Matt Walsh rejects demands to disavow allies like Charlie Kirk, calling loyalty non-negotiable amid right-wing fractures, while Tucker Carlson compares it to totalitarian-style censorship. They blame private equity for degrading restaurant food quality and link demographic shifts—like Canada’s MAID euthanasia—to systemic depopulation policies, warning of Nazi-era parallels in modern medical abuses. Walsh insists core conservative values (God, family, Western civilization) must unite the movement, dismissing secondary disagreements as distractions, while Carlson urges gold ownership to escape digital currency control, framing it as financial sovereignty. Both critique conservatives’ delayed resistance to leftist policies, from abortion to transgender surgeries, calling it moral cowardice. [Automatically generated summary]
is it yeah i mean this has been uh it's it's been a really awful i think i think for everybody and
And a lot of this drama obviously goes back a long way.
But I think after Charlie was killed, it's created this kind of this vacuum.
And it's a leadership vacuum because Charlie was, I think, the best leader we had on the right.
And the tragic reality is that a lot of the stuff that we said right after he was killed turned out not to be true.
Stuff that even I said.
Like, well, you killed Charlie, but you made a million more, right?
You killed one Charlie, but now we have a million more Charlies.
And I think we said that because we wanted that to be true.
And for a brief amount of time, it felt that way because it felt like everybody was sort of unified and we were coming together and going to the memorial and everybody was there.
And it felt like almost this revival, even this religious revival and all these things.
But then I think quickly reality sets in.
And what we have realized and what we've seen is that you kill Charlie and now Charlie's gone.
That's the thing.
When you kill someone, they're gone, at least in this life.
And so we didn't go from one Charlie to a million Charlies.
And that's been the greatest tragedy about all this.
I mean, aside from the human tragedy that an actual human being lost his life and his wife doesn't have a husband and his kids don't have a father.
I mean, that's the great tragedy, the human tragedy.
But on a kind of national scale, the tragedy is that the strategy of assassination has been proven effective, again, as it has all throughout human history.
And so now this guy who was this, I think to an extent that none of us fully realized was the glue that was holding everything together on the right, holding this whole crazy coalition together.
It turns out it was like one guy who was doing this and his organization, which is still around who have a lot of respect for TPUSA.
And I think they're doing the absolute best they can in the face of this.
Well, and also, I don't want to, like, I'm not the victim of any of this at all, but I can only speak from my own experiences.
And so, my experience is that I'm a consider myself a personal friend of many of the people on either side of all of these various disputes, including a friend of yours.
And so, that's a very complicated position to be in.
And then, what ends up happening is there's people on either side, and it's really not even two sides.
I don't know how many.
It's fractured to a million pieces, it feels like.
And so, you've got the people on all the different sides of the different disputes who are shouting at me that, well, I need to denounce so-and-so.
I need to disavow this person.
I need to come out and say, you know, that I not just that I disagree, because it's one of the we'd have disagreements, but the pressure is beyond it.
The pressure is not just disagree, but disavow, denounce, condemn.
And my answer has been, and not everybody respects it, you don't have to respect it, but my answer is no, I'm not going to do that.
And I'm not going to denounce a friend.
I'm not ever, I'm not ever going to do it, like, ever.
Because to me, loyalty is a principle.
Loyalty is a, so when people say, well, you need to stand on your principles and come out and say this or that.
Well, loyalty is a principle in my mind.
It's one of the most important principles for any person, for a man, especially.
And I think that, you know, people, if you're not in the middle of it and you're kind of on the outside, there are a lot of things that go on behind the scenes that you don't know about.
And so when I say that somebody is a friend and I feel personal loyalty to them, that doesn't just mean that, oh, I kind of like that person.
But for me, anyway, what that means is this is someone who I know personally, who I can call on the phone, who I can share a meal with, I've shared a meal with.
And very often, this is someone who has had my back and supported me in ways that you might not see.
Not in like a, they've paid me off, but just in a friend way.
Like, I've got your back.
I'm going to support you.
I'll defend you.
Hey, everyone's attacking you for this or that reason, and I got your back, right?
And so there are a lot of people who've done that for me.
And once you do that for me, then I feel like duty bound that I cannot turn around.
I will not turn around and stab you in the back or condemn you.
I mean, if you denounce someone because, especially, again, a friend, because you've got a million people screaming in your face and telling you to do it, well, how can that possibly be a principled stand?
You're doing it to get people to stop yelling at you.
And actually, even if they're not your friend, if people are yelling at you, if you do anything because people are yelling at you to do it, then that's the wrong.
And as men, we should not be in those kinds of relationships either.
So you'd certainly disagree with someone.
And so I'm not talking about that.
And that's important because even what I'm saying right now, I know that Twitter is going to have fun with it and they're going to say, oh, as you're saying, you can never disagree with a friend.
Of course you can disagree with a friend.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about what I have personally experienced.
Like if I look in my mentions or email or even people I talk to of saying denounce, condemn, disavow.
That is the, that is very specifically, that's what I've heard.
And that is the thing that I cannot ever do.
And maybe I have a more extreme view of that than most people.
Well, because someone asked me once, they said, we were talking about this, and they said, okay, what if someone you're really close with your brother?
What if he murders someone?
What if he becomes an axe murderer?
Well, then you would disavow him and condemn him, wouldn't you?
But just like, because their point is like, yeah, the point they're trying to make, I understand.
The point is that, yeah, you're loyal to people, but it's to a point.
And it could get to a point where something happens that's so extreme or they've done something that's so extremely wrong that it changes your calculation.
And my point is that for me, it doesn't.
Now, that doesn't mean that, so if my brother, going back to my brother being a serial killer, which by the way, he's not, just to be clear.
But if he were, I wouldn't defend it.
I wouldn't get on camera and say, actually, it's okay to be a serial killer.
And in that case, I mean, I can understand the temptation to get him a passport, get him out of town, but I would turn him in because I think that that's justice and also it's best for him and his soul that he faced.
But even in the midst of all that, I wouldn't get up in public and say, I condemn and disavow.
The way that I, you know, what happens on Twitter or on social media in general now, when people are when they, when they, when someone does something that upsets everyone, it's like the old, it's like the mid-ages, where your, your head is in the stocks right in the town square and everyone's coming back by and throwing tomatoes at you.
Uh and, and I, i've had my head in the stocks many times with the twitter mob.
I've been in that spot and probably in times when i've deserved it because i've said something that really is just stupid, and so everyone is just flinging crap at me and it's like okay, been there, uh.
But my point is that if it's my friend who's got their head in the stock even if they kind of deserve it because they said something stupid or they're doing something stupid there's no scenario ever where i'm gonna pick up a tomato and throw it at them.
Uh, i'm not gonna do that now.
I might, I might speak to them privately and say hey, you know what?
You kind of had this coming because, like you know, you need to, you need to get, you need to get it together, you need to get it in line, because what you did was wrong.
I'll speak to someone privately and tell them that and I have done that if I disagree with a friend and what they're doing, I will tell them that.
Um, so that's the basic principle.
But again, that's not.
That is all different from uh, disagreement and saying I disagree with Poor.
This is intuitively obvious, I think, to normal people.
What i'm so struck by is how this doesn't just remind me of like medieval Europe, it reminds me of 2023.
