9/11 to Charlie Kirk's Assassination -- The Unraveling of America | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Eleven, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and individual runs.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the yurran Brook Show, right everybody, welcome to
you on book show on this September eleventh, twenty twenty five,
A day September eleventh, that will always.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Standing in for me.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
We will always remember that day. I will always remember
that day. I know some of you might be too
young to remember that day, but always remember nine to eleven,
two thousand and one.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
So today I.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Thought we talked about nine to eleven, What we can
learn from nine to eleven, what we have learned from
nine to eleven, The connection between nine to eleven and.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
What happened yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
To whoops snow video to Charlie Cook, and you know,
to what extent.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Is what happened yesterday kind of a consequence.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
Of what has happened over the last twenty four years
and where we've gone. I view nine to eleven is
a seminal event of of well the century.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
But the century is young, and it was right at
the beginning of the century.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
But it is an event that has shaped America since then,
It has shaped geopolitics since then, and it is the
event that I think more than any has led to
where we are today in America, probably the most significant
event in.

Speaker 3 (01:52):
American history since I don't know, since World War.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Two maybe, and not in a good way, in a
very negative way, and impacting our lives in a very
negative way. And again I think ultimately yesterday's murder assassination
of Charlie Cook is a consequence of a process started

(02:19):
in two thousand and one. There was also today a
really interesting and I think significant article written by Nile
Ferguson in the Free Press Ossam bin Ladin's humanous posthumous victory,
where there's a sense in which he declares Ossam bin

(02:41):
Ladin is winning. And I think he's right, and we
can talk about that and exactly what is tearing apart
the West. A quick update since we are we do
do news here on the Ilon Book Show during the week.
Quick update and where we are with the Charlie Cook assassination.

(03:06):
There is no video of the person who killed Charlie Cook.
They have they do have a video of him.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
They do photos of him.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
They distributed photos and there's now a reward for any
information about him. They have found a they have found
a the rifle that was used and it's a it's
a hunting rifle. It's an old hunting rifle. And now

(03:37):
they are claims that on the cottridges from the hunting
rifle they are Antifa and protrans I guess symbol statements,
but I also saw things that say, well, that's not accurate,
that's not that's not true. So hard to tell. But
they do have the rifle, and they do a video

(03:59):
of the guy, so they walk. Now it's just a
question of time to figure out exactly who he is
and to find him and to catch him and to
discover the the ultimate motivation. Uh, you know, it's it's
still highly looks highly likely that this is some left
this not.

Speaker 3 (04:18):
Who did this, somebody who is.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
You don't wish Charlie Cook dead and was willing to
take action to do it, which requires a certain evil
but also potentially a certain sickness.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
So so this is this is this is a.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Bad guy, right, this is there some bad guy who
who did this. It's also interesting just from the news
aspect of it, but is related to a broader theme,
will be related to about a theme that immediately I'm
seeing all over the place conspiracy theories about this. The
rifle is not the real rifle. The shooter is not

(05:02):
a leftist but a professional. Behind us is a security
an intelligence agency. We won't say which country, but maybe
it starts with a you, or maybe it starts with
an eye, but it's yeah, it's either Ukraine or Israel
is really behind this. Charlie was anti Ukraine, kind of

(05:22):
pro Russia and was tilting maybe in the last few
weeks away from Israel and what was doing in Gaza,
and was becoming critical of Israel. At least that's the
conspiracy theories Israel that came out, other conspiracy theories, you know,
all kinds of stuff. At the end of the day,
most of the conspiracy theories they're seen about Charlie Cook's death,

(05:43):
just like most conspiracy theories about pretty much anything in life,
ultimately have the Jews doing it.

Speaker 3 (05:50):
So the Jews doing it.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
And let me just say add to what I said yesterday.
As you know, as I've said many times, I know Charlie.
I knew him when he was significant younger. I haven't
met him probably the last time I saw him was
just before COVID, I think in twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen,

(06:15):
maybe even as late as twenty seventeen earliest twenty seventeen.
I don't know, and I liked him in those days.
He has been he had been a real source of
disappointment to me over the last over the last five
six years, as he became more and more embedded in MAGA.

(06:38):
I think he was wrong on many many things, and
really really bad on many many things. But nothing he said,
nothing is said, justifies his killing.

Speaker 3 (06:50):
Nothing he said justifies his murder.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
And it's disgusting, and it's scary, and.

Speaker 3 (06:59):
So so where the countries going and and what comes next?

Speaker 1 (07:04):
There were a number of i'd say fringe left as
celebrating this murder. Most of the establishment left, most of
the people in Democratic Party and the establishment left are
condemning this, and many of them seemingly very emotional about it.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
Senec I think I'm pronouncing his name, and I've seen some.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
Others who got very emotional about it and really condemning this,
even even.

Speaker 3 (07:39):
What's his name.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
The guy I did a little clip with the socialist,
Hassan Parker or whatever his name is, was very it
was very condemned this. But there's still there a lot
of people on the left celebrating this. And I did
see some people just being interviewed on the street on
campuses where students were saying, yeah, I mean, this is

(08:01):
a good thing that somebody shot Charlie Cook. So there
there certainly is that at the fringe, there is that element.
I don't think that dominates the left. I'm not sure
what the left means. I don't think it dominates the
Democratic Party. But it's a it's a it's a great
opportunity to demonize everybody to the left of center and

(08:21):
make this about everybody left of center as a communist.
Everybody left the sender's a homocidomdiac. Everybody in the left
of center wants to wants to plunge this country into
a civil war that serves some people's agenda. Sadly, Uh,
many people on the right are using terminology and and

(08:45):
and language that is truly scary in terms of calling
in a sense for revenge, for cleaning house, for running
up the entire Democratic Party, for outlawing the Democratic Party
for I mean again, this.

Speaker 3 (08:59):
These the ringe voices on the right that are calling
for this.

Speaker 1 (09:02):
But it's given that the right is the party in power,
it's sometimes how to tell what it's fringe and what
is not.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
And so.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
It's it's scary to think what could be done in
the name of retribution, what could be done in the
name of Oh, we're just trying to stop those violent leftists.
And it's scary that the left has gotten to a point,
or certain people in the left have gotten to a

(09:39):
point where this is how they're expressing themselves through acts
of violence. So political violence is likely to increase. We've
I think this has been true, you know, for a
decade now, and it's likely to increase. And I don't

(10:00):
see any adults in the room who can calm things
down and bring people together to talk and and and
to really to really, you know, to really kind of
figure this out and and and solve the problems. And
and it could very well be that the problems, the

(10:20):
philosophical problems that have created this gap in America splinter
in America as such that it's it's going to be
very it's not clear how to resolve them in a
healthy way. I can see how to resolve them in
unhealthy ways. But but let's hope it doesn't get to that.

(10:42):
Let's hope it doesn't get to them. But at all,
in a sense, started with nine to eleven. Nine to
eleven is when the lies at scale, I think, started
and the lies became more and more and more blatant, blatant.

