SIX Months Since The Murder Of Charlie Kirk, Things Are MUCH Worse
Tate Brown and Will Chamberlain analyze the six-month post-Charlie Kirk landscape, arguing the right squandered political capital by failing to execute a public crackdown on Antifa despite its FTO designation. They critique media figures like Tucker Carlson for pivoting to anti-Zionism and alienating the base, while noting legal hurdles from hostile judiciary appointments hinder domestic immigration reforms. Ultimately, the discussion suggests conservative media's reliance on contrarianism over methodical governance has created a vacuum filled by bad actors, undermining tangible executive successes in foreign policy and national security. [Automatically generated summary]
Obviously, you probably saw from the title, we are going to be discussing.
We are, you know, it's been six months since the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The reason I'm bringing it up, because it would have been the 10th, would have been exactly six months.
There was a viral tweet that actually went around.
You know, it was doing the rounds this week, and everyone was discussing and kind of giving their thoughts on what lessons are we in a better place, worse place?
What's really been the recourse following the assassination of Charlie Kirk?
We will be bringing on the great Will Chamberlain at the halftime mark, and he'll be coming on to discuss this and many other things.
We also have this story out of Italy.
I wanted to bring this up.
Again, you know, the way I look at it, the Rumble daily lineup, which I'm taking you from the morning to the afternoon on, everyone's probably discussing the same sort of topics, which is fine because we're news shows.
It makes sense.
You know, they're discussing Iran and situations around that and different rumors and different statements from the president and coming out of the White House and these sorts of things.
I kind of wanted to touch on a few other stories that I think are big and have sort of large implications that maybe are slipping past a lot of the commentariate.
This was another story I really wanted to talk about.
Coming out of Italy, they basically had this law that allowed anyone that was of Italian descent, anyone of Italian heritage, anyone that was ethnically Italian, they would have the right to, again, pursue citizenship in Italy, return to their homeland, so to speak.
This went to court.
There was a law a year ago where they're basically trying to get rid of this, and then it went to court a few months ago.
And then the court just upheld that law, which basically undoes this sort of program, this mechanism that would allow ethnic Italians to return to Italy.
Really, there's a lot more going on than just this law, but we're going to have to get into it.
We'll get into that.
And then we have a few more stories if we have time.
We'll get into.
But before we do that, I need to bring you a word from today's sponsors.
It is Rumble Wallet.
Oh my gosh, we love Rumble Wallet.
You may have seen the conversations happening online lately.
Censorship is back and it is happening everywhere.
Platforms are controlling narratives and pushing the stuff that they want us to see.
We need to fight back.
Rumble is the only company that has stood the test of time and deserves our support.
On one side, Rumble is challenging big tech censorship, but now on the other side, they have introduced something that will give us protection from the big banks shutting us off.
Banks can control our accounts and freeze our cards.
So that is why Rumble has launched the Rumble Wallet.
A wallet that no one can cancel and a wallet that supporters can use to instantly tip creators like myself without taking without sorry any middleman taking cuts with rumble wallet.
You control your money.
Not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it.
With Rumble Wallet, it's yours and it is only yours.
It's your future, your family.
This is your wallet to protect.
You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and the new USAT tethers U.S. regulated stablecoin in one place.
Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars.
USAT keeps your money steady against inflation.
No banks needed.
Yeah, I talked to when we had Chris Pavloski on the show someone a few months ago now.
He was telling me that, like, you can go to Switzerland if you own this Tether Gold thing.
You can go to Switzerland and go like see the physical gold bars there that you own, which is you know, pretty sick.
It's only a wallet.
It's not only a wallet.
It is not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them with the click of a button.
There'll be no fees when you tip this channel or any others, and they actually receive the tip instantly.
Unlike other platforms where they have to wait for playouts, it's great stuff.
Support this show and many other creators by tipping or by clicking the tip button on the Rumble channel.
It's wallet.rumble.com.
Again, download Rumble Wallet today, open an account, and step away from the big banks for good.
Wallet.rumble.com or search Rumble Wallet in the App Store.
Thank you very much, Rumble, for sponsoring the show.
We love Rumble and we're very happy to be here home.
It's really just kind of epitomizes Charlie, I would say.
Patriotism, getting the crowd energized.
He's a showman, and I think that's a good thing.
I use that as a compliment because the right needs more.
Like, there's enough guys in a gaming chair like me giving their takes.
Not enough guys that are out there, you know, chopping it up.
Throat's getting a lot better today, but I'm going to keep pounding the water.
In this case, it's vitamin water, which is probably giving me cancer or something.
But yeah, so Charlie, obviously, six months since it's passing.
There's a lot to get into here as the dust has settled.
I'll read Revenant's commentary here.
I think it's very salient.
Here's what he had to say: six months after Charlie Kirk's murder, and the whole thing is treated as a bad joke because nothing serious was done about it.
Enormous political capital was unlocked that week and squandered in the following weeks.
The reality of this is beginning to set in for some of you.
So very punchy, very poignant.
And I would say he's broadly correct.
Now, some people following this, and I think I was sort of leaning this direction.
I didn't know how likely it was to happen, but I was certainly wanting a response like this was that we should have a total clampdown on the left, rip them apart.
You know, some people were hoping that we'd just straight up like ban the Democrat Party.
Obviously, a lot of these things were untenable, but to a large degree, we were expecting a crackdown and not just a crackdown, but a public crackdown.