This is why Trump got elected.
When we say woke or you know, the crazy left, this is exactly at least speaking for myself what i'm talking about.
First of all, it's identity politics, it's censorship the two things I hate in our country but it's the same impulse to publicly denounce people, to destroy people.
And and really, what you're saying when you demand that is, it's not just a breach of loyalty, it's a transfer of loyalty.
You're saying you need to be more loyal to me and my ideas or the mob than you are to your own friends.
It's like demanding control of your loyalty, and my view has always been, i'm an adult man, i'll decide who I like and who I don't.
That that's up to me, you.
But you're trying to strip me of my autonomy, of my humanity like no thanks, and that's why I got to the point where, after many years of disagreeing with the left, I really hated the left because I find that so totalitarian and scary.
I just can't even believe that less than a year later, the right is doing the same thing.
Yeah, and that, and going back to the great tragedy, the many tragedies that have grown from the one great tragedy of Charlie's death, it is that we have, like, the left, I still believe, I'm old-fashioned, so call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that the left, that leftism, leftism as an ideology, is the enemy.
It is the problem.
It's the thing that we're fighting against.
It's the thing that I've always fought against.
It's why I'm doing any of this.
It's the only reason I'm on camera right now.
The only reason that I'm doing any of this.
The only reason I got into this, whatever it is that we're doing, whatever this business is, this fight, it's the reason I'm in it, is to oppose leftism.
Well, I would define it modern leftism is, first of all, moral relativism.
It's the idea that I have my own truth.
There is no truth.
There's no truth.
I have my own.
And so I think, to me, that's the core of the thing.
And I think that if you're a relativist, then you are a leftist.
It doesn't matter what else you believe.
You could be a relativist and be anti-immigration.
You could be a relativist and believe in gun rights.
Now, I think most relativists don't end up there, but even if you did, you're still a leftist because you reject truth.
So that's what it is at its core.
And also, leftism, not really also, but as an extension of that, it's an outgrowth of that.
Leftism opposes civilization and it opposes Western civilization in particular and American identity most particularly of all.
It opposes all of the institutions that our civilization depends on and is grounded in, like the institution of the family and the institution of marriage.
It rejects all of that.
It rejects the fundamental truths that we depend on.
It rejects the fundamental reality, like the reality of, well, men aren't women.
And they're kind of, I think a lot of leftists are trying to, in a very, really embarrassed kind of way, back away from that one because we beat them on it.
You know, it's a thing.
When we as conservatives can actually put all this bullshit to the side and focus on something, we can win.
And we beat the, it's not totally dead, but the trans agenda is on life support, and we defeated it.
We took it down.
We beat it.
We can do that.
And it's a good thing that we did because that was and is wicked and evil and it's hurting people and killing people.
Couldn't agree more.
But they also reject the reality of human life.
The fact that human life has inherent worth and dignity from the moment of its existence, from the moment of its conception, that your life is not, the value of your life is not contingent.
That's another fundamental aspect of leftism.
They believe that human life, the value of human life, is contingent.
It's contingent for babies on whether or not their mother wants them.
It's contingent on how much of an inconvenience they cause to their parents.
And if it turns out that their mom doesn't want them and their parents find them inconvenient, then their life has no value.
Their life is less than garbage and can be killed and thrown into a dumpster.
And that's what is still happening in this country, you know, every single day.
That's still happening.
Hundreds of thousands, every year, hundreds of thousands of human children are poisoned, stabbed in the heart with poison needles, dismembered, decapitated, and thrown into medical waste dumpsters.
They don't even get a burial because they are treated as less than or-recycled into vaccines.
Yes.
They are treated as less, having less value than a dog.
They have less value than an animal.
I mean, there are animals who are from conception federally protected, like sea turtles and bald eagles.
And human children have less protection than that.
And if you're in favor of that, if you're among the forces that are pushing this, the destruction of the family, the destruction of human life in the womb, the rejection of reality, of objective truth, of national, of American identity, of Western civilization.
If you're pushing that, then you're my enemy.
You are my enemy, and I want to destroy your, I want to destroy your ideology.
I want to destroy everything you stand for.
That's what I want to do.
And if you're again, but if you're against them, and that is to say, you stand for American identity and for the sanctity of human life and the family and objective truth and reality, the church faith, if you're on that side, then I consider you to be basically an ally.
And we could disagree vehemently on a lot of other issues.
We could disagree on there could be a lot of disagreement.
If we agree that, okay, we need to preserve all as conservatives, what are we conserving?
Well, to me, it's easy.
We're conserving Western civilization.
We're conserving American identity.
We're conserving the sanctity of human life.
We're conserving the family.
We're conserving marriage.
That's what we're conserving.
And if you agree with me on that, then we're on the same side as far as I'm concerned.
Now, we might have a lot of disagreements about how to conserve those.
And those disagreements might be even brutal and bitter at times.
But if that is the argument, then we're all on the same side arguing.
If we're arguing about whether those things should be conserved, well, then if you're on the other side of that argument, then we're not on the same side at all.
We're in two different universes.
Like, I don't even know what universe you're living in.
And the divide, I think, ideologically in this country is so vast and so deep and so unbridgeable that we may as well be living in different universes.
We may as well be aliens from different galaxies trying to live on a planet together, and it's just not working out.
So that's, I'm glad you brought that up because that's a really important point.
Because I am, when it comes to economics, I'm pretty, I hate to use the term, I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to a lot of economics.
I would love to see, I don't think there should be a welfare state at all.
I think we should abolish food stamps.
I think we should abolish the income tax.
I think the income tax is evil.
I think it's terrible.
And so that's how I feel about it.
However, as far as I'm concerned, you could be a conservative and have the exact opposite.
You could be a conservative and say, you know what, I think we should raise the income tax.
I think the welfare state is great.
I think there should be more of it.
I think we should give food stamps to more people.
I think we should have universal basic income.
I think all these things.
You could have that view as a conservative.
Now, I will vehemently disagree with you.
I will argue with you and I will yell at you and you'll yell at me and that will be fine.
But if the reason why you want that, it comes down to why do you want that?
Why do you think we should have a welfare state?
If your reason is that, well, this is the way to support families and this is the way to make sure that we can have more families, that people can have kids.
Well, I think you're wrong.
I think actually it destroys the family, but you want the same thing as I do.
And so we're on the same side.
I just think that you're, I think you're lost.
I think you're trying to find the same destination, but you're off in the woods somewhere on the path.
And I want to wave to you and say, no, come back over here.
And as I heard you explain who you're fighting against and why, and I nodded along in agreement.
I really was the choir to your sermon.
I thought you're describing the people who defend the war in Gaza perfectly.
Perfectly.
They don't believe in absolute standards of truth at all.
What they're committing in Gaza is exactly what they decry correctly when it happens to other people.
Can't kill innocents.
They didn't do anything wrong.
Not on purpose.
You can.
Period.
You're not allowed to do that.
But they defend it fully.
So they don't believe in an absolute standard of behavior at all.
They don't believe in truth.
It's totally dependent upon circumstance.
Like, in fact, you've even seen people say it out loud.
You know, we raised an entire generation correctly to believe that slaughtering people because of how they were born is the greatest sin, which it is.