(11:05):
Nine to eleven, or immediately after nine eleven, we were
immediately told that the war we were facing, the war
that we faced, was not a war with Islam. It
was not a religious war and had nothing to do
indeed with religion. Islam was a religion of peace. We
were told by President Bush. There was haijak by extremists.

(11:28):
Ramadan was celebrated a month after nine to eleven. Ramadan
was celebrated at the White House. The appeasement of Islam
and of Muslims uh went from the top, from the

(11:48):
president all the way down throughout our culture. And indeed,
the first time I saw real demonstrations on campuses and
and and and and islands on campuses, and the first
time I felt threatened on campuses on a campus was
during those days after nine to eleven, giving talks and

(12:09):
farm policy on campuses was dangerous. We had demonstrations, riots, attacks.
The same people today in the Free Palestine movement. We're
in the where you can't condemn Muslims for this movement.
Back then, you can't show Mohammed cartoons movement back then,

(12:34):
you can't offend Muslims at all. The argument was this
is terrorism, it was some extreme sect. If you were
a libertarian then or a leftist, then you argued that
this was all America's fault anyway, and.

Speaker 3 (12:58):
We should not be.

Speaker 1 (12:59):
Responding at all. And you know, and it was all
it was all afold. It was all afold, and who
are we to judge? And the fact that over three
thousand Americans died that day didn't affect anybody. If you
think about the left, if you think about this vicious
left that was seen today, the viciousness of celebrating.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
The death of Charlie Cook.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
Well, there were people on the left after nine to
eleven who were celebrating the fall of the of the Towers.
They were kind of happy that capitalism had been attacked,
that the symbols of capitalism as they viewed it, had
been demolished as they and the Islamist viewed it. They
were kind of you know, the third plane went to

(13:48):
the Pentagon, the symbol of American I don't know, colonialism,
American imperialism, American oppression of people's all over the world,
and they were.

Speaker 3 (13:59):
Kind of happy that that happened.

Speaker 1 (14:02):
I mean, I think they were faith to express that,
but very quickly they turned against anything the United States
did in order to protect itself. Very quickly, everything the
United States did was bad. And indeed there was them
world were the victim, not the United States, not the

(14:26):
country that was actually attacked. So the left's viciousness, the
less hatred of capitalism, the less hatred of America, of
Western civilization. Nine to eleven really brought that into the open.
It was there already before that. You saw it quite
a bit in the nineteen ninety nine demonstrations in Seattle, demonstrations,

(14:50):
riots in Seattle against the World Trade Organization, the White Teo,
a meeting in Seattle to try to cut a trade deal.
So just the viciousness and hatred they had towards capitalism,
and they embraced nine to eleven in that sense, and
in a sense the the the deal. The alliance between

(15:15):
the radical, the far left, and and the Islamists started
way back then, and I think that the beginning of
many Americans looking at that and seeing them for what
they were. The viciousness, the hatred, the extent of that hatred,

(15:35):
I think started really seeing that separation between the right
and the left. The right almost instinctually, because they didn't
they didn't really conceptualize it was supportive of America. America
could do no wrong, America is good. Jeorge Juish is
up president. He was gonna save us, he was gonna punish,
punish the bad guys. And then there were these Americans

(15:59):
who actually seem to support the bad guys. And you
see this beginning of this, I mean of a split
that always existed, but now was widening dramatically. Nine to eleven,
of course, as I said, was the beginning of the lying,
the lying about Islam, the lying about what we were

(16:22):
doing in Iraq, the lying about what we were doing
in Afghanistan. How long it would take whether we won
or we lost, whether we could win or could lose,
what was the real military assessment, what was going on,
the lying about our commitment to victory. And I think

(16:45):
American sense that it took them a while. It took
them a while. It wasn't until the mid to late
two thousands that he really got it. And as I so,
nine to eleven really made everybody left and right suspicious
of our politics, suspicious of our leaders suspicious of our
intelligence agencies as they gained more and more information or

(17:10):
they thought they gained information about what was actually going on.

Speaker 3 (17:14):
You know, you saw.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
The level of conspiracy series that came out again both
on the left and the right of who did that?
Techokossin just yesterday, I think was talking about the fact
that the FBI has a file that says that the
Israelis knew of the attack and refused to let and

(17:39):
did not tell the Americans. The Jews did it, or
the Jews weighed on it, or the Jews knew about it,
the Jews didn't show up to work that day. Has
been part of a story on the far right and
the far left since nine to eleven.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
And again it.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Was shocking and surprising back then to hear it, not
chucking and surprising at all today not chucking at all today,
because today we know that this is how so many
Americans respond to any controversial news immediately with conspiracy theories, immediately,

(18:19):
with conspiracy theories centered around what they're always centered around.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
The Jews. They did it.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
So what you see, you know, people talk about the
rush horshoe theory. I mean that was evident already after
nine to eleven.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
With the conspiracy theories.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
And there's a sense in which it's always been true
that the fall right and the fall left are very
very similar to one another, because they're both collectivists, they're
both irrational, they're both mystical in different ways, but they're
both mystical, and the result of that is of their mysticism,
is that they're both the same. They both share the

(19:08):
same kind of irrationalities. Two thousand and eight, then was
the second trigger of the twenty first century where America's
lost all faith and all trust and all belief. And
up to that point it was faith, trust, and belief.
It wasn't knowledge of capitalism. They thought they had capitalism.

(19:32):
It failed them. They were traumatized by it. It was
blamed on capitalism. Nobody stood up to defend capitalism. And
again it was bushed that bailed out the banks and
bailed out everybody else. And everybody's bailing out everybody except
for the little guy who didn't get bailed out at all.
And that distrust, that hatred, that sense that everybody's lying,

(19:56):
that sense that the experts don't know what they're doing,
that the authorities are completely confused and have no clue.
That grew and got substantiated during the two thousand and
eight two thousand and nine crisis, and out of that
came the Tea Party, and the Tea Party was a.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Response to.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
A distrust of government, a sense that things have gone
too far, that mixed economy had completely failed, and we
needed to do something. And there was something in our past.
They were finding fathers that was good and we need
to return to that, and we need to find that,
and we need to re embrace that. But as I
said many times, it was non intellectual. It was not

(20:43):
founded on proper principle. It was not grounded and a
true understanding of the founders of what or of what
America is. But it was a last gasp. It was
a last gasp of America. It was a last gap
of Americanism in this country. It was a very weak gasp,
it was very pathetic gasp in many ways, but it
was a last gasp of an attempt, an attempt to

(21:08):
resurrect something of the goodness that is at the hearts,
at the core of America. But it was no intellectual,
it was not based on anything, and it got very
quickly captured by the conspiracy theory religious right, and it

(21:30):
had no place to go. It had no proper leadership,
no political leadership, no intellectual leadership. But the one thing
that united the Tea Party, and they united the Tea
Party and the modern right is a vicious hatred of

(21:54):
the left, a hatred tool, as you said, was justified,
but was visceral, and on their terms, they couldn't explain it,
they couldn't validate it. But it was hatred. It was
hatred of Obama, everything Obama stood for. It was a

(22:17):
hatred of the left and everything the left stood for.
It was a feeling, and it was a feeling more
than anything else, that American being betrayed, that American being
stabbed in the back. And it had be But by
whom was it? The left who had betrayed America? They

(22:44):
didn't know, They still don't know. And what you got
was these two parties, the left and the right, becoming
more and more emotional, more and more vicious.