Because it's one thing to have a crackdown, but it's another thing to have a public crackdown, which communicates to the bad actors that, hey, you know, this is not going to be tolerated.
We're coming after you.
We have a score to settle.
And that's not really what happened.
So let's evaluate what the dubs are.
We'll evaluate what the wins were following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The big one, the big one, as far as I see it, and it is a big deal.
So you have to give credit recorders to, I suppose, it is a big deal.
As Antifa was declared an FTO, a foreign terrorist organization.
That's actually a really big deal.
And this is something that a lot of people that are working in the admin have communicated to me.
A lot of aligned guys who, you know, I think are fair.
I think they're fair and honest guys.
And they've told me, they've communicated to me.
It is a big deal.
As a lot of people have pointed out, the FTO designation for Antifa.
The reason for that is not just a semantic change, right?
Not that we can now legally call them terrorists.
It's more than that, because we could have done that anyway.
Trump declared them a domestic terrorist organization additionally.
That doesn't actually give us really any new tools to go after them with.
If you call them a domestic terrorist organization, it just allows you to call them a terrorist for lack of, you know, like that's basically all the implications that there were of that designation.
And FTO is a big deal, primarily because now that they have an FTO designation, that allows, again, the NSA, really the entire Intel apparatus to be utilized against leftists.
Because again, if you're saying Antifa is a, if Antifa is a FTO, that allows the government to go after anyone that is sort of showing any sort of, what would the word be?
You know, support, I guess, for lack of a better word, any sort of support for Antifa, anything that would indicate that they are Antifa aligned.
It's the same thing you would do with Al-Qaeda.
If anyone in the United States was showing a tremendous level of support for Al-Qaeda, they'd get a knock on their door.
So, and that's fair.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
And so, you know, Antifa being declared an FTO means these people that are going up there and these leftists that are like, you know, I'm Antifa too.
I'm anti-fascist.
In theory, what you should have, what would have happened, you know, following that is it would have created an environment of fear in the United States for these people that ultimately have blood on their hands following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And the FTO would have, again, given the government the tools to clamp down on these sorts of things.
Again, was it unrealistic to expect, you know, like these massive raids and like, you know, the DNC getting raided and arrests of high-level politicians?
Probably.
That probably was in hindsight, you know, too much to ask for.
Not because the appetite wasn't there, the appetite was there, but again, just legally, it would be very difficult to pursue.
So I guess that's on one side.
The big win was the FTO designation.
The big loss was pretty much everything else.
You know what?
I'll read here from Stephen Edgington.
He actually had some great commentary.
He was responding to Revenant's sort of post here.
And Steve, he had to say, when George Floyd died, the left immobilized a global revolution.
Senior MOD officials in Britain met to discuss race communism.
Every major company signed up to the new agenda.
When Charlie Kirk was murdered by the far left, the right blamed Israel and Bickered.
And I think this really kind of gets at the crux of the issue.
Again, FTO designation, that's great.
Fantastic.
We're very happy with that.
And again, it gives us a lot of tools and these sorts of things.
The problem, I think, broadly is the response from the right.
So, okay, the Trump administration obviously has a bit of blame on this, a bit of blender.
They have blame.
I think, for one, what they should have done above all else is the communication, right?
The communication, the propaganda, when I use that term unironically, should have been a lot better following the assassination because the Trump administration has demonstrated they're excellent at providing social media.
They're excellent with social media as far as the packaging.
They're very good at it.
What should have been happening following the assassination of Charlie Kirk when the entire Trump administration apparatus was focused on it is they should have had these edits put together, for lack of a better word, these edits put together of all of these leftists celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk because the amount of political capital that was deposited into the Trump administration's bank account following that assassination was exorbitant, right?
It was exorbitant.
They were going to have a lot of trouble spending all of that in one place.
And you could have accumulated more political capital by, again, just communicating how bad things were to the American people.
Because I think a lot of people in the United States, they saw the assassination.
They saw, wow, this is terrible.
They didn't realize.
I think you speak to a lot of these people.
They didn't realize that a large proportion of the left was happy with the assassination and was cheering it on.
I mean, I wouldn't meet people that were apolitical, like they didn't really have any political consciousness.
Even people that were maybe would be like Democrat voters, right?
They'd be like Obama voters, these sorts of people.
And they had no idea that what was going on surrounding Charlie Kirk.
They're like, oh, yeah, I saw that.
It's really sad.
It's sad that he left his kids behind and had to leave his kids behind.
They were like sad, but they didn't understand the whole environment that led to that shooting.
And those are the types of people who need to be communicating what happened.
What actually led to Tyler Robinson killing him?
What was his political affiliation?
And then more importantly, what was the response from the left?
Because even if you have a, you know, even if you are still on the fence about what happened that day, at the very least, we can all agree what should have been highlighted first and foremost was the response to the shooting.
Because again, like almost a third of the country just demonstrated they wanted to kill everybody on the right.
Because they said what Charlie Kirk believed in, what Charlie Kirk's politics were, were grounds for assassination.
That was a valid assassination because of the views he had.
And people point this out all the time.
Charlie Kirk had the views of a contemporary conservative, a Christian.
Again, he wasn't like a radical, you know, far-right agitator or something like that.
He was very effective.
That's primarily why he's very effective is because he wasn't like, you know, purposely ghettoizing himself.