I believe that.
And now we're being hoisted by our own standards.
And my view is, no, standards are absolute.
It's either true or it's not.
And it's universally applicable or it's not a real thing.
It's just group, it's identity politics.
That's exactly what I hate.
And identity politics is the kind of political expression of the worldview that you have just decried and declared war against.
And God bless you for doing that.
But that is in full flower on the right.
And I'm not going to, I don't want to dignify people by naming them, but people I know who call themselves like mega conservatives are defending the murder of innocents.
And by the way, some of them suggest, well, we just move the refugees into the United States because that's good for the country that they support.
But is that good for us?
That's an attack on American identity.
You're also describing, by the way, in a lot of ways, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, who we're all required to hate.
And I'm not supporting him, of course.
But this is like the most socially conservative country in Latin America that has banned abortion, banned gay marriage, banned gender transitions, banned usury, banned loaning at crazy interest levels because it destroys people.
I don't think he's done a good job running his country.
Obviously, he hasn't.
But to your point that we should be open to talking to people who share our most basic values, how is he not on that list?
Oh, shut up, you communist, but I'm not a communist.
I'm not going to be bullied by your dumb labels.
Not yours, but I'm anticipating the many attacks.
I have been attacked for saying that, but it's just, it's true.
So what's the answer?
Do you see what I'm saying?
So I guess what's blowing my mind is that I thought I was speaking the same language as a lot of people that I disagreed with on the margins, like about, you know, what's the best way to harness capitalism to help people.
I mean, these are real debates.
And then I realized with the war in Gaza that like these are people who don't believe in Western civilization because Western civilization can be boiled down to one concept, and that's the individual.
If someone does something wrong, we punish that person.
We don't kill his kids.
Why do we do that?
Why is that our standard?
Because we believe that God created every person as an individual, and every person will stand before God alone to account for his life.
He's not responsible for what his children do, what his ancestors did, what his forebears might do.
He's responsible for himself because we believe in the individual soul, not the collective soul.
And that's what makes our civilization unique in the history of the world.
And it derives from Christianity, from the Christian belief of the individual soul.
And I see all these people who like clearly don't believe that.
This is one legitimately on both sides of the Israel issue.
People get mad at me for that because they say that, well, if they're very pro-Israel, they say, well, you're being a coward and you need to stand up and support Israel and talk about how Israel's our greatest, most important ally and all this stuff.
But then on the other side, very much, it's, well, no, Israel's the great Satan.
They're the most evil country in the world.
They're responsible for everything bad that happens, which is something that I think some people legitimately really do believe at some level.
And I think, and we'll get back to it, but not to get sidetracked.
This is one thing, by the way, that's making political conversation in this country impossible, is that all anyone ever does anymore is impugn the motives behind the argument that you're making.
So you make an argument, and then everyone goes, well, you're only saying that because.
And it's like, first of all, even if it's true that I'm making this argument for some dishonest reason, well, is the argument right or not?
Because if the argument is right, the argument's still right, even if I'm the worst guy in the world saying it.
So for me on Israel, when I say I don't care, and everyone on both sides goes, well, you're saying that because, no, I'm saying that because that's what I think.
I'm saying, and I always have, which is why, by the way, you can go through my catalog.
I've been blabbering my opinions publicly for a while now.
And not as, you know, I haven't been in the business as long as you, but I've been, you know, at least 10 years on the record.
And if you go through that before I worked at the Daily Wire and while I was there, when I was independent, I was an independent blogger, just like churning out content.
And, you know, and you can go through all that.
And here's what you'll find.
You'll find that I almost never ever talked about Israel.
And when I did talk about it on the rare, like once every five years, if it came up, my take was, I don't really care about this.
I don't care about this country.
It's not my country.
You know, if you're in America, if you're an American politician, you should care about America first.
They keep you cozy without overheating, and they help you sleep several degrees cooler than you would with other materials.
Their blankets make the perfect cozy gift.
With its textured bubble design and soft fur feel, it is perfect for reading by the fire, staying warm in a cabin in the woods.
Every single Cozy Earth product comes with a 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty.
Everyday luxury at a decent price.
Cozyearth.com is the address.
Use the code Tucker of up to 40% off.
Order by December 12th for Christmas delivery.
After the 12th, the code Tucker will still work year-round for 20% off.
And by the way, if you get a post-purchase survey, mention that you heard about Cozy Earth from this show.
So here's the point.
It's not actually about Israel.
It's about the components of the American right who are defending mass murder.
And I mean that murder, killing people who didn't do anything wrong in Gaza.
That's it.
It's not Israel.
It's what about the parts of this coalition that, as you noted, Charlie really did keep together that are now fracturing.
But one of the reasons they're fracturing is because they have different views, different worldviews, and that is obvious when you hear how they respond to the murder of kids and women in Gaza.
So it's Americans responding to that.
Are you really conservative?
How are you not the leftist that you just described?
If you're like, well, they're basically all Hamas, including the kids.
That is collective punishment.
That's blood guilt.
That's the opposite of what you described.
How can I be on the same side as someone with that attitude?
I think that if somebody is making the argument that we or Israel can kill as many Palestinians as they want, can kill children because their lives have no value, because they're Palestinian.
If you're making that argument, then that is a leftist argument.
However, however, I think that there are plenty of people who would defend and have defended Israel's actions in Gaza and even our involvement, which I don't agree with us being involved at all, but people have had that view.
But not on that basis.
What they would say is, you know, they would say, oh, well, it's not true that they're killing children.
Or it's really tragic, but there's no other way to fight the war.
It's not intentional.
We're actually targeting the terrorists, and these are casualties that happen like in any war.
It's very bad.
You try to minimize them, but we don't want that to happen.
They could say, you know, there's many arguments along those lines.
Also, arguments that just kind of reject the premise.
Like, your premise is that they're doing mass murder of people in Gaza.
I think that there are conservatives who would just reject that premise and say that's not actually happening.
But if you, just, I think the undisputed fact there are tens of thousands, 70,000, we can certainly say tens of thousands of women and children killed in Gaza.
And so there are really two arguments you can make.
One is that that happens in war, collateral damage, which is true.
It's 100% true that that always happens in war.
It hasn't happened at this scale in 80 years, but in the West, but it does happen.
And the United States has done a lot of it.
We dropped the atom bombs.
Okay.
So Israel is not the only country that's done this.
But are you sad about it?
Do you think it's bad?
Would you be willing to say, holy shit, I can't believe we killed 70,000 non-combatants?
That's the acid test.
Can you admit that that's horrible?
It's horrible.
It's a moral crime.
It was a moral crime when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
And it's not even a close call, in my view.
That's not an endorsement of the imperial Japanese government, but it's like that's just bad.
If you can't say that, then you are endorsing collective punishment, aren't you?
Well, I think it goes back to what argument are you making?
So like using Hiroshima, for example.
And I'll be honest, I've kind of been on both sides of that.
I think there's interesting arguments on both sides.
I think a morally untenable argument would be, well, yeah, just kill as many as you need to.
They don't matter.
They were Japanese.
They were the enemy.
Just kill them.
Like, that's morally untenable, obviously.
And based on that argument, well, then we could just nuke, if you get into a war, just like nuke the entire country, kill everybody, and why not?