Speaker 3 (22:57):
You know, what do you call it?

Speaker 1 (23:00):
The Tea Party was happening at the same time as
Occupy Wall Street, manifestations of very similar emotions, very similar conspiracies,
very similar frustrations, but one hearkening back to a past
of goodness, so it had a base in goodness because
there was a past, and the other just being nihilistic

(23:22):
and not knowing what to before they knew what they
were against Wall Street business. Inequality was the big issue.
The rich, those were all the bad guys, but they
didn't know where to go for the good other than
towards socialism. And what you already started to get is
this clash, this clash of right and left, this clash

(23:43):
of socialists, American haters and American lovers, but who don't
really understand what America is, don't know what America is,
can't articulate what America is, latching onto a past that
is no longer here, and of course we know the
story from there, you know, the Tea Party and the

(24:05):
right latched onto Donald Trump as a savior of something
they don't again, can't articulate what of America, but what America?
What does America mean to them? America to Donald Trump
is very different than America that the Tea Party tried
to articulate, that the Tea Party seemed.

Speaker 3 (24:23):
To refer to in history.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Donald Trump's America is very different than that America that
they seem to be supporting, and the rift, which is
primarily emotional and cultural, just kept getting deeper and deeper.

(24:46):
And let's just say that in the meantime, because this
is important for the legacy of nine to eleven. In
the meantime, then the lessons of nine to eleven were
never learned. The enemy was never really identify, and by
any account, the United States did not win. We clearly

(25:09):
lost in Afghanistan, handed it over to the enemy, returned
it to the enemy under Trump and Biden, Trump signing
the peace deal, Biden literally handing it over or fleeing
with his tail between the legs from Afghanistan and leaving
it to the Taliban. Iraq was never really one. Was

(25:32):
still there. It's still not one. The Swamish cause has morphed.
It's morphed into a smarter cause, although you know, it's
mophed into a more political cause than a terrorism cause.

Speaker 3 (25:53):
Although of course Hamas.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
Is the last remnant of the militant side of the
Islamist cause, and it's it's it's going to continue more
because you know, maybe it is Israel that is finally
winning the war on terror. But as as Neil Ferguson says,
maybe we won the war on terror. It looks like

(26:17):
we won the word terror that they know real Islamic
terrorist attacks in the United States at least, But it
really does look like being a Latin won the geopolitical war,
the bigger war, or is winning it. Think about the

(26:39):
fact again, you know, Afghanistan is in their hands. Islamism,
Islam as a religion is growing significantly. Islam is a
religion in Europe is going significantly, and the European islam

(26:59):
Is to be quite radicalized. They seem to be committed
to Sharia law. They seem to be committed to the
lack of separation between state, church and state, or mosque
and state. And they seem to be winning. Not in
the battlefield. They can't win in the battlefield, not even
with terrorism. They can't win with terrorism. You know, it

(27:21):
doesn't take much from intelligence, for intelligence services in our
military to crush them, to crush their efforts, even terrorist wise,
even with asymmetrical warfare, it doesn't take that much to
defeat them. Look at isis it had it had it today,
but it couldn't survive. But where they win, as in

(27:46):
the cultural war, where they win in the fact that
nobody is going to publish a cartoon of Muhammad in
Europe or the United States. Indeed, in you Europe, nobody
is going to say anything negative about Islam. Indeed, in

(28:07):
the UK, if you treat something negative about Islam, you
might get a call from the police. Islam is untouchable.
They've won there, and to some extent that's true in America.
They now have admirers of sharia law, both on the right,

(28:32):
Tucker Carlson and on the far left, the whole Free
Palestine movement. Look at the demonstrations all over Europe and
the United States, the pomas.

Speaker 3 (28:45):
You know they weren't all Muslims.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
A lot of Americans, a lot of Europeans, non Muslim Europeans,
non Muslim Americans joining those demonstrations. The left left to
students today, hate Israel, hate Jews in America. In that sense,
they're winning. Then again, they can't win in the battlefields.

(29:08):
They won't win in the battlefield. What they will win
is an eroding America, in eroding who we are, a confidence,
a belief in ourselves, eroding our willingness to stand up
and protect our things. And maybe the thing that has
eroded most that the Muslims Islam has been an example

(29:31):
of the biggest erosion of all which is directly linked
to yesterday's murder of Charlie. Is they have eroded. They
have managed to erode a confidence, a belief in freedom speech.

Speaker 3 (29:49):
Because what was attacked yesterday.

Speaker 1 (29:51):
I mean, Charlie was attacked yesterday, murdered yesterday, butchered yesterday.
But was this you know, it represented an attack his
ability to speak. He was attacked the cause of what
he spoke, because he was speaking. And it's a fact

(30:12):
that the United States government is not being willing to
protect people, is not being willing to protect the right
to speak. It is a fact that European governments embraced
the Muslim attacks on free speech. Not just willing to
protect people from attacks by Muslims on this speech. They

(30:33):
embraced the attacks on spreech speech. They made them part
of the law. They took anti blasphemy and put it
into European law. It's not about protecting Assalam University. It's
now the UK government and German government, French government are
going after you for speech that is critical of Islam.

(30:57):
The whole culture of free speech changed after nine eleven,
and certainly changed with Danish cartoons. I mean, the first
illustration of this was Solomon Versity, the fatua on Salomon Rosity,
and I think nineteen eighty nine, a long time ago,
nineteen eighty nine, And what an opportunity for an American

(31:17):
president and American intellectuals, an American culture to stand up
and declare unequivocal support for free speech and declare Ila
Romani his fatua is the enemy of everything good. What
an opportunity to stand up for Western civilization they had

(31:37):
in nineteen eighty nine when this fatwah was released, And instead,
what did they do? A mealy mouthed condemnation wrapped up
in you know, you shouldn't really, you know, insult religion.
You really shouldn't do this, Solomon, you shouldn't do it.
And you know when bookstores in New York a firebomb

(32:00):
because they carried the book? Did this create a firestorm?
Did this creed and he you know, did the intellectuals
rise up? Did our politicians rise up? Was there was
there momentum around doing something about this? No nobody cared.
Nobody cared. Indeed, Solomon had to live in fear for

(32:22):
most of the rest of his life. He still does
and of course a few years ago it was attacked
in America while on stage by a knife wielding potential
assassin who was inspired by the I toolists thought one
and was explicitly so. And was there a lot of

(32:44):
outrage over that when that happened, when that happened just recently,
was there a lot of outrage? No?

Speaker 3 (33:00):
No, just you know, people shrugged it off. Nobody cared.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
I mean, he lost an eye, he lost partial use
of woman, one of his arms, and he almost lost
his life. When the Danish cartoons were published, did any
American publication by the publish the cartoons?

Speaker 3 (33:30):
Nope, nope, we did that in an institute.