He was excellent on almost all the issues.
He was very excellent.
He was a conservative.
And I think the vast majority of people on the right would agree with pretty much everything, every one of his positions, or they would potentially be outflanking him to the right.
Who knows?
But that being said, again, for the base, for the MAGA base, Charlie Kirk, again, just kind of epitomized them.
He exemplified what they believe in.
And that was grounds for assassination.
That was grounds for assassination.
And that's what the left communicated to us over and over again.
And that's where I think people feel like not enough happened there.
And that's where people feel like the political capital was squandered.
So I want to provide a counterpoint here.
This is from Genomics.
They're a poster I've seen a few times.
Again, I don't know too much about them, but it was an interesting take here because I think this is fair.
I do think this is fair.
Does it help that some of the biggest right-wing media figures, media figures at best, totally tolerated completely deranged conspiracies about Charlie Kirk's murder, like Tucker Carlson or Megan Kelly, or at worst, actively engaged in it, i.e. Candace Owens?
And I think this is a really fair take.
So back to my point about the messaging, the communication, what was the right's sort of goal?
What were they upset about following the Charlie Kirk assassination?
We were focused for like three days.
There was like three days after the assassination where it felt like everyone kind of locked in and were really upset.
And I was thinking to myself, wow, this actually might be the moment.
This might be sort of the last straw, I guess, for the American people before they really just kind of take their country back.
And no, that wasn't the case.
And again, like, you know, how severe did we expect the crackdown to be?
Again, maybe I think, yeah, some of the demands were unrealistic.
But again, I think who is to blame primarily for the lack of focus following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Yes, the Trump administration, they could have done more.
I've already outlined what, where they fell short, these sorts of things.
In addition to, okay, we should have had more high-profile raids.
He should have been publicized.
There should have been some high-profile arrests.
I do agree with all these things.
And they've demonstrated they can do it.
They did with Don Lemon.
And the Biden administration did it all the time.
So it's possible.
That's what we needed.
So that's where the Trump administration failed.
That being said, I think the majority of the blame is on the right, on media, on the media, on the right-wing, you know, conservative, so to speak, media.
Again, people lost focus super quickly.
Again, they squandered all the political capital.
They muddied the water.
They poisoned the well.
Things got very confusing very quickly.
Candace Owens is the primary suspect here because she just has like an axe to grind, I guess.
Where, again, Kirk goes down and we have this moment.
And instead of everyone like concentrating fire on the left, because that would be the one side, who is most incentivized to kill Charlie Kirk?
It would be the left.
It would be the like leftists.
It would be someone exactly like Tyler Robinson.
Instead of like concentrating fire on them, instead they were going after his like, his widow, his like widowed wife, that's where they were concentrating fire, because she's like a theater kid and so her responses are, you know, kind of like that, like they're not, like it's just interest, like it's just.
You know, her reactions are interesting, I guess, for lack of a better word, I I don't even really understand what their gripe was entirely.
I think the fact that she didn't grieve exactly like it was expected, that makes her like in on it.
It's really hard to track what these people are saying.
No no, and that's what we focused on.
That's what the commentariate was obsessed with, instead of again concentrating fire on the left and yeah, so I mean it's.
It's actually quite easy to see how these things failed, because no one on the right can stay focused anymore.
There's a variety of reasons for that.
I think we can get into it with Will Chamberlain.
I think for the most part it's because again, stability and focus doesn't sell.
You need to be big, you need to be bold, you need to be grandiose.
So we'll get into all that.
We'll see if Will agrees what his take is.
But before we do, I do want to get to this story, and before we do, I'm gonna have a little more water, I think the vitamin Water, it just randomly appeared in the fridge downstairs.
I'm usually sipping on the coconut water or sometimes even the uh starbs.
They sell like these um nitro cans, which are quite nice.
But uh, we had the um the acai blueberry pomegranate vitamin water down the fridge, and it's you know, it's wacky and wild, it's getting the job done.
It's got uh 100% of my daily dosage of panthenic acid, whatever that is.
Jeez, Louise, I'm just drinking myself to death here.
I think, like, legitimately, legitimately, like whiskey would probably be healthier than what's going on.
I mean, the ingredients, it's like a shampoo bottle.
I can't understand any of this.
Vegetable juices, anyway.
Let's get into before I freaking crash out.
Let's read this.
This was uh from the great publication that never lies, uh, a CNN, um, the Clinton News Network, as my dad calls it.
The announcement will be a devastating blow for those who believe the court would uphold Italy's 160-year history of citizenship by descent, or us sanguine.
That's how you pronounce it.
This is they're responding to the infographic here.
Italy rules, uh, ruling tells millions with Italian roots they might have lost.
No, they have lost the right to citizenship.
Again, the reasoning a lot of people were giving for this, a guy's on the right, and it's just like bad reasoning for a lot of reasons.
Is they were like, oh, well, you know, there was this problem where Brazilians specifically would utilize this mechanism to get a passport and then they would move to like Spain or Germany for a job.
Okay.
Is the implication here that this is the only mechanism of like the immigration Italy's immigration system that's being scammed?
Is there even evidence that this mechanism is being scammed at a higher rate than any other immigration mechanism?
Um, as far as I could tell, no.
As far as I could tell through research, no, it looked like actually the country being granted the most dissent passports, so to speak, was Argentina, which is like an almost entirely Italian country, um, ethnically, or the majority of the country is ethnically Italian.