And that obviously is that is rejecting the value of human life, which is an unconservative view.
It's also just deeply immoral.
But the other side of the argument for like the Adam bomb, for example, would say, well, this was the best way to preserve human life, that these were legitimate military targets.
And the way to preserve human life ultimately was this way.
If we had not done it, then millions more people would have died, millions more Japanese would have died.
And that's the argument.
Now, like I said, I can see the argument for that.
Now, that runs into the charge of ends justify the means.
Well, it's not, yeah, it's not okay to intentionally and deliberately kill an innocent person.
I think that, you know, in war, innocent people do die.
I think that there can just, there are a lot of wars that have been unjust.
There is such a thing as a just war.
There's such a thing as a necessary war.
And if we can agree on that, then we have to accept that in any war, innocent people will die.
It's a terrible tragedy.
So now, but the argument that I was just laying out for dropping the atom bomb, it's true.
That can be terribly abused.
My only point is, and I'm not even taking a position on that because my honest view is like I kind of feel like I have an opinion of it and then I express it and someone comes and they just eviscerate my argument on it.
My point about that is whatever is the correct view.
Let's just accept for the sake of argument.
I'll take your view that dropping the atom bomb was morally wrong.
I still think that somebody could be wrong about that, but for the right reasons.
And so they're still kind of on my side because the wrong, if you're correct in your argument, then the wrong for the right reasons position is, yeah, we cherish human life.
This was the best way ultimately to preserve human life.
And again, you could say, well, that's wrong, but someone could have that view.
And the reason why they have it is because they truly believe in the sanctity of human life and they just honestly believe that that was the best way to preserve it.
That was my opinion until recently as a lifelong adamant pro-lifer.
So I, I mean, I want to give myself the benefit of the doubt.
You know, I'm not for dead kids.
I guess what has really brought this to the fore is a guy called Randy Fine, who's a congressman from Florida who, you know, I disagree with on a lot.
I don't think I disagree with him on anything, actually.
He spent his career in the gambling business exploiting people, and now he got some kind of clever way to find a Senate, a House seat in Florida.
Everything about it I disapprove of.
And of course, I don't like his foreign policy views, but there are a lot of people like that, and I'm not mad at them.
What makes him unusual is that he said out loud what I think a lot of people think, which is like it's hilarious to see a picture of a dead child in Gaza.
Somebody tweeted him.
I know you're online, you've seen this, a picture of a dead baby in Gaza.
And he laughed at it and said, Someone said, How can you sleep at night?
You know, getting self-righteous with him, okay?
Being high-handed like the anti-war left is.
How can you sleep?
But, okay, so I get it.
They're annoying.
But like, it is like his response was, very well, thank you.
Thanks for the pick.
If that's your gut reaction to a picture of a dead baby, we are not on the same side in any way.
On the deepest level, we're not on the same side.
I'm a father.
Like, I'm not, how can I laugh at that?
I can't.
And that to me revealed what I think a lot of people think, who I know very well who call themselves conservatives, which is just like these are not human beings.
Well, if you've got that attitude, how can you really care about me or my country or my children?
Yeah, I think that I certainly would agree with you on that.
If you think that dead kids are funny, then we're not, we're not just on the same side, but this goes back to I don't think we're living in the same universe.
Yeah, because you fundamentally cannot value human life if you could ever see it as funny that a child is so for sure.
And I think that there are people that we would call neocons that are definitely not conservative by any stretch.
My only point to you is that I think there are plenty of people who are on the other side of the argument who are conservative and they just don't agree with the premise that you're laying out.
They don't, and they do want to preserve human life.
They think this is the way to do it.
They could be wrong, but people can be wrong about that.
Because I'm actually, I think in some ways we should have a lot more violence in society.
I'm sort of pro-violence in a certain context.
I think that violence can be a necessary tool for justice.
I just believe that.
Now, it can be really misused, and it very often is, and I think it very often is these days, but it is a necessary tool for justice.
And so what I'm really mostly talking about are evil people who've committed terrible crimes against the innocent.
And I think that through illegal means, and I'm talking about, you know, I'm talking about extrajudicial lynchings or anything.
I'm talking about legal means for those kinds of people, we should be using violence a lot more because I think that it's just I just think that it's justice.
What is justice?
Justice is giving to someone what they're owed, giving to anything.
Putting things in their right place, basically, I would say, is justice.
So giving someone what they're owed is justice.
So if you owe me $5, it's justice that you give me $5.
That's a matter of justice.
And if you give me $3 and you owe me $5, that's an injustice that has occurred.
Now, if I slap your wife in front of you, I'm owed something else.
I'm not owed $5, but I am owed something now.
It is right that I receive something.
And that, I would say, is a slap, right?
You slap my wife, I'll punch you 10 times in the face instead.
That is a just response.
That is justice.
And I think what we have these days, you got a lot of people walking around doing this, literally assaulting women.
And they don't receive what they're owed.
And what they're owed is harsh and I think sometimes violent but just punishment.
I mean, of course, viscerally, I agree with you, and all of this is just aimed at whites, obviously, because what you're talking about is a racial dynamic where non-whites who commit crimes just aren't punished as harshly as whites who commit crimes.
So it's a racial double standard designed to destroy the country, which it's doing.
And I feel that every person feels that, like the need for justice.
And sometimes that expression is physical.
How do you balance that against like the Sermon on the Mount, which I happen to have read this morning, where Jesus is like, well, the law is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but I tell you, you know, turn the other cheek.
And, you know, he takes your shirt, give him your cloak.
And when I see evil people, I actually do sometimes hate them.
And hate means like, I don't just want justice for you.
I want you to suffer and I want you to burn in hell.
And as Christians, we should never want that.
We should never want anyone to be damned.
And sometimes I find that feeling in myself.
I pray about it.
I just have to be honest that I do feel that way about really bad people.
But how do you square this?
I think that, so turn the other cheek.
I think it's very important to notice that Jesus is saying, if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.
What he does not say is, if someone slaps your wife, someone slaps your child or someone slaps an innocent woman on the subway, turn the other cheek.
Because turning the other cheek in that situation is not you being the bigger man.
It's you being a coward.
And so that's how I square it.
And that's how I can also square Jesus having these kinds of, you know, quote-unquote anti-violence statements that they made with also famously, he goes into the temple and fashions a whip.
I mean, that's what scripture says.
It's not even like he grabbed one.
This was a premeditated.
This was premeditated.
He made it first degree.
And so he fashions a whip and he starts beating these people to get them out of the temple.
And that is violent.
I mean, think about, it's easy to read these stories and just read it as a story.
We've heard it a million times.
Heard it in Sunday school as a child.
It gets kind of sanitized.
Well, imagine actually seeing this happen.
I mean, imagine actually seeing it in real life, that you're there and somebody has a whip and they are throwing down tables, beating people with whips.
Well, there's also a theme that runs throughout the New Testament where Jesus and his disciple Paul draw a very clean distinction between you as a Christian and the state.
So the state is held to different states.
The state operates by a different code.
Right.
Render under God what's God's, render Caesar what's Caesar's.
What happens when the state, and we're experiencing this right now, because I think that is kind of the answer.
The state has authority from God.