Speaker 1 (33:34):
Did when they were published? You know? And and there
were riots in the other world and embassies were burned
and people were attacked. Did this lead to real condemnation
from American and Western intellectuals and American and and and

(33:58):
Western thinkers of leaders and political leaders? Is that it
leads to action to defend the rights of free speech
of Americans and Europeans. No again, George Worsch, This time
the son, not the father, came out with a medium
mouse statement about this is bad. They shouldn't riot and stuff,
but really, you shouldn't draw cartoons of Muhammad. You really

(34:20):
shouldn't insult their religions. The best we could do. There's
been a steady deterioration, a steady deterioration in the culture
of speech in the West and in the protection of
free speech by the government in the West since Solomon Rosity,

(34:44):
and really since nine eleven. You weren't supposed to show
the cartoons on campus like we did, like I did,
like the Institute did. You weren't supposed to criticize Islam
like we did. There were demonstrations, and yes, in those
days we got some good police protection, and they weren't

(35:05):
anyone here as violence as they later became. You weren't
allowed to micrograss, you weren't allowed to say things were
non PC you weren't allowed to trigger people. I mean
the two thousands of being just one attack after free
speech after another attack after free speech, and it's just bills.

(35:31):
And we've accepted violence in the name of it. We
accepted violence, and we've accepted that really both sides. And
I know it's Bodhism. But whereas the left is led
on the issue of free speech, the right has embraced
rejection of free speech. And you know, Charlie yesterday lost

(35:55):
his life exactly for that.

Speaker 3 (35:58):
For his speech.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
It was not tolerated by certain people or by a person,
and therefore it ended. And people are celebrating his death
because they couldn't handle the fact that somebody spoke. And
a lot of what Charlie said was wrong. A lot
of what Charlie said was offensive, really offensive, and really wrong,
and that doesn't change the fact that he right to

(36:22):
say it. Right. So, I think a lot of this,
a lot of the division in American society, a lot
of the angster we feel, a lot of the hatred,
a lot of emotionalism started in nine to eleven and

(36:43):
has only intensified since. I think, I'll distrust we have
in all our entire leadership has only intensified since nine
to eleven, and they've given us plenty of reasons for it,
if you count the financial crisis, and then COVID just
takes it over the top. And then if you add
to that, a coddling of islam, our refusal to stand

(37:07):
up our right to speak honestly about it, on willingness
to talk, to debate, to discuss, a coddling of the
bad guys has led again to division, but has also
led to a real lack of respect for the whole
concept of free speech.

Speaker 3 (37:32):
And what we see today is just much more vicious.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
Versions of the same kind of attitudes that we saw
after nine to eleven. The programace is you know, September
October seventh for Israel was many multiples in terms of
the number of victims as a percentage of the population

(38:03):
of nine to eleven. It was Israel's nine to eleven
in spades. And whereas with nine to eleven the United
States got a lot of sympathy, certainly from the entire
free world, and for much of the world, Israel got
no sympathy, of very little sympathy after October seventh, that
certainly not once it's started to defend itself. We have

(38:26):
come a long way in our appeasement of Islam, of
appeasement of evil, of our willingness to abandon all values.

Speaker 3 (38:35):
Of a willingness to reject Western civilization.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
We've come a long ways as a culture in embracing
the Islamist cause, uniting the Islamist cause with the leftist cause,
and rejecting everything this country stands for, and you know.

Speaker 3 (38:58):
Everything in the Western civilization and stands for.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
And you know, I hope that nine ten yesterday lands
up being an insignificant moment in history. I hope that
Charlie's Charlie Cooke's murder will land up just being.

Speaker 3 (39:17):
A you know, a crazy man.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
It shot Charlie Cook, killed him, and nothing happens.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
I hope that's the outcome. Nothing.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
But there is a real chance that this is the
lighting of a fuse that sets off a whole chain
of violence, and that it's going to be very difficult
to stop a chain of violence.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
You could argue, you know, the.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
Nine to eleven started, and now we are turning against
each other, which again strengthens the Muslims as a competitor
of ours, as an enemy of our strength.

Speaker 3 (39:58):
That's even more.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
But it turns us against each other. I think that's
ultimately what bin Laden achieved.

Speaker 3 (40:08):
It wasn't his.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
I don't think he. I don't think he really achieved it.
He is the trigger. What achieved is the lack of
a coherent ideology, the lack of Coheeran philosophy, the lack
of a coherent ideology behind this country, a rejection of
the founding principles a rejection of the founding ideals and

(40:32):
just a kind of a complete mixed economy, a complete
abandonment of any principles on all sides. And he turned
towards more and more fascism, statism on both sides, a
rejection of America on both sides. And that really happened

(40:55):
when the Tea Party shifted from being a tea party
to voting for Donald Trump. Basically rejected defining fathers, rejected
defunding principles, rejected America, and that continues. So let's hope,
you know, nothing comes of this. Let's hope that while

(41:17):
now and the eleven will always be remembered, Charlie's death
will not.

Speaker 3 (41:24):
It will be remembered as a tragic, one off occurrence.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
Let's hope it's not the beginning of something bigger, it's
not the beginning of, you know, a much more a
chain of political violence between the American left and the
American right. Maybe maybe it's even an opportunity to reconsider
opposition of free speech, to elevate it again, elevated again,

(41:52):
to rededicate ourselves to protecting speech, to protecting speech exactly
from the kind of violence that Muslims have tried to
inflict on Solomon Ushti on the draws of the Danish cartoons,
and that the monster who killed Charlie Cooky yesterday was
inflicting and so many demonstrators on TIFA have tried when

(42:14):
they try.

Speaker 3 (42:15):
To silence people on campuses.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
And by the way, look if you if you tolerate
the Antifa like antics, Antifa like violence where they silence
and silence, and he just tolerated and you accept it
and it becomes part of the culture, then at some
point that violence is going to become worse. At some
point that's going to be elevated.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
All right.

Speaker 1 (42:39):
I wanted to mention this article by now focusing today,
which I think is worth reading. It's in the free press,
because not really. He takes the he takes the story
from nine to eleven to today, and he describes much
of what I described in terms of the unwillingness of

(42:59):
people able to recognize Islam as the enemy, and he
says he was one of them. He wouldn't recognize him.
He refused to acknowledge that this was a battle in
a sense of civilization. So though again I don't like
calling Islamic world today a civilization, it's not it was terrorism,
it was jew politics, it was this, it was that.

(43:20):
And he said it took him only until recently for
him to realize. So no, and I think what's happening
in UK and what's happening is jew is forcing him
to realize this. No, this is truly a battle between
the West and Islam, war a certain version of Islam.

(43:40):
Twenty four years.

Speaker 3 (43:41):
It's taken him to realize this.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
Again, we were saying this, We were saying this right
after nine to eleven, and that Islam is in many
respect winning. It's winning primarily not because it's not because
it has truth and knowledge and its side, not because

(44:04):
it's able. It's winning because we refuse to defend our values.
It's winning because we do rather fight each other than
to fight the real enemy. It's willing because it's winning
because we in the West are giving up on our values,
are giving up on our ideals, are giving up in

(44:26):
the concepts of.