So, that's actually what I meant to say.
The Brazilians, I understand if that was like widespread, you know, you had this guy that was like an eighth, you know, eighth Italian or whatever, you know, and then he's going in and saying, oh, I'm Italian, da-da-da-da, and then he moves to Germany.
If that was like the vast majority of these visas, or sorry, these passports, I would understand.
No one ever presented the data for that.
That was just anecdotes.
It was a talking point that people were passing around so they could feel smart because the majority of people saw this and they said, This is probably bad.
And then, back to my original point: is there outsized scamming happening with this specific mechanism?
And furthermore, is there any indication that this is a part of the courts making a push towards limiting migration?
Is that what's going on?
Are you seriously under the impression that the Italian courts are now finally deciding to clamp down on migration and this is just the first domino to fall?
But they're going to be going after the other mechanisms next.
Or what's more likely is what I made the point here is Europe and the U.S. do this thing where they decide to lock in and enforce immigration laws with maximum tightness on other white people and then turn around and import as many useless third-world migrants as possible.
I think that's actually what's going on here.
I'm going to be completely honest with you.
Is I think what often happens with these bureaucrats is they like to just really clamp down hard on white people specifically because it feels good, right?
It feels like these people, they need to follow the law.
They see them as like equals.
They don't look down on them like they do on the third world or third world, they like pity these people.
Or with other Europeans, other white people, they view them as equals.
And so they're going to be staunch.
And furthermore, Europeans coming to America or Americans coming to Europe are going to follow every law.
They're not going to scam the system.
Or by extension, you know, Italians from Argentina, they are going to follow the law.
They are going to, again, check every box.
It doesn't like you don't see it happening very often that a European illegally immigrated to the United States and is getting deported, or certainly vice versa.
You don't really ever see that with Americans in Europe.
They get their paperwork done.
They want to do things by the book.
The illegal migration, the scamming comes from the third world, but that's where the government takes it easy.
That's where they put the kid gloves on.
And so this is, I think that's actually what's going on here.
Again, it's just to the people that are like, no, this is about the, you know, third world or it's about the Brazilians with like an eighth of Brazilian ancestry.
All you've done now, because again, there's no indication that they're clamping on migration elsewhere.
Actually, in Maloney's Italy, who, you know, everyone was in love with her when she first came in, migration was like at a decade high last year or two years ago.
Yeah, a year ago.
The migration level is at a decade high.
So I don't see any indication that Italy, it'd be one thing if Italy had completely like shut the borders and then this happens.
I'd be like, okay, you know, it wouldn't even make the news.
But it's the fact that this happens while migration is still running at a pretty high, high level.
That's where I'm like, where's the indication that they're going to lower migration anywhere across the board?
All that you're doing here is making your migration source less likely to be able to assimilate.
Again, okay, there's some people that were scamming the system.
You can reform the system.
You can reform this mechanism.
The Argentinian Italians or Italian Americans moving to Italy are going to assimilate quite easily.
Now it's going to be much more difficult for them to come.
You're going to still keep those migration levels at the same rate.
So all you're going to do is just allocate more slots to like Ghanaians and Ivorians or people from like Vietnam or something, people that it's going to be very difficult for them to simulate.
And you're already having problems with.
That's the actual reality here.
That's what the actual outcome is going to be from this is you've just worsened your migration source for no reason.
Because again, there's just no indication that Italy is lowering their migration rate across the board.
And this is part of my larger point that these countries, Europe and the U.S., have, even among the white population, an intrinsic anti-white self-hatred.
They hate themselves.
And they want to make it as difficult as possible for white people.
It's like move between the countries because it feels really good to like, you know, put your foot down when it's their equal and tell someone no.
But then again, they just pity the third world for the most part.
And honestly, they want to replace their native populations.
And so that's why you get what you get with the migration policy.
Alessandro Riolo here, I don't know too much about him, but he put an interesting statement up.
It's an Italian gentleman.
He said, I still don't feel like commenting on this yet.
Just an observation on the Italian side of social media.
Italian leftists are celebrating this as if they had won a major election.
Leftists are openly praising Giorgia Maloney for this.
And I did see some other people making the same statement.
So I think that kind of really says it all, is that leftists in Italy are, you know, thrilled that less ethnic Italians are going to be in the country and that more non-ethnic Italians will be in the country.
That's the math here.
That's the math problem.
So wild stuff.
And this is my point.
I mean, before we go to the interview, ask any American who is married to a European or like a Canadian or an Australian, right?
What it's like bringing their spouse to the United States.
Because I really have no problem if a British person, you know, as long as they're pretty conservative.
If a conservative, you know, from Europe or Canada or Australia wants to come here, that's not a problem because they assimilate quite easily and they're actually quite pleasant and they stay out of the way and they want to assimilate.
And what they do bring is quite interesting and adds to the culture.
Like no one's ever been like, oh, crap, this family from New Zealand just moved next door.
No one's ever been like, oh, we can't go on that.
That's a Norwegian neighborhood.
That's going to be, you know, no good.
Lock the doors, you know?
Oh, crap, we're turning on to Leif Erickson Street.
Like, no one's ever done that.
They're thrilled.
They're actually thrilled when that happens.
So I'm actually okay when Europeans or Canadians or Australians come to the country, even like even by even the Japanese.