Now, it's hard sometimes, especially for conservatives to accept that, but that's scriptural.
The state has authority from God.
Now, it can reject its mandate.
It can do things that are evil, obviously, and it can do things that we should reject, and in some cases, even rebel against in the most extreme cases.
So we know all that is true.
But the state, as like an institution, generally speaking, has authority.
This is God ordained.
This is what God wants.
He doesn't want us all to live as he doesn't want anarchy where there's no one in charge.
So the state has that authority.
What happens when the state refuses to exercise that authority?
And what happens when it refuses to enact justice and it refuses to protect the innocent?
Well, perilously, because that's not, I would prefer, that's not the best option.
The best option is the state does its job.
The other option is ultimately chaos.
I mean, that's where it leads.
But that's where we are.
I think right now you have like the best version of that are people who have benevolent intentions and know what they're doing and are good, decent people, and they step up in an extreme situation because nobody else will.
And they do the thing that the state won't do, but they don't go overboard and they don't become Batman.
And so like Daniel Penny, for example.
I mean, Daniel Penny is an example of someone who said, okay, I got to step in.
I got to do the right thing.
This guy should not be out here.
He should not be allowed on this subway.
There should be some kind of cop here to arrest him.
No one is doing it.
I'm going to step up.
And I'm glad that he did.
He was right to do it.
And so that's the best version of it.
The best version of people stepping in where the state has failed.
That's a rhetorical question, but it's like, if you see heroism like that and it goes unrewarded, in fact, if it's punished, then you have a total inversion of justice.
If I'm looking at that happening and I'm in Daniel Penny's shoes and I got a wife and children at home, I think the right thing is for me to step up and do what he did, but I'm not even sure if it's the right thing because I got a wife and kids.
And now I got to call them.
I got to call my wife and say, hey, by the way, I might be going to prison forever.
Even now, you feel that, even after the last election, and clearly there's a reaction against the kind of government that we had, you still would feel like no one in authority would support you.
I think the rot, well, first of all, this is a, I mean, when we talk about the state in general failing to do the basic things to preserve civilization, this is a wide problem.
Well, so that was kind of the broad, that was exactly the question I'm asking.
And I don't even know if I have, you sent out an amazing tweet recently.
Oh, it's right here.
December 4th.
I want to read it.
It's an empirical fact that basically everything in our day-to-day lives has gotten worse over the years.
The quality of everything, food, clothing, entertainment, air travel, roads, traffic, infrastructure, housing, et cetera, has declined in observable ways.
You're a nice writer, by the way.
Thank you.
There's not enough good writing on Twitter.
Even newer inventions, search engines, social media, smartphones, have gone downhill drastically.
This isn't just a random old man yells at clouds complaint.
It's true.
It's happening.
The decline can be measured.
Everyone sees it.
Everyone feels it.
Meanwhile, political pundits and podcast hosts, speaking of things that are getting worse, focus on anything and everything except these practical real-life problems that actually affect our quality of life.
So I have like eight questions there.
And I'm going to ask you about your core observation.
I think for, well, the most obvious answer is that for a lot of these people, pundits, podcast hosts, cable news, all the media in general, a lot of them, I think, are insulated from a lot of this stuff.
They don't live in this world.
Yeah, that's right.
And things like, so for example, we're talking about things that are getting worse.
One thing, and it seems small, but it's not.
One thing that's really getting worse is restaurant food.
The food at most restaurants, I'll talk about like chain restaurants.
You go to Applebee's or Chili's or whatever.
You order a pizza from one of these places, especially one of these chain places.
And the food is worse.
And that's not just, again, it's not old man.
I am an old man yelling at clouds, but that's not what this is.
It is true.
It's a real thing that's happening.
And you can trace it.
You can look at, okay, starting in the early 2000s, all these places started getting bought up by private equity companies.
And so now they're run by people who don't care about the product or even know anything about it.
So that's happening.
Also, it used to be that you go to these places and it's a bunch of teenagers and college kids that are working there and they're just working there to make some money to pay for college or whatever.
And that's happening less now.
And now you've got adults, you know, An increasing number of people with substance abuse problems, people who, you know, they're in their late 20s and they're still, you know, they're doing a job that a 16-year-old used to do because their life isn't working out exactly as it should.
That's its own problems.
Like, why is that happening, right?
But, but the effect of that is that even a lot of the people, not all of them at all, but a lot of the people in the establishments that are working there on the ground don't really care that much about the product.
And you can see why they don't care.
They're getting paid crap wages.
They've got a difficult life.
They're working for people who don't care about it.
Like, so the guy who runs this, if I'm working at Applebee's and I'm a waiter and I'm looking at it like, okay, the guy who runs this place doesn't know anything about this.
He doesn't care.
I'm getting paid nothing.
Why do I care?
You know, so I don't care.
And so that's happening.
And then the quality of the food.
It used to be that most of these places made their food fresh.
Now no place makes fresh food anymore.
They all buy frozen food.
There are a couple of food distributors, Cisco is one of them, that the vast majority of the food that you eat at a Chili's or Applebee's or whatever is distributed.
It comes off the same truck.
It's the same frozen food that comes off of the same truck and that is served in all these places, which is why all the food sucks and it all tastes the same because it's literally the same.
People don't know that even with pizza places, again, everything's frozen.
There's one, I forget the name of it, there's one cheese distributor that distributes most of the cheese at all these different places.
Now, podcast hosts and pundits, a lot of them, why don't they care?
Well, there's two reasons.
Number one, they're not eating at these places.
And if you have money, then you don't have to worry about that because you can go to expensive places where the steak costs $85 and it's not going to hurt you much because you got a lot of money.
And if you have a lot of money, then you don't notice any of this because at the really fancy restaurants where people spend a lot of money, most of those places are still making fresh food.
And the service is a lot better because they're paying better wages to their waiters.
Like now you've got older waiters and waitresses, but they're older who have kind of climbed up the ladder.
They're really good at this.
They get paid better wages.
They care about it.
Like you go into one of these fancy places and I like eating.
I mean, who doesn't like eating these kind of restaurants?
The food is good.
But you go into it and one of the first things you notice before you even get to the quality of the food is that everyone, at least in the good places, everyone that you interact with, starting at the hostess stand, seems to be really happy that you're there and they care that you're having a good experience.
That is not how it works when you go to Chili's.
So anyway, these podcasts, these people that I'm talking about, they're in those places.
And so they're not in the places where the quality is falling off a cliff.
And then also, I think that, and this is something we all do, and I do it too.
You get caught in this, we're dealing with like national issues all the time.
We're dealing with politics and what's happening in Washington and the president and geopolitics and what's happening.
We're dealing with these massive big things all the time.
If you're a pundit, if you do commentary.
And so you can fall into this line of thinking that the things that actually impact someone's physical everyday life, those things are just too small to worry about.
And this is one thing I notice about a lot of people in the world that I have always lived in is they either spend time, and this is true for me, I'll admit it.
They either spend time in very rich places or in very rural, like low-income places, but there's no time spent in the middle, which is where the overwhelming majority of Americans live.
So it's like only rich people, only poor people, but no middle-class people.