Speaker 3 (44:27):
Free speech and individual rights.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Not because of the Muslims, but because we can defend them,
because we can't protect them, because we have given up
on them intellectually, philosophically, we've given up on them. So yeah,

(44:57):
you know, Islam is not winning because it's strong. Islam
is winning because we are weak. We refuse to stand
up our values. We refuse to fight intellectually for what
we believe in. We refuse to unite around the truth.
We'd rather kill each other over forces, over the lies.

(45:21):
We'd rather engage in conspiracy theories than actually evaluating what
happens and what the truth actually is. So I mean,
at the end of the day, this is going to
be about free speech. At the end of the day,

(45:42):
free speech is a core Western value and it is
what we should be standing up for. It is what
we should be arguing for against attacks from all directions.
And we should be doing it in Europe given the

(46:03):
horrifica tax aganstry speech by governments in Europe, and we
should be doing in the United States given the attacks
like on Charlie here in the United States against the
right to speak, the engage in ideas, They engage with ideas,

(46:24):
all right, So in my view, you know, this is
all connected. It's all the erosion of the confidence that
we have in who we are or not the erosion
even a loss. I think America has lost, It's lost

(46:46):
its weight. It doesn't know what it is. I'll do
a show this weekend on what is America? But we've
lost what is America. This is why you can get
national conservatives standing up there and saying, meg's not a
say of ideas. America's you know, the people who died
for the people. It's people, it's blood, and it's particular geography,

(47:09):
it's soil, but it is ideas. America is ideas, and
at the core one of those core ideas is the
right to free speech. One of its core is the

(47:30):
right to be able to peacefully argue and debate free
of violence, fear of oppression. That's at the core of it,
and we needed to stand up for those ideas way
back in the nineteen eighties. We certainly need to stand
up against PC movement in nineteen nineties. We need to

(47:51):
stand up against the ideas of the left when it
came to trigger warnings and microaggressions, and we need to
stand up for it.

Speaker 3 (48:02):
When Donald Trump wants to.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
Silence newspapers and sue them into silence. We need to
stand up when violence is used against those who are speaking.
We need to defend speech and broadly, more broadly speaking,
we need to defend the ideas that made America great,

(48:27):
that made America what it is. They defined America, all right, So.

Speaker 3 (48:42):
That is what we are.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
Uh and UH. I will keep We'll keep track of
of of what is going on with the Charlie Cook
murder and who did it and and who they land
up arresting. In the end.

Speaker 3 (48:57):
We will see.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
This is a day nine to eleven which we should
always remember as the day America was attacked and had
no response, did not know what to do, did not
know what to do. It's a failure of our politicians.
But more than that, it's a failure of the Neil
Ferguson's It's it's a failure of our intellectuals. It's a

(49:21):
failure of the intellectual class. I can I can count
on a maybe two hands, maybe one hand, the number
of intellectuals who understood what was going on, understood what
was happening, and argued for the right kind of response,
and they were easily drowned out by the majority of
intellectuals who ultimately ultimately side with our enemies and don't allow.

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Us to do us as necessary in order to win.

Speaker 1 (49:56):
And again that failure, those failure is lead to splintering,
lead to disunity, lead to suspicion, conspiracy theories, and ultimately
lead to violence.

Speaker 3 (50:17):
That's what we saw yesterday. Violence.

Speaker 4 (50:22):
All right, that is my commentary on this nine to
eleven twenty five.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
You can probably expect me to do a nine to
eleven like show every year. I'll remind you of why
I think nine to eleven is is so significant and
so important. Wow, I mean, yeah, the ritual online right

(50:59):
now is quite something. It's quite something, and it's it's
gonna get much worse. It's gonna get much worse. Pretty uh,
pretty stunning, some of what's going on online right now. Anyway,

(51:21):
recommit to free speech, recommit yourself to being brave enough,
courageous enough, and keep talking, keep talking, keep debating, keep engaging,
don't give up, don't stop. All right, let's turn to
out super chat and let's see we've got quite a few.

(51:48):
I did see. Troy came in with his with five
hundred Australian dollars. Thank you, Troy, very much appreciate it,
particularly today, it's very much, very very much appreciated. Thank
you for the support that you do all the time,
your ongoing support.

Speaker 3 (52:08):
And let's take questions.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
Let me remind you of a few things I've got,
let me quickly go through our sponsors. I might not
give them the full treatment today, but let me go
through our sponsors because they do sponsor the show, and
they do pay me to do this, so we should
do this. Hand a Shot Wealth hand a Shot with
two T's Hendershot Wealth dot com slash ybs sponsors their
one book show and they have a product that can

(52:35):
significantly reduce your tax liability when it comes to capital
gains taxes. I can really save you a lot of
money on taxes if you have large capital gains on
either stock or bitcoin, or or a business.

Speaker 3 (52:48):
A business sale.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
I highly recommend is a finance guide. Right highly recommend
that you look into this. It's I found it incredibly interesting.
You can see my interview with Robert Handah Shot on YouTube.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
Just check out on my channel.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
Check out the playlists on the sponsors. You'll find the
interview there. I definitely think you'd listened to the interview
and then go to the website sign up. If this
is something that you personally interested, sign up and talk
to one of their Talk to rob it.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
Talk to Robit about this.

Speaker 1 (53:23):
I think you'll find it interesting and fascinating. I don't
think it's not going to be a hard sell.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (53:29):
These are really good people and a really good product.
Alex Epstein is the world leader intellectual leader on all
issues related to foss off fuels and the energy industry.
The electricity crisis. We're heading towards where the demand for
energy is going to go through the roof and do
we have do we have the generating capacity, do we

(53:52):
have the the what do you call it, the transmission
line capacity to be able to with the demands of
AI for energy. Well, to get a real grip on this,
you've got to read Alex. To really understand what's going on.
You've got to read Alex. Alex will break it down
for you, tell you what's at stake and tell you

(54:13):
what the solutions are.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
Check out Alex Epstein substack dot com.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
And finally, the Ironman Institute is a sponsored Ironman Institute
is encouraging people to register for Inrand Institute Live. This
is a program of courses that you can take live
or not. You can take it taped as well, you
can do homework or not. You can participate the level
you want to participate in these amazing courses. Three of

(54:40):
them are launching in October.

Speaker 3 (54:42):
You should sign up now.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
You'll get your on Book Show discount of ten percent
by using this simple discount code twenty five YBS ten
twenty five YBS ten. To register, you can go to
iron Ran dot o, slash start here, slash start here,
and you can sign up and take the classes starting

(55:06):
in October. There will also be classes in the winter
and in the spring. In the summer, and this is
ongoing for the rest of the I know I'm teaching
with Don Watkins the class next year on capitalism. It'll
be the second time we teach it, but this time
it's going to be open.

Speaker 3 (55:19):
Anybody can sign up. You can just register for it.
You don't have to apply and be accepted. This is
open registration, all right.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
And finally, remind you that this is a trade. This
show is made possible through the support that you provided,
so please consider providing support.

Speaker 3 (55:39):
You can do so via the super.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
Chat or using a sticker as Troy did, John just did.