It's the fact that when you ask these people who have tried to get their fiancé or spouse over, it is literally hell on earth.
They have to wait forever and they got a file that is super expensive.
And it takes, you know, it's just like a pain in the rear.
I mean, it's like a horrible, horrible experience just to bring in your spouse from like, that's from, you know, like Leicester in England.
And the government, the U.S. government treats them like you're potentially trying to bring in like an al-Qaeda member.
But if like a guy, like a fat, you know, guy wants to bring in his 20-year-old Filipino wife, not a problem.
For whatever reason, she just skips the line.
Like it's not a problem.
And then heaven forbid, a Mexican wants to bring in his Mexican wife from Mexico.
For whatever reason, she's just allowed to turn up.
So this is my problem is these guys that are trying to bring in people who really like are just other Westerners, really not a problem.
It's just kind of interchangeable cogs in some way.
If you're marrying, then your child will just be an American.
If you're bringing in like, again, your British wife, most difficult experience in the entire world.
H-1B worker, are you going to come here and like just slave away for NVIDIA or something?
Come on in.
No problem.
Rubber stamp.
But heaven forbid your wife from Canada wants to move here.
No, no, sorry.
We have strict immigration laws here.
You got to wait your wait your turn.
So it's just completely, I guess my point is it's completely inverted.
It should actually be really easy for like young Europeans who are like, you know, ambitious or they, you know, or their spouse or whatever.
But like for young Europeans or Canadians or Australians who are like, if they're entrepreneurial, that typically means they're going to be fairly right wing.
It should be super easy for them to come here because there's not that many that will come here.
There's not very many of them.
And then the ones that you will get are going to be like fantastic.
You know, you're going to get these like really sharp Dutch kids and French kids and Canadians that are like, again, conservative, entrepreneurial.
Those are the ones that like, yeah, that should be the easiest.
I still think it should be strict, but that should be the easiest.
Those should be the ones that can get into the country the easiest.
The hardest should be like a coder from India who's going to come in and undercut all of our coders, you know, or, you know, they're going to work in a finance, you know, in accounting or something like that.
And they come here or a doctor, and then they come here and undercut the wages of all the doctors here.
That should be the hardest.
Those people should be last in line, like very back of the line, because there's a billion of them.
That should be very last place.
Yet it's completely inverted where they just rock up all the time like it's nothing.
Like the door is wide open.
It's almost like we got like a subway system running to Mumbai or something.
They get in no problem and the visas are getting turned over left and right.
It's gone down under the Trump administration, thankfully, but like it's still crazy high.
DFW looks like a foreign country.
And then a guy from Germany who like has a lot of money and he's really ambitious and he feels out of step with his leftist government.
It's like the toughest thing in the world for him to come here.
Or a guy who's a patriot and his wife is from the Netherlands.
Completely impossible.
Six years and a ton of money to get it in the country.
It's the complete opposite of how it should be.
It's just, it's a residue from the anti-white sort of ethos that goes around in our culture where people take it out the hardest.
People take out their anger and their frustration.
More so, people want to feel like they want to feel powerful and signal that they're powerful to their contemporaries.
And what are your contemporaries for like people in the other white people?
And then they want to feel gracious and whatever for people that aren't from the West, people that are from the third world.
That's when the graciousness comes out and that's where they pity them and these sorts of things because it makes them feel good.
It doesn't feel good to let a wealthy, ambitious Canadian into the country.
They can provide for themselves.
But for these people, it feels really good to let in someone from Somalia that just seems to be such a, they need us.
Oh, they need us.
It's this huddled mass.
So I digress.
I imagine this is probably the first take in a while that I think a lot of you guys, majority of the audience, probably agree with.
Again, this isn't to say we should be flooding the country with like Germans, like America first, Americans only.
I'm just saying in the tiers of like easiest to come here to hardest to come here, they should be at the top.
They should be the easiest to come here.
It would be like Europeans and Canadians that are, again, like providing something for the United States, which indicates are going to be right-wing because left-wing people can't really provide much for the United States.
And it still should be tough for them.
It still should be restrictive.
I'm just saying the same thing's happening in Italy.
And then people are like clapping along like it's a dub.
So with that, we're going to get into our interview here with the great Will Chamberlain.
I cooked a little too long here.
Apologies to Will, but I'm going to go grab him.
We're going to have a word with him.
We're going to see what he thinks about this, that, and the other.
We're going to primarily discuss, obviously, the Charlie Kirk incident.
So the six months since Charlie Kirk, rather, and the reaction and everything in between.
You know, Mikey McCoy had put up his six-month commemoration post following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And it kind of kickstarted discourse again, almost like a, you know, people kind of going back and saying, okay, what was really accomplished in the wake?
You know, what were we thinking was going to happen?
What did happen from the Trump administration?
And then how did the right wing react?
I think that's kind of where most of the discourse is centered around.
There was this viral post by Revenant basically saying, like, oh, we completely fumbled it.
Then other people were saying, well, there wasn't too much we could do.
If who fumbled it was like the right-wing commentariat.
I'm kind of wondering what your take is.
I know it's kind of a broad topic, but maybe we could punch in first on how you think the Trump administration handled it, and then we can dive into the rest a little bit later.
The problem being that you actually have to prove funding and intent, which isn't just, you know, and like, did they, what they knew about what they were funding, et cetera.
