altman is like an anti-communicator, almost in a way that I haven't quite seen before.
And by that I mean that even when he's saying things that are reasonable, maybe even uncontroversial, there's something about the way he says it that makes you feel like he's lying.
And I can't put my finger on it exactly, but in this very intangible way, independent of what he said, you walk away, you know, very kind of alarmed that this is the person who's shaping what likely is likely to become some of the most transformative technology in in decades,
probably at least since the advent of the internet, which is the advent of artificial intelligence and the ability to put it into robots and all the things that are coming.
And what I found so disturbing was you could tell Tucker is very concerned about artificial intelligence.
He thinks, I think Tucker is very kind of uh weary of anything that will replace God and humanity.
And you could easily see how AI could become like a God, even though it's controlled by humans, at least for now.
And there are a lot of obvious ethical conflicts that have to be grappled with if you're going to unleash a technology like this on the world.
One of the examples Tucker was using was what happens if somebody comes and says I want to commit suicide.
This relates to what we were talking about earlier.
And basically, Sam Altman said, well, if somebody comes and says they want to commit suicide and they ask how much Advil do I need to take, or how much of this medication do I need to take, we will recommend that they call a suicide hotline.
We won't, you know, teach them how to commit suicide.
But then Tucker said, well, what if they're in a country where suicide, status is suicide or medical medicine doctors' suicide, is legal, euthanasia, like in Canada, the Netherlands, I believe Spain, a couple countries in Latin America.
And there it's legal.
So they say, hey, uh, I'm terminally ill, I'm in a lot of pain, and I know euthanasia is legal in my country.
How do I go about doing it?
Does ChatGPT then direct them on how to kill themselves, how to get on the path of suicide?
And Sam Altman, it seems like he never thought about the question before, and he's basically said, like, yeah, I guess in countries where it's legal, we probably should tell them where to go.
Now you're encouraging them or at least teaching them or enabling them how to commit suicide.
And there have been cases where people committed suicide as a result of the way they connected to ChatGPT or things ChatGPT has said to them.
And it was just remarkable on every one of these issues where Tucker was kind of asking, like, you know, who's how are you deciding like what the moral framework is?
Like, where does this moral framework come from?
Who who creates the moral framework?
You know, we kind of said, well, I have a board of advisors, and then Tucker's like, who are they?
And he's like, I don't want to dox them ultimately, it's my decision.
So Tucker said, like, well, what is your moral framework informed by?
He basically said he doesn't really have a relationship with God, he doesn't have any experiences where he feels like he connected to a supernatural being.
And he ultimately said, Well, I'm Jewish, uh I'm an American citizen, and ultimately that shapes my morality, but it all these answers were just very poorly thought through.
And Tucker also quite aggressively, I guess I would say assertively, confronted him about this AI, open AI ChatGPT employee who became a whistleblower.
He quit the company and he denounced the company for basically criminality for stealing people's copyrighted material without compensation or consent.
And then before he really could testify or present evidence, he was found dead in his apartment, and the police concluded that he had committed suicide.
Tucker, having interviewed his mother, who insists that he was murdered and believed Sam Altman ordered the murder.
Tucker is insistent that this was not a suicide, that every bit of evidence suggests it was an actual murder, which is very uncomfortable.
Sam Altman kept saying, like, you seems like you're accusing me of committing murder.
So it's worth watching for that too, how that's handled and how Sam Altman kind of deals with it.
But I think the more important, broader questions are the ones about who controls AI and like for what purposes and who decides what the things are that AI will do or won't do.
And it's only going to get more powerful and more powerful and more powerful.
And even if you believe it's just computational probabilities of words, it's still already infinitely smarter about just about everything than any human being you know.
I'm not saying that if it talks about brain surgery, that it's necessarily smarter than a brain surgeon, although it would probably cite facts and resources and like more easily than any one surgeon could, but as a repository for knowledge about everything, there's no one who could compete with ChatGPT or other similar uh AI models.
And therefore, whoever controls that is going to get smarter and smarter and smarter, and who knows when it crosses the line or if it does cross the line, where it has agency or autonomy or something resembling humanity, what the impact's gonna be.
It's being unleashed on the world without any real debate or consideration.
And if you don't believe that, watch the Tucker interview with Sam Baltman, where he's not only unable to answer difficult questions, but utterly unable to answer even the most basic ones, as though it is of no concern to him, which is what I believe.
I believe that they are interested in monetizing this.
He became a billionaire from this technology.
They want to spread it all over the world.
They're figuring out how to compete with China.
They don't care at all about the ethical constraints or the ethical dangers that this technology raises, and that's why I think it ultimately is up to society to debate it, to understand it, and to pass legislation governing how it can function.
And it's a very complex technology.
Certainly nobody in essentially nobody in Congress has the ability to do that.
Of course, it's an industry filled with billions of dollars in Silicon Valley.
They're paying off Washington not to care and to look the other way.
And if you kind of get a vague feeling about why AI might be scary or disturbing, but haven't quite articulated it yet, I I would really recommend this uh interview.
All right, so that concludes our first show for this evening.
Just as a programming note and a reminder, I said this at the beginning of the show.
I'll be traveling much of next week, maybe all of it, for an event where I'm giving a speech about the state of privacy and civil liberties and free speech and the like, the surveillance state, the online censorship state.
And therefore, uh I won't be able to do uh some of the shows next week.
May not even be able to do uh any of them.
I'm gonna try and at least do a couple.
But on the nights when I'm not here, we are leaving the show in the very capable hands of Lee Fong, who will be our guest host.
Uh, he's guest hosted the show before.
The audience always responds favorably.
I think he does excellent, an excellent job of putting the show together.
As I said, very much connected to the same ethos of the show, but also with obviously his own perspective that I think ends up being stimulating just because you get exposed to some different angles and different uh directions.
Lee's very, very smart.
Uh, he's a good friend of mine for uh I've known him for a long time.
Um, and I always learn from talking to him and have seen his shows.
So look for that.
Um, as a final reminder, uh, as independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and our members to participate in that.
All you need to do is click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
You get all kinds of exclusive benefits, exclusive video footage and segments and interviews.
We sometimes publish written journalism there.
We sometimes publish uh segments exclusively there or stream exclusively there or early there.
There's uh written transcripts, professionalized transcripts of every program we do here.
We publish them there the next day.
We take your questions from locals' members every Friday night, as we just did.
But most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click that join button, and it will take you directly to the to the locals page.
For those of you watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back Monday night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