So they have a sense of like, you know, a lot of rich people have summer houses, so they sort of get the, you know, if you're on Nantucket, right, and you go there in the winter and everyone's on drugs, you're like, oh, wow, you know, fentanyl is a huge problem in our country, but there's no Applebee's.
There's no Applebee's in Cambridge, Mass.
There's no Applebee's in Nantucket.
There's no, do you see what I'm saying?
You just, you do get a very, you know, I am so guilty of this.
In fact, so guilty that I really go out of my way to like understand, you know, but there's no sense of like normalcy.
So it's just, there's a basic, I'm not saying you got to go and walk around a Walmart like a safari trip just to understand America.
I'm just saying that it's just like, that's, yeah, that's what's going on in America at a place like that.
And if you're just never there at all, to your point about either you're out in the sticks or you're in the really wealthy areas, then you're not really in touch with what's actually happening in America.
One of those things is, yeah, when you go, you do notice this, when you go to the places where everybody goes, Walmart is one of those places, the DMV is one of those places, like a place where everybody has to go.
Yeah.
Unless they're very, very, very rich.
Right.
Or very, very, very poor.
When you go to those places, you do notice, you start noticing things.
And one of those things is like, yeah, it looks a lot different now.
It's, yeah, not nearly as many white people as there used to be.
Well, for every other, it's funny because certainly for every other race on the planet, if we were to look and see that in their native countries, they are dwindling and disappearing.
Everyone, it would be nothing controversial about saying, well, this is bad.
If I, if we look, we get these panics all the time.
Oh, all the Amazonian horned owls are disappearing or whatever.
And they're going away.
We have to preserve them.
No one even stops and asks, like, why do we need Amazonian horns?
We've got a million other owls.
Well, owls.
Why do we need these owls?
And it's just seen as like, well, they're a species that existed.
They should continue to exist.
And so for every other demographic and species of living being, we can all agree that if those people disappear, that it's bad and white people are the only one.
That where we can't say that.
And part of the reason for that, I think, is, well, there's a lot of anti-white sentiment.
But also, so I use the example of Nigeria.
Everyone recognizes that Nigerians or black are the native inhabitants of Nigeria.
And so if the native inhabitants go away, we see that as a bad thing.
The Amazonian horned owl is a native inhabitant of the, I don't think that exists.
I'm just, yeah, whatever.
But they're a native inhabitant of the Amazon, and so they should be there.
With white people, it's this really interesting thing where what we're told is that white people are not native anywhere.
We are not indigenous to anywhere, which is why, and I'm not like making this up.
There's nowhere in the world you can go where the people who are officially recognized as the indigenous habitants are white.
Because we're told that, okay, here are the indigenous inhabitants.
And what's implied every time we talk about indigenous people or just outright said is that, well, this land is really theirs.
And so you shouldn't be here.
And so what we're saying to white people everywhere is that you shouldn't be here.
Well, where should we be?
Do you want us to go to Mars?
I mean, are we going to, like, are we going to Jupiter?
Where are we supposed to be?
Or are you just going to throw us into the ocean?
And I think the answer is that we really shouldn't be anywhere, which is why we should not be embarrassed or afraid to say that the Native, like Native Americans are white people of European descent.
The people that we call Native Americans now are not Native Americans.
And the reason they're not Native Americans is because they did not form a country called America.
They are not native.
America is a country.
It's not just a place.
It's not just a plot of land.
It is a country.
And before America was formed as a nation, this place was not America because America didn't exist.
America existed when it was formed.
And so if someone can trace their lineage back to the Comanche on the Great Plains, well, that doesn't make you a you weren't native to America.
You're native to Comancheria.
You're native to this.
You're not native to the country of America.
The people who are native to the nation of America, the people who formed this nation, were, by and large, almost exclusively white people of European descent.
They are the natives of this country.
They're the ones who formed this country.
That doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to live here.
It just means that they're the natives.
And again, anywhere else in the world, there's nothing controversial about pointing that out.
And we're the only place where we're not allowed to say that.
But I've been on this, I've been preaching this for a while now.
I think we need to, not just as a gimmick, like I really believe we should reclaim the title of Native American and not to denigrate the people that we call natives, who I think that they're, it's really interesting to read about their cultures and their history.
They fought brutally with each other over the land.
All of the so-called natives that were here and had claimed land when Europeans first started showing up in the late 1400s, early 1500s, all of those people were on that land because they brutally killed who'd been on it before.
And by the way, it's been suppressed for many decades by anthropologists and archaeologists, by the official policy of the U.S. government, but cracking the human genome made it impossible to deny the origin of the American Indians, which was Asia.
It's fine.
I mean, I really like the Native Americans personally.
Yeah, I'm not against them at all.
I feel so bad for them, but you're absolutely 100% right.
I just find it so interesting, the coordinated effort to exterminate white people, which is in full flower now, but it's so, you know, it's 1945 is when it started.
But it was every part of our society.
I mean, I remember at Fox News in the most gentle way trying to say, you know, maybe all lives do matter, or we shouldn't attack whites because they're white.
Man, it was like the worst argument I ever got in with the senior executive at the network.
Like, that's racist.
No, it's actually an argument against racism.
It's like everybody on all sides was so brainwashed in just accepting this.
And then, of course, it happened.
And so I wonder, does it ever let up?
It didn't let up in Zimbabwe or South Africa.
You like take the power, kill a bunch of whites, suppress them, and then like 30 years later, you're still blaming them for everything.
Will that happen here when this becomes majority non-white?
But so one, so one, one success that I think that you're starting to see recently is that the left used to get a lot of mileage out of obviously not engaging with arguments, but just labeling them.
They would just label the argument.
And so they would say, their way of engaging with argument is say, well, argument's not wrong or right.
I don't care about that.
The argument is an ist or ism.
The argument is racist.
The argument is, you know, whatever, bigoted, Islamophobic, whatever, anti-Semitic.
So they used to get a lot of mileage out of that.
And I think what's happening now is that people are saying, well, I don't care about the labels.
Like, you can say whatever label you want.
It just doesn't mean anything to me.
And the reason it doesn't mean anything to me is it's not my fault.
It's your fault.
When you decided that everything fits under that label, the label doesn't mean anything anymore.
Exactly.
And I think that's made people more fearless.
There was a time, I mean, look, you go back, go back to 2000, not 2000.
Well, certainly 2000, but even going back to 2020, in the throes of the Floyd hysteria.
And for a lot of people, being called racist was, it's like the worst thing in the world.
And yet I still haven't seen many people, especially people who spend a lot of time claiming bias against them, coming out and making unequivocal statements against anti-white hate.
Like, that's the one category.
I haven't seen a lot of people say that.
Like, no, hating whites is every bit as hating blacks or hating Jews or hating Asians or whatever.
Hating a group is immoral.
I have seen very few people say that.
And Barry Weiss is not big on that.
Why?
Like, why can't we just say that?
It's all the same.
It's all species of the same evil.
Like, that's my opinion.
I think that's the Christian view.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's certainly my opinion, and it makes a coherent argument, but I never see anybody say that.
Well, I think it's a lot of that is programming that's been going on for a long time to the way a lot of people are programmed is that to speak specifically in defense of white people as a group, to say anything positive about white people as a group is just automatically racist.
And I think that this is bunker.