So it's why we saw a lot.
You know, we arrested everybody who invaded that church with Don Lemon.
They're all already in jail.
That was, that was a guinea putt.
Arresting Antifa networks is, you know, a full 18-hole golf course.
It's a lot more work.
So the Trump administration couldn't do much.
There's never going to be any legal changes, serious legal changes coming the way because, I mean, we don't have the numbers we need in the Senate to overcome the filibuster and the left is in thrall to just as you know, the Democrat Party isn't going to antagonize Antifa.
So in terms of policy changes, we're never going to get that much.
I think people maybe were, you know, setting goals that weren't really achievable on that front.
And then you combine that with what I would call a complete implosion of the commentariat in the aftermath of this.
There's not much else that can be said about it.
And there's people I like, a lot of people I like who just did not have not handled this well at all.
I thought it was, and honestly, you know, I never want to criticize Erica Kirk, but I'm just going to say what I think it was a big mistake to publicly forgive the killer because what it did was it kind of took the air out of the room.
The sort of sense of, you know, once that happened, it was like, okay, well, this is sort of resolved the problem, even though it completely wasn't.
And so, you know, but that's just, I mean, her fault is tiny in comparison to people like Candace and Tucker, honestly, too.
I think both of them have a big, big share of blame in the failure of the right to consolidate and actually achieve anything in terms of cultural wins like the left achieved.
Well, I mean, because I sent you that tweet prior, and I'd read it on the show from Stephen Edgerton, who's doing great work over at GB News.
And he had put up, he made an interesting point where I hadn't seen anybody make this one-to-one comparison, which was, you know, following George Floyd, the left consolidated as much power as possible to the point where, again, they had white people like begging for mercy in the streets.
They had companies, you know, bending over backwards to accommodate the BLM.
They built out massive patronage networks coming from the government itself into their left-wing apparatus.
I mean, everywhere you looked, it was just massive victory after massive victory for the left following the George Floyd murder assassination, whatever you want to call it.
I think the George Floyd arrest that went south for him because he resisted.
That being said, it's neither here nor there.
But that was an excellent point by Stephen because then you kind of contrast it to what happened following Charlie Kirk.
To your point, there's not as much, and this is a tough thing for people to hear.
And a lot of people say it's cope, which it's just not.
I think a lot of people, I think, including you were actually kind of giving tempered responses following like, here's what we can actually do.
Let's put pressure on here.
The Antifa FTO designation is absolutely massive, game changer.
I mean, I've spoken to some guys in the note.
They're like, this effectively allows us to wiretap anyone that shows any sort of support for Antifa, you know, directly, which is massive.
But to your point, where you really consolidate power is messaging and sort of changing the view of kind of people that aren't completely tapped in on the situation.
Because a lot of people that I spoke to all over the country following the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand the dynamics at play.
They're just like, that's really sad.
He got shot.
They don't understand that there's like this leftist networks and these sorts of things because to your point, like maybe it took, what, three or four days before the right-wing commentariate sort of came unglued.
And the next thing you know, they're blaming his widow.
They're blaming Israel.
Russia.
Like it was on, like they're like these Rube Goldberg machines that led to like his assassin.
And that energy resembled the sort of energy that the left had consolidated after Charlie Kirk.
It was sort of the unified voice of the American political right saying, we aren't having this anymore.
And if you cheer this stuff on, we are going to punish you.
You know, basically, you are now persona non grata.
We are going to target you.
We are, you know, we aren't putting up with it anymore.
Like this sort of talk about us assassination talk.
And then, you know, the combination of the sort of the forgiveness moment, I think after the memorial, it all petered out really quickly.
And then Candace and others, you know, Candace deciding that her role was to, you know, not actually take the blame off the trans lunatic who murdered Charlie Kirk and blame it on Israel because she's a, you know, actually, you know, with zero evidence, zero evidence.
And her entire show has been a complete nonsense for months now.
And then the sort of failure of everyone.
The number of people, Tim is like one of the first people who actually came out and condemned Candace.
And I honestly think that if there were a uniform, overwhelming condemnation of Candace and the sort of sense she is persona non grata for everyone, Tucker, Megan, you name it, right?
Everybody's like, Candace is persona non grada.
We're not going to tolerate this.
Like, sorry, like you're, you're not only, you're not only making a whole bunch of stuff up for your own political hobby horse, you are distracting from the fact that this is like a left-wing lunatic who murdered Charlie Kirk.
And so that failure, that cascading failure meant, you know, okay, there's the energy is now going to be consumed by trying to restore the energy from the first two weeks.
And so we're all fighting with each other to try and get back there, but we can't.
So, you know, I mean, I, it's just, it's extremely distressing, I think.
And, you know, I think a lot of people, I just, I don't, I'm not impressed.
Like, I mean, obviously, I'm not impressed with Tucker.
I think Tucker did his own to sort of foment this division, apologizing for Candace, calling her truth seeker, bringing on Nick Flines, like six weeks after Charlie's murder.
Because I mean, and I think I'm fair categorizing it because he goes on and he's like, and I, look, I love Tucker Carlson.
I've been a huge fan of him for the longest time.
He's built up so much good grace with me over the years.
And it's been really disappointing just seeing him completely fall apart.
And I'm not unfounded here.
He literally went on and he's like, I have more in common with my Pakistani cab driver than my neighbor who's like left of center.