Speaker 3 (55:45):
Here a hero.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
You can ask a question help shape the show, or
you can do it on a monthly basis, which is
really effective at your on bookshow dot com sorry, at
Patreon dot com. Patreon dot com. Uh, and you can
you can put in your book show on Patreon dot

(56:07):
com and become a monthly supporter. Registered to become a
monthly supporter. All right, let's let's look at what we
have in terms of our super chat.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
I see Michael has a two parter.

Speaker 1 (56:19):
Let me find part one. Here's part one. Pat one.
Have never been a big Charlie Cook fan, especially since
he sold out to Trump. But taking his life for
Woods is cataclysmic, he continues. He didn't just take his
life his children. I have no father. His wife is
not a widow. The amount of people celebrating this online

(56:41):
are saying he had it coming because he was a
pro Second Amendment shows how immensely unwell a society is. Yes,
and a number of people saying let's shut down the
Democratic Party and let's clean house and let's go after
everybody who's a leftist again shows the same thing.

Speaker 3 (57:00):
It shows how we've lost the plot.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
We've lost our capacity to deal with these kind of situations.
People are emoting there are thinking, and they're not thinking clearly.
Nobody called for sassinating Charlie Cook. They probably, I'm guessing now,
was not a conspiracy run by leftist operatives out of

(57:23):
Obama's office to kill Charlie Cooke.

Speaker 3 (57:26):
This is one person.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
Maybe it's a small group of people who decided that,
you know, Charlie Coke deserves to die and put him
you know, did what it was necessary to do it.
And yeah, they were maybe inspired by leftist intolerance was
free speech. But at the end of the day, you're

(57:49):
responsible for your actions. You're not a puppet of the left.
Just because the left hates Charlie Cooke and just because
the left is being antagonistic to free does not justify
any one individual's actions, and those actions cannot be blamed
on these other people. It's his responsibility and the ideas

(58:11):
he's embraced now, the people pitching these ideas, the intolerance
to free speech, the idea that violence is a means
by which to deal with things like speech you don't like.
Those people are the enemy. Those people the intellectual enemy,

(58:32):
and they should be dealt with intellectually, or if they
work for a university, as many of them do, they
should just be fired because they're not good intellectuals.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
They're hopeful intellectuals.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
So you know, think about the professors who I don't
know how they still have jobs with the professors who
came out in support of Hamas after.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
After October seventh.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
These people are monsters. They shouldn't be shot, but they
suddenly should be boycotted. They suddenly should be morally condemned.
They suddenly should be fired from their jobs if they
teach at a university, and the professors teaching their students
the free speech is evil that if you feel aggressed against,

(59:30):
you should demand the silencing of the person who aggressed
against you. The people teaching these theories should not be
at universities. Now, this shouldn't be dictated from Washington. This
should be dictated by their universities because they have educating

(59:50):
to do. I mean, look, at the end of the day,
the ideology that has sped through the life left and
of course has resulted where their backlash from the right,
which is always going to happen, is an evil ideology,
an ideology that rejects Western civilization, rejects free speech, rejects reason,

(01:00:14):
rejects our capacity to think, elevates emotion above all, and
elevates the so called oppressed above everything else. So the
Palestinians can do anything to anybody, anytime, on any scale,
because they were oppressed. They're oppressed, they're poor, they're miserable,

(01:00:36):
they're unhappy, they've got a dark skin. And this is,
in my view, not Marxism. This is not Marxism. Marxism
did not divide people up into oppresses and oppressed. Those
are not categories he invented. These are not categories that

(01:01:04):
Marx really resonated with. Right to him, it was clearly
an issue of exploited and exploit tour. But in economic sense,
this is all about economics. This is all about material
This is not about race or gender, or about ethnicity,

(01:01:26):
or about any of this stuff. And if you if
you say, well, Marx uses oppress oppressed in economic sense,
and it's been expanded. But that language, that language of
oppressed oppressed is Christian language.

Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
It's not unique to Max.

Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
I mean, you could say, and I think much more credibly,
you could argue that the modern left is Christian inspired
by Christianity, inspired by the original fathers of Christianity, by
the original Christianity, much more than it is Marxist. Marks
had a whole theory of evolution of history, you know,
all theory of economics, the mouton lift rejects all of that,

(01:02:04):
or what it's kept is oppressed oppressed, but oppressed oppressed
mocks the stole from the Christians. So the rejection of
free speech on the part of the left basically has bred,
you know, is encouraged. They can't go to jail, You

(01:02:27):
can't have violence against them, because they didn't. They didn't
literally commit violence, and they didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
What's what's the term.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Insights violence, but they certainly suggested it, they certainly legitimized
it intellectually. It's the left's intellectuals that had a lot
to answer for, a lot to answer for. And again,
as I've always said, the right is too dumb to
have its own philosophy. The right it's too dumb to

(01:03:00):
have its own philosophy. The right is responsive. It responds
to the left, and the only thing it knows how
to response to the left with old ideologies.

Speaker 3 (01:03:13):
Like nationalism and religion. That's all it has.

Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
But the right is responsive. The left initiates, the left
comes up with new stuff, new variations, new twists, and
then the right responds. The left becomes racists, the right
becomes even more racist. The left of statists, the right
becomes more statists. The left is anti free speech. The

(01:03:40):
right is going to be anti free speech is and
it is going to be even more so. The left initiates,
the right will win, but the left initiates. So yes,
this is I mean, yesterday was an attack, a direct,
unmitigated haack on free speech.

Speaker 3 (01:04:01):
And agree or disagree with Charlie Cook.

Speaker 1 (01:04:03):
And as I've said, I thought that the turn Charlie Cook,
Charlie Cook took in the last I don't know, eight years,
six years, six years, probably has been very bad negative.
And the reality is I haven't seen him since that
turn was taken because we stopped overlapping in the same places,

(01:04:25):
and I stopped getting invited to Turning Point USA conferences
I had been invited in the past. I did an
event with Rubin, a Turning Point event in Florida, Florida
State University, Southern Florida State, Yeah, Florida State University, I think, well,

(01:04:48):
Southern Florida University, one of the universities in Florida. I
think this one was in Orlando with Dave Rubin. It
was a turning Point, it was a big event. It
was a really good event. You can still watch it
on YouTube. So I was still doing turning point events
shortly into the Trump presidency, and then it went to zero,
not a nothing, And at some point I thought he

(01:05:10):
took a turn that was very bad. He said some
things that I thought were pretty disgusting and pretty awful
in terms of Jews, in terms of race, in terms
of just repeating trumpest lies, in terms of misinformation, in
terms of just lying and deception. But again, you know,

(01:05:36):
he had a right to do that, and the idea
that anybody would kill you for doing that is horrifying
anti you know, it's it's it's anti civilization, it's anti life,
it's anti progress, it is it is death and destruction.