It's absurd, but it's ingrained deeply.
I mean, this goes back to I can remember this kind of conditioning in public school in the 90s.
I went to public school.
I can, you know, we talk about wokeness like it just started in 2015.
It didn't.
And maybe it was worse in 2015 than it was in 1993.
I can remember it in 1993.
And I can remember being in school.
And the only time that if we ever talked about like our ancestors or the people who founded this country or anything like that, it was either in an expressly negative way, let's talk about all the terrible things they did.
Or if we are going to acknowledge anything good they did, we have to couch it by first saying, well, here's a lot of bad things they did.
These were the shock troops of a total takeover and change in the country.
Like this was preparation for what we got under Biden, where it's just like, let's just totally transform the demographic graphics of the country in four years, and then no one will feel free to say anything about it because racism.
Yeah, well, that in particular is one of those things that it's so dark and so depraved that when you talk about it, I think a lot of people, especially in America, they think you're making it up or you're exaggerating.
I almost don't talk about it very often because I don't think anyone believes it, but I live right near Canada and I know, and I'm like the only American who really sincerely loves Canada because it's just so beautiful.
Not the only, but not many people care about Canada.
I do.
So I know a lot of Canadians, and that's absolutely, you look it up on the inner tubes.
The government killing you, and not because you have ALS, but because you can't pay your rent, and then extending it to children and then harvesting the organs and the blood.
I mean, I feel like they're a way bigger threat to the United States than Venezuela.
I would be open to an argument in favor of invading and occupying Canada on human rights grounds.
I'm not joking even a tiny bit.
I think it's one of the darkest countries in the world.
And it's such a great country with such great people.
I don't know how we can allow this to happen without at least saying something about it.
I'm not actually arguing for military action, but like maybe threatening it.
They're way worse than Maduro.
Way worse than Maduro.
Way worse.
So like, but I'm sure I'll be scolded for how can you say that?
But I think that also for some conservatives in this country, there's some embarrassment about this because I think there are plenty of conservatives who've been at least indifferent to the issue of euthanasia and have even kind of, I've had many arguments with so-called conservatives over the years.
Not as much now because you see what's happening with MAID, but over the years with saying that, well, you know, because they get hung up on this, well, it's a personal choice.
And they just think as conservatives, you just, you cannot oppose a personal choice.
You just, you can't do it.
And it's kind of the libertarian instinct gone way haywire in my mind.
And so they're, but now you can see, now, those of us who have always been against.
And also, and also, so those of us who are opposed to it, we have been saying for years, like, this is where it's going to go.
Okay, yeah, right now, and the other argument for euthanasia was, well, these are people who are in terrible pain and they're at death's door.
They've only got days or at most weeks to live anyway.
They're in horrible pain.
You have no idea what it's like.
And so they should be able to have a way out.
And from an emotional level, I get what you're saying.
I totally disagree with it.
I get what you're saying.
Our argument was, well, there's a few arguments, but the big one was: okay, that's what we're doing.
It's already evil to do that even with someone who's terminally ill.
They're doing that now, though.
It will not stop there because it never stops there.
And once you give the state and the medical establishment the authority to kill, they will not stop.
It always starts with the most justifiable version of it that they can muster, which is still totally unjustifiable in my view.
But they always start with the most justifiable version, and then next it's like, okay, yeah, but we should include people who maybe they're not terminally ill, but they're chronically ill and they're a lot of pain.
And okay, now we've included them.
Well, what about mental illnesses?
Well, what about this person over there?
He's homeless.
Yeah, he's not terminally ill, but his life has no meaning and he's terrible.
And the other thing is when you give the medical establishment, when you accept the idea that death is a treatment, you have opened the darkest door imaginable.
And this is what's so frustrating is that what are often decried as slippery slope arguments, people talk about, oh, it's a fallacy, slippery slope.
First of all, slippery slope is not a fallacy.
It's not a fallacious way of making an argument.
All we're trying to show you is that, okay, here's a door you've opened.
Okay.
You've made an argument to justify something.
And what I'm trying to tell you is that I can take that argument intact and use it to justify this thing over here that we both agree is horrific.
And so if I can do that, what that tells me is that what it should tell you is that either your argument is bad or the thing you're arguing for is bad or both.
And so that's what the slippery slope thing is.
And that was the point with euthanasia.
Once you allow the medical establishment to use death, murder, as a form of medical treatment, you've completely flipped it on its head because the whole point of medicine is to heal and treat.
So to avoid death and pain.
Like that's the point of it.
And now you've flipped it upside down and you've said that death is the treatment.
But did you realize I certainly didn't realize it really was the COVID vaccine and the lack of COVID treatment, the intentional lack of COVID, letting people die rather than treating their symptoms, which happened extensively across the United States.
That's when I was like, these people aren't just wrong.
They're like the worst people.
The physicians are the worst people in the country.
And for all the nurses, sweet nurses, I love nurses, sorry, who like stood up and like, this is wrong.
Almost no doctors did.
A few, a few, Mary Tally Bowden and people like that, but like not a lot.
Well, and how about also there's abortion, euthanasia, COVID, Uganda.
But then also something that I don't think we should just drop and move on from, because speaking of justice, there has not been justice for this, which is that for years, we had the entire medical establishment unanimously almost telling us that the best thing to do with a young boy who's a little bit confused about his identity is to castrate him.
And they were doing that.
They were doing that to thousands of kids.
They were chopping the breasts off.
They're still doing it in some places.
But it was certainly happening at scale for a long time.
They're chopping the breasts off of 15-year-old girls.
And to your point, it was not just like a few doctors.
There's a lot of doctors that were involved in it.
A lot more doctors supported it.
And a lot of other doctors who maybe didn't like it, but they didn't say a word.
They did not speak up against it.
This is some of the most insane, barbaric, Frankenstein bullshit that the world has ever seen.
Completely unjustifiable.
No one can argue in defense of it.
It's one of the craziest things that's ever happened in the history of the planet.
And the way that the advocates for this, the way that they argued in favor of it, because obviously they couldn't make any substantive argument for castrating kids, what they would always say is, well, look at all these medical establishments.
What's so crazy is that female genital mutilation, which is universal in a few countries, I think Somalia is one of them, but was very frowned upon by feminists and also by me as a lover of women.
And it was a feature of debate on cable news shows like most of my life as a cable news debater.
FGM, you know, we do a segment on FGM or whatever.
Can you believe they're doing this?
And like nobody would defend it.
You know, we'd look far and wide.
Who will defend female genital, a clitorectomy?
Like who would defend that?
And, you know, our bookers tried really hard, but there weren't many.
I mean, look, nobody wants to admit it now, but at the height of the trans madness, and I don't mean to talk about it totally in the past tense, like it's over.
And so what that tells us is that it's actually very easy for people to convince themselves to go along with the worst evils that are even conceivable.
Yeah, it's, well, because what you have are, I mean, usually, this is not how it always works out, but you've got the really evil thing being promoted, facilitated by the left, whether it's abortion or euthanasia, whatever else.
And then you've got cowardice on the right refusing to speak up against it until it's very safe to do so.
And then everybody does.
That's why it's also been on the trans issue.
It's been interesting over the last year, year and a half, to have people coming out of the woodwork, very boldly saying, you know, men shouldn't be in women's sports.