And I'm like, like, what?
I mean, what are you talking about?
Yeah, exactly.
And I see that.
And I'm just like, the whole point of MAGA at its core of this Trump movement, along with every other right-wing movement across the West right now, is immigration.
And Tucker, his most iconic moments, that moments where he won the most favor with Americans, besides like the COVID kind of fireside chats that we almost had kind of on Fox News during this, was, again, his hard-hitting commentary on immigration and waking a lot of people up on how bad that issue is.
And all that really does is just foment division and it undercuts the Trump administration, who like, again, this is like in many ways our last chance in a lot of ways.
I mean, this is the last like big push, it feels like from this kind of core American population before it turns into something else.
And to the credit of the Trump administration, they're doing the job.
They're grinding out, you know, one of the things people get frustrated by is sort of the aggressiveness which it may seem they pursue foreign policy objectives versus how careful they have to be domestically.
But that's literally just the way our constitution is set up.
It's just the structure of our government invests this enormous unilateral foreign policy power in the president.
And that power is just much more dispersed, requires much more consensus, requires much more legal, you know, legal box checking when he's in the world of domestic affairs and immigration.
It's just the way it works.
But he's the DOJ and ICE and Homeland Security are all grinding out these important legal victories in the courts.
Every incentive that the Trump administration, sorry, every sort of policy that the Trump administration, every sort of goal that they want to incentivize that they want to like have success in, every realm, I should say, that they want to have success in.
Every institution has been pointed the complete opposite direction for 60 years.
Also, you've all these liberal district judges who decided to go yellow it with every single decision.
I mean, you have these judges up in Massachusetts who like lose one case and then another one comes up on identical grounds and they rule the same way they did completely in ignorance of what the first circuit of the Supreme Court has said just like a week ago.
And the problem is the president, people are like, well, he should just defy the orders.
It's like, well, if he does that, then there's a whole slew of other problems you haven't considered if he starts defying court orders completely and just ignoring the judiciary because that's the, those are the people you have to go in and like get to sign off on just garden variety federal criminal cases.
Like you want to throw people in jail for any number of federal crimes that they're committing.
You can't just, you can't have them throwing, you know, you can't have, you need to have the judge willing to do that.
And so this sort of, I mean, you have these judges.
I think the Supreme Court in particular is like not going to wouldn't look kindly upon straight up judicial defiance, but there's, there's been so much, so much defiance coming from the judges themselves.
Because a lot of our guys, I would say guys that are sort of in our sphere that I would say are pretty aligned, often call that whenever there's an unfavorable court decision that comes down, they say defy the courts, ignore the courts, et cetera.
And at your point, you're making, I agree.
I mean, I've heard this outlined.
Can you maybe elaborate on like, can you game out what would happen that would be so unfavorable for the Trump administration that would be such a self-owned if you were after like the tariff decision, for example?
You know, there's a lot of discretion vested in federal district judges when dealing with just, let's just talk about criminal cases alone, criminal cases alone, right?
Bail, right?
They have the decision whether to withhold or grant bail.
They have sentencing discretion.
They can dismiss cases outright.
Much of their decision-making calculus revolves around treating prosecutors acting in front of them as acting in good faith.
And there's sort of these presumptions that are accorded to the government that it's like, I think it's presumption of normalcy or presumption of regularity.
That's what it is.
And it's the idea that they're behaving in sort of a regular, lawful, normal way.
You risk if the Trump administration takes as a stance, like we're just going to start defying these court orders that are ridiculous.
Well, then suddenly district judges all over the country might start throwing that stuff out, you know, right?
And suddenly it becomes impossible for DOJ to keep people in jail, to put people in jail, to successfully prosecute people.
It's got, it's there's.
And those district judges also, that comes up like they get habeas cases constantly where they're getting asked to, you know release uh, legal immigrants on bon.
That's another good example.
Yeah, you know, do we start losing that like, do we start?
And moreover, I mean the.
The Trump administration has, like this 92 win rate of the Supreme Court and we've made a lot of really good law, like the tariff decision aside, they've been running the table basically, and especially in immigration, like we want a huge decision that the.
You know, if we win this at the Supreme Court, it'll change the game entirely.
There was a Fifth Circuit opinion I talked about this a couple weeks ago two, three weeks ago where basically they said if you didn't cross at a port of entry and you're an illegal alien in the United States and you're detained, you're not entitled to bond, you're actually required to be detained.
Got to understand with the calculus how that changes the calculus for an illegal alien who's in the country and they they didn't cross at a port of entry they, they have to realize that Feiss picks them up.
They don't get to go home and get their things, they're just done, they just yeah, they get to sit and if they want to challenge their detention, they get to sit in immigration detention while the while the proceedings play out, they're probably just going to lose because again they're illegal aliens and then they just go home and they never have a right to come back.
So it's like literally their entire world in the United States implodes right, whereas before if you were picked up, you would just get bonded out so like you could go home, get your things settled.
You let tell your lawyer, your free lawyer, to like play out the string as long as possible while you've got your affairs in order and and then finally, maybe a couple years down the road, might had to go home.
Like that's not how it works anymore.
That gets nationalized, you're gonna.
The appeal suddenly of self-deportation is is a lot bigger, because if you sign up for self-deportation, what that does is, you know you sign up on CB CBP, HOME ICE will deprioritize you right, like they'll basically say, if you know, while you're you've said you're going to depart in two weeks okay, go for it.