(01:05:57):
If this is the path we embrace them we take on.
And and it really does look like both sides would
like to take on this path, this path of violence,
Liam says, left us are celebrating this murder. This is
going to strengthen a movement MAGA that needs to be defeated.
I agree the shooter likely conceived himself. He was stopping

(01:06:19):
the rise of Hitler, when he may have just ensured
his victory. I think that might be the case. I
think that that that that very much, very much could
be and I do think that he probably thought he
was killing a hitler and and and suddenly Charlie was
not a hitline. We don't live in Nazi Germany, so
there's there's absolutely no justification for that. Some left us

(01:06:43):
are celebrating the murder, rank and fire left us to
celebrating the murder. As I said, the good news is,
if you can call it good news, is that the
prominent figure within the left uh are not celebrating this,
condemning it. And and that's good. You know, I don't

(01:07:03):
know if any and maybe you guys can correct me,
if you know of somebody, any prominent leftist who's come
out in support of what happened or in justification of
what happened. Now they are Charlie was a bad guy,
looking for it, right, pushing all the buttons.

Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
What did he expect?

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
But that's not exactly the same as saying, yeah, he
deserved it, and and uh and and and you know,
we should silence people like Charlie, which is what some
of the grassroots things. I mean, just open Twitter. You
can find it all over the place. So I'm finding
it all over the place anyway. But you're like, think, oh,
you go, who's awful. He's hobable, He's a disgusting human being.

Speaker 3 (01:07:46):
Is uh. It was really.

Speaker 1 (01:07:48):
Emotional about how how he thought this was hobbable, and
how how extent to which he condemned.

Speaker 3 (01:07:53):
It, and so did many others. On the other hand, there.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Are people out there, you know, here's somebody with six
hundred and thirty eight thousand followers, six hundred and thirty
eight thousand followers, and this, this is directly at the
point Liam is making Joey Many mana mana Manario, Manarino, Manarino.

Speaker 3 (01:08:21):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
I don't know who this guy is, but he's got
six hundred and thirty eight thousand follows. I have forty.
This is his tweet. It's time for Trump to become
the dictator. The media always says he is. It is
absolutely time. I mean, that is a sentiment I'm seeing
over and over and over again among the right, and

(01:08:52):
you know, so you see, I'm looking for.

Speaker 3 (01:08:57):
A good example of.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
Yeah, I mean, this is the kind of kind of
conspiracy stuff that's that's uh, that is being spouted and
nobody kind of says, nobody blinks.

Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
People support it, right, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
So some woman she has forty three thousand follows, So
maybe different plausible scenario motives, but I'm wondering the odds
of it being an idea for reservists with dual passports
who got pissed off at Charlie for turning on Israel
because of some mild criticisms lately. I mean, this is

(01:09:41):
the kind of garbage heat you know, here's here's a
Stephen Crowder. I'm not advocating blood in the streets, and
I'm certainly not supporting it, but you know what I
get it.

Speaker 5 (01:10:02):
Yeah, this is uh yeah, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:10:15):
And then you've got all these leftists just you know,
relishing this and supporting it less on Twitter, more so
supposedly on the on some of the other sites.

Speaker 3 (01:10:32):
Yeah, anyway, we will see yep.

Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
All right, So yeah, I mean, Lea, I'm absolutely the
celebrating and this is only gonna feed the beast. This
is only gonna make things worse, only gonna make things worse,
which is what the left does constantly. They constantly make
their right worse. They bring out the worst elements in
the right.

Speaker 3 (01:11:02):
James, since what.

Speaker 1 (01:11:03):
Happened to Charlie, are you going to take more precaution
when giving speeches on security, bulletproof vest, humanity can't afford
to lose you. You on, I don't know about humanity.

Speaker 3 (01:11:14):
You guys might be, but I don't know about humanity.

Speaker 1 (01:11:19):
You know. Look, my speeches are so small, the so minor,
the so on the side. If I was going to
an event where there we're going to be three thousand people,
if I was making headlines, if I was prominent out there,
then absolutely I would. I mean I already in many venues,

(01:11:41):
I demand security, and uh after nine to eleven for
many of my talks, pretty much all my talks, I'd
say from nine to eleven to two thousand and eight,
there were on phone policy, I wore bulletproof vest, so
I had a kevlov asked that I wore under my
under my shirt, under my shirt so you couldn't see it. Security,

(01:12:02):
who was usually on site could always tell they have
an eye for this, and they could see that I
was wearing a bulletproof vest. So I've worn a bulletproof
vest in the past. I don't rule out wearing a
bulletproof vest in the future. Again, we'll see how this
all develops. But look, Charlie Cook was a big target
here's a big name. He had millions, not tens of thousands,

(01:12:26):
millions of followers. He had a huge presence. His ideas
reverberated throughout the culture. I mean, I'm not in that position.
I understand Ben Shapiro would be worried. I understand if

(01:12:47):
Douglas Marie is worried. I don't think I need to
be worried.

Speaker 3 (01:12:53):
But if you know, if.

Speaker 1 (01:12:54):
I get a sense that that changes, then I'll definitely change.

Speaker 3 (01:12:58):
But yes, I already usually the security in my talks.

Speaker 1 (01:13:02):
And as I said, I I don't own a bulletproof
vest anymore because they expire, you know, after a few
years you can't use them anymore. But and I think
I gave mine the one I had. I had a
new one, and I think I gave it a bosh
Bush fought when when when his life was being threatened,
I think he gave him my billeboo vest. So I
don't have one now, but I'd buy one in an

(01:13:24):
instant if I if I thought it was necessary. Pretty
tragic that you have to even think about it. I,
like Claude says, is it more to mourn an individual's
death when they advocate evil ideas? Murder is evil, but
I struggle carrying too much beyond the horror of it,
what it represents for the potential future.

Speaker 3 (01:13:44):
Thanks for all you do, and stay safe.

Speaker 1 (01:13:47):
I mean, you have to mon a life. I mean,
Charlie advocated for really bad ideas, but he was no Hitler.
And and again he had he has two kids. I mean,
I think those are things that mean something. I don't
think you warn him unequivocally. That is, you have to

(01:14:08):
take into those things into account, that his ideas into account.
But the act itself is so despicable, it's so horrific,
it has such big implications. You have to condemn it vigorously.
So I just have to to an air conditioning back on.

(01:14:32):
So I get it, and you know, and I knew
it personally, which makes it a little different. But yeah,
I mean, you know, I mean, incredibly critical of Charlley
all this time, but it's still the idea that he's
just dead, just as horrific and for what or even

(01:14:54):
you talked about the left, but also in parts of
the right lacking leaders, and I completely agree. And in
a weird sense, you can see sprinkles of despair and
what comes of anarchism and the lack of self esteem. Yes,
I think that's absolutely right. What you see now is chaos.
What you're seeing now is lack of leadership. And here
I mean leadership not in the political sense, I mean

(01:15:16):
in the intellectual sense, the no guiding principles. What do
I do? How do I think about this? What are
the issues involved? Nobody is giving anything out there. The
right hates the left, the left hates the right. The
left is very defensive. Right now, Oh yeah, you shouldn't

(01:15:39):
have killed Charlie Cooke. You know, he wasn't that bad.
But that's about it. You know, the right will say
Charlie gwk was. I mean, President has just announce that
he's going to give him the Medal of Freedom, right
highest honor you can give an American civilian. Charlie is

(01:16:00):
a hero, Charlie's a mater, Charlie's all of this stuff, and.

Speaker 3 (01:16:06):
There's no ideas.

Speaker 1 (01:16:08):
You know, Lindsay, James Lindsay, who is good on these
kind of issues, is attacking the left and attacking the right.
And he's right. You know, he's the one who I
think coined the woke right terminology, and he's absolutely right
about a lot of what he says about left and right,
but he has nothing to offer right now other than

(01:16:29):
we need to reconcile. We need we need to come together.
What the hell, what are you going to come together?
We need new ideas. We need a new governing philosophy.
And I don't mean just governing politically, I mean governing
our lives. We need to re embrace enlightenment values. We
need intellectual leadership that leads us into the light, that

(01:16:50):
leads us to enlightenment, that leads us to the right ideas.
We don't need to come together around a bonfire and sinkuma.
It's it's the idea that that's what's missing, that that's
all we need. It makes us so much worse, that
makes us possible. In the end, what this country is
suffering from is that we all we have evil ideas

(01:17:18):
battling each other. I mean evil ideas battling each other,
and most of Americas like stuck between them, doesn't really
know what's going on, can't really choose between the two sides,
recognizes there's something really really vicious and wrong here, and
doesn't know what to do about it. I mean, all

(01:17:43):
the old, evil, disgusting ideas of the past because they
a little bit of new ideas, evil new ideas. Woke
was the evil new ideas that seems to have been
put in its place. So the left is just revoting
back to socialism. So we get socialism and egalitarianism, and
we get Marxism in some formulations, and then we get

(01:18:07):
and then on the right we're getting fascism and anti
Semitism and you know, all kinds of other statist ideologies.
I will talk about this tomorrow. And the news things.
There was this amazing article in the what was it,

(01:18:27):
Washing Post, I think it was Western Post against Weimo
coming to New York and I read it, okay, standard
kind of leftist argument, D D D. And I read
the byline and it's written by conservative from the Manhattan
Sty and it's like conservatives now are just a statist

(01:18:49):
as a leftists, just a statist as a leftist when
it comes to economics. And most Americans don't know what
to deal with this, and there's no intellectual leadership. Again,
James Lindsay is great attacking the left. On the right,
what we need are positive ideas, well, we need a

(01:19:10):
good ideas. What we need ideas to drive us forward.
What we need ideas to build. I need ideas for progress,
ideas for life, life with a big L, and that
we just have no intellectual leadership around nothing. Not a
nobody's out there, nobody's out there with a positive message.

(01:19:34):
Nobody's out there with a proper definition of America and
inspiring people around a real America. It just isn't design ran.
That's it. So the mess we're in, the mess we've
been in since nine to eleven, the mass that created

(01:19:55):
nine to eleven, the Mady ninet eleven even possible because
it wasn't necessary nine to eleven. It could have been
a avoid it could have been prevented. All caused, all
caused by our intellectuals, by a pathetic, weak, irrational intellectuals.

(01:20:21):
All right, not surely have algorithm. I've watched some of
the assassination footage from different angles. He was dead before
he hit the ground. This is clearly a professional hit.
It's amazing the assassin has evaded capture this long. I
doubt that it's a professional hit in a sense that
this is an assassin or something like that. I think
you'll find that this is not a professional assassin. This

(01:20:44):
will be some guy who's maybe hunted, maybe shot target
practice many many times. We do live in a country
with an intense gun culture. You know, shooting rifles at
targets is is a long American tradition. And I think

(01:21:06):
you'll find that this was a This was somebody who
was just a good shot. And remember the guy who
shot the President Trump before your present while on the campaign.
The guy went on the roof there and then was
shot on the roof. There's some nobody, some Yoho, nobody, nobody,
and he missed him by so little, I mean, just

(01:21:30):
complete fluke. That Trump moved his head a little bit
and the bullet just scraped his is his ear, otherwise
it would have gone straight into his head. So he
was trained, he practiced, He practiced, But lots of Americans

(01:21:51):
practice shop shooting. Lots of Americans are out there practicing
shooting stuff at one hundred and fifty yards every day. Now,
maybe he was in the military. I doubt he was
a shop shooter in the military. He didn't use an
assassin weapon. He used a hunting weapon. She's not the same.

(01:22:13):
So I don't know. Fifty yards. I mean it's long,
but it's not outrageously long. I don't know how many
have you guys shot one hundred and fifty yards?

Speaker 3 (01:22:29):
I think I have.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
I think we did in the military AM sixteen's and
M sixteen that far, and M sixteen is not particularly
built for that. And yeah, and you can hit a
target one hundred and fifty yards away. So I don't know.
I mean, we'll see, we'll know. We're just speculating. I'm
just speculating. But I think we're gonna find maybe this

(01:22:55):
guy at training, maybe maybe he was in the military,
maybe he's an ex military, But this is not a
professional assassin. And and why would he drop the rifle
way he dropped it? And why would he be captured
on video? If he was really a pro, he wouldn't
have he wouldn't have allowed himself to be captured on video.
And he wouldn't have he wouldn't have just dumped the

(01:23:16):
weapon where he dumped it.

Speaker 3 (01:23:20):
I don't think he was a pro.

Speaker 1 (01:23:24):
But again, I don't know. I do not know any
more than you do. The dudeo money, Trump and the
radical left to turning fear into fuel and rage into rhythm, meticulous,
particulously designed to hypnotize a broken nation, twisting hate into virtue, signaling. Yeah,
I think all that's true. It's getting it's getting scary,
it's getting twisted, it's escalating. It's hard to tell where

(01:23:48):
he goes from here. I mean, there was a bomb
threat today on the DNC. There is a real attempt
to present the Democratic Party as a part of insanity,
as an anti American party, anti American party in a
sense of treason, as a party that should be outlawed,
as a party that should be shut down. I don't

(01:24:10):
think they'll do it. I don't think Trump can do it.
I don't think if there's the boss to do it.
But I think that many many people in the right
who would like to see that happen. And of course
there are many many people on the left who would
like to see somebody take a shot at Trump, somebody
take a shot of Vance, And I don't I think
there's very few people that would actually take the shot.

(01:24:31):
This is the thing about civil war. This is the
thing about a civil war. It's easy to talk about
violence for most people.

Speaker 3 (01:24:40):
There are few people.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Gang members, a few people raising certain neighborhoods that violence
comes easy to them. But for most people, violence is hard,
particularly at the beginning. They can get Once they get
into it, they can get the bloodlust. But it's sadly
in the beginning. It is hot, it's scary, and it's dangerous.

(01:25:07):
There's this thing about the civil war. Lots of people,
lots of people think that they could take a weapon
and go out and fight. Very few people have any
experience of doing it. Very few people actually have the
courage to put their life in danger. Very few people
have the courage to pull the trigger and shoot somebody.
There's just not a lot of people who can do that,

(01:25:28):
who are willing to do it, both on the left
on the right. And I think that's what partially what
prevents us civil war. And I know the lots of people,
lots of militia out there training for the day. Training