Well, charges of, well, when people say things that just aren't true, and it happens all the time, and it's the one thing I should be the most used to, I guess, I am.
So that's why some of the people that go after me publicly, even people I consider friends, and I'm like, you have my phone number, you can call me and you're not.
And I try to understand, like, I do my, maybe it's for my own sanity.
I try to be as charitable as possible and think like, well, they're just, they're wrong, but they're really angry.
And they've got this whole story about me that's not correct.
But that's what's happening.
They're just pissed off.
And I've been pissed off before and said things I regret.
So I think a lot of that's happening.
To go back to the question of what to do about it.
Well, I guess I don't know why I'm going back to it because I don't have the answer.
But I think the only thing that can be done is for all of us, if you're on the right, to go back to some of the basics that we talked about at the beginning of the conversation, like what is it that we want?
And if our lists match up, like we want the same things, we're trying to conserve and preserve the same things.
Then the only way forward is with that, is for us to realize that, like, let's reorient towards that.
Make that the goal.
And remember that even when we disagree, we're going to have disagreements, but we're only disagreeing about how to do this thing that we both want done.
And I think that's the way forward.
Now, on the other hand, maybe you start looking at your list and you realize that I actually don't even want the same things as these people.
So, the things there, if we, if someone looks at that, like that's, I'm speaking for myself, and not just myself, I think a lot, but, but that's, that's my North Star.
And if you look at that and you say, well, I want the same things, like, I, I, I, that's what I'm fighting for, um, then you are on my side, period.
Like, we, we are on the same side, and we'll have a lot of arguments, again, about how to do that, how to achieve that.
We'll have a lot of arguments about it, and those could be like fruitful arguments.
Those don't have to be angry, nasty, personal arguments.
They could just be discussions, you know, as adults.
And we'll do that, but we're on the same side.
However, if you look at that and you say, you know, well, I don't need, I don't believe in any of that.
Like, I don't, well, I don't believe in God.
I don't like truth.
We all have our own truth.
The family, I think the family is like, you know, marriage doesn't matter.
We don't need the family.
And a lot of people feel that way.
So, fine, you're allowed to feel that way.
We're not on the same side at all.
No matter what else you believe.
And then I might agree with you.
Then you might go on from there and say, yeah, but I really think that gun rights are important.
And I think we need to restrict immigration.
And I want to abolish the income tax or whatever.
I'd agree with you on those points, but we're not fundamentally on the same side.
It's just a way of categorizing and organizing things so we can speak about them coherently.
But sometimes the labels that we use, you know, we have to shift it over.
There might be people who, but like anyone who you've talked to who we would say is on the left who agrees with all that, well, then I would say they're not on the left.
Yeah, maybe for the during the when we're talking about the trans issue and I've sort of talked about the teams, what I've come to call the side that's against all the trans madness is team sanity.
It's just we're for sanity like on this issue or sane people.
And fully acknowledging that on that issue, there were people who I don't agree with on like anything else, but are sane on this.
But the point I would try to make to them, I think mostly unsuccessfully, is that, okay, if we agree on this, then I think like if you can see the truth on this, then I think we should agree on a lot more.
And I think that I think like a lot of people, you kind of go through waves.
I go through waves.
And then I go through.
And here's what happens with me.
And I think it's probably relatable.
Is that when you're really frustrated and stressed out and things are not really working out how you want them to, your kind of prayer life can dry up too.
And it starts because that starts feeling, everything just starts feeling kind of dry.
Everything starts feeling like nothing's working.
No one's listening.
You feel frustrated.
No one in your life is like hearing what you're saying.
And you start to feel like God is not hearing you either.
And it's just this kind of frustration.
And then it snowballs, you know, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because now everything feels kind of dried up and frustrated.
And so that's what happens with your prayer life.
And then everything gets worse because of that.
And so those are the moments where you have to be very intentional and say, I'm really annoyed and frustrated.
I don't feel like praying.
I don't even know if God's listening.
He's always listening.
But in a frustrated moment, you feel like he's not.
And that's when you have to realize that and then reorient yourself and become, you know, and for me, when I have those moments, I've found that just being more structured, like sometimes you have to, like anything in life that is good, you have to kind of force yourself to do it sometimes.
I mean, it's also hard for me because it's my job.
And not like my job requires, you know, it's like a, not like there's a, I have to punch in the clock and go on X.
But part of the job is to be clued in.
And I'm also creating content every day.
I do a show five days a week, four days a week now.
And so this is where the conversation's happening.
This is where all the sort of content is, all the things I want to talk about.
I also use it as kind of a, you know, it's like I'll start a conversation on X and then I'll talk about it on the show and it's just kind of this feeds off of each other thing.
But the problem, and all that is good, and I'm glad that it's there for that reason.
Do you feel like when you, well, I'll tell you how I feel when I go on it, because I know so many of the people who are tweeting their opinions, it's like seeing all of your acquaintances naked.
I feel like people reveal so much about themselves and it's like, wow, you don't look great naked.
I mean, I never really thought about you naked, but now that I can see it, you should put some clothes back on.
That's the feeling I have every time I go on there.
That is a, that's, that's an interesting way of putting it.
And I think that's true.
I mean, that's, it used to be, right, if you were like a prominent person in some field, if you ever gave your opinions publicly, depending on the field, you might never give your opinion publicly.
But if you ever did, it was like in a structured, it was a very intentional kind of way.
And now we have, it used to be like, it's hard for people, for kids these days to realize this, but it used to be that we would have all these like famous people and celebrities, and most of them, we never knew what they thought about anything.
We had no clue what they thought.
We didn't even know what their personalities were.
We only saw them because they were throwing a football or because they were acting in a thing or whatever.
And now, yeah, we just know everyone's opinion up to date on everything.
So whoever thought that, I mean, if you told me 10 years ago that like all the people in charge were thoroughly banal and conventional at best, like they had nothing interesting to say.
They never thought about anything ever.
Like Hillary Clinton had not a single thought in her head.
And that some guy called Oren McIntyre, whoever that is, would turn out to be, you know, or you or like all these people who 10 years ago were not, they're very far from what we might think of as a public intellectual.
All of a sudden, they're, purely through the force of their ideas and the clarity of their expression, were kind of defining the terms.
That is a huge change.
It's totally disempowered the poo-bah class, and it's given rise to this like genuinely interesting, bubbling conversation.
Yeah, I do, which is why, I mean, we talk about social media, talk about X, and I don't want to talk as though I think it's a overall, like nothing but a negative, because I do think it allows.
Like it allows, and it obviously has created a situation where the institutions that used to control the conversation completely now don't control it at all.
They're like, they've shown that they're just not impressive, that like in the true enfabled marketplace of ideas, they're like a rummage sale, actually.
I was just thinking, I saw, I don't remember who the guy was, but yeah, I read a tweet a couple days ago, and it was this lengthy, like really well-written analysis of something I can't even remember.
But it's like a random Twitter account.
I don't know who that guy is.
Like, what?
And in a way, it's kind of sad because I read that.
Matt Walsh, some of us, probably not a huge group, but some of us, just kidding, really appreciate what you're doing and your clear thinking and your self-control and especially your summation of what actually matters.