Right, we're not going to just arrest you.
You can wrap up your affairs and also you get a free plane type plane ticket home and 2500 bucks.
Yeah, you know, compare that to like your entire world implodes and you just you basically forfeit every, all your assets in the United States if ICE finds you.
So if we can get that nationwide, we can really change things.
Because again, so much of the dilemma here is that while president Trump with the Big Beautiful bill was able to fund the machine of deportation, he wasn't able to change the underlying law right.
So the administration has to go through these processes with everybody who demands them.
So you really need to create an incentive for those people to forgo uh, going through the sort of whole rigor marole of you know, your bs asylum claim and your bs withholding of removal claim to get to finally deporting you.
If, if people have to sit in immigration detention while that's happening, they're just likely to give up on their bad claims.
Well, here's my problem because this all makes total sense to me.
This makes perfect sense, actually.
But it's not sexy.
You know, this isn't going to sell on the Rumble homepage.
It certainly isn't going to sell on the Twitter for You page.
And that kind of seems to be at the crux of the issues.
People, I think, in some ways, fairly, like in the base, our patience is running a bit thin.
You know, they do feel like their back's against the wall to some degree.
I think all that's fair.
I'm not judging the base for this.
It's the people capitalizing on that feeling and not just fomenting division, but literally undercutting the Trump administration when, like, again, to your point, they are, what he said, a 92% win rate.
Like, they're racking up dubs in a lot of ways.
Even the big picture items, like net negative migration, just like the state, there's just some things that are statements.
Like, the only refugees allowed in are like white South Africans.
Like, there's, there's statements that are being made.
And it's like, I would say the majority of the commentariat and the new media space, by far, actually, by far the majority, just are, I guess they're convinced that they're getting one over.
Like the Trump Minister is getting one over on them somehow.
We just got a Ninth Circuit ruling affirming the government's authority to do that.
So like big win, but and that's that's a normal appellate process, right?
Like from initial order to district court challenge to injunction to appeal to district to appell a court order, 14 months is like, you know, or a year is reasonable, actually.
This is not, this is not unheard of at all.
It's actually well within normal bounds.
So I think, you know, and especially like, again, people see the instantaneous ability of the government to act in foreign affairs.
This is sort of the problem, actually, like a good meta thing.
You can just do things in foreign affairs.
You can't just do things domestically.
And so once you understand that that's the framework with which you have to evaluate what the administration is doing, rather than saying like, oh, clearly they're, you know, they're totally selling out because they're doing all these things in foreign affairs and things are slow on the domestic front.
It's literally like, no, that's, that's our, our government is structured to make that how it works.
Like, the reason to not go into war on Iran, I'm not some sort of libertarian pacifist.
I was doing the cost-benefit analysis, right?
I didn't think our government was capable of doing something like that competently.
I thought we'd get bogged down.
Like, I thought clearly, it clearly would just be a bad idea given Iraq and Afghanistan.
And then the 12-day war happened and the Maduro raid happened.
And if you didn't reassess how you calibrated the capability of the American military at that point upwards and also reassess the capability of the Iranian military way down as a result of that, then I think you were making a Bayesian error.
And so now, given those new calculations, like Iran is, one, it was a paper tiger to begin with.
Two, it is uniquely weak right now.
We are actually much stronger than maybe we thought we were.
Okay, so now you, now this whole like, you know, 50-year problem suddenly becomes, well, now we can just solve this actually.
And that's just, there's, I hate to do this routine because it's almost like a cliche at this point, but it's like, there's no room for nuance.
But it actually is kind of true.
Like, there is no room for like elaborating.
This is my problem on Timcast IRL.
A lot of my takes seem unpopular because I have to package it in like a 30-second chiming in.
But I'm like, if you give me like three or four minutes to explain why, like, no, like it's not a good idea to tell everyone not to go to college, then like I can win you over.
But in 30 seconds, people are just saying, why are you shilling for Harvard?
It's like, okay, well, it's because it's a more complicated topic.
And, but this is, I guess, kind of back to like the original point is the reason I think Charlie was so effective and why the commentariate is so ugly.
Because I hate this, this talking point people say, they go, well, he was like center right.
Why would they kill him?
That's like if we, you know, whatever, and they insert name here, he wasn't even a radical.
And it's like, that's the point because he was effective.
And it's the same thing with the Trump administration.
It's like sometimes the things that aren't sexy, because like radical politics, that's sexy and intriguing.
Charlie Kirk wasn't that.
He was the stodgy, you know, freedom, you know, freedom and liberty.
It's like, because it's not sexy sometimes, but it's the most effective.
And the same thing with the Trump administration.
And that's why Trump has been targeted so much.
That's why Charlie Kirk was targeted because he was effective.
He was actually stepping into the mainstream and like shifting it to where he needed it to be because he actually was a very consistently right-wing, authentically right-wing guy.
So it drives me crazy when people that I like, but they say this all the time.
You can find me at Will Chamberlain on X. I'm a pretty prolific poster if you don't already know.
And you can follow what we're doing at the Article 3 Project on a3paction.com.
And the final little piece is that NatCon Jerusalem will be at the beginning of June.
A very cool conference.
And if you haven't ever taken the chance to see the Holy Land, assuming we've won, which I think we will have by that point, it'll be a wonderful time to see it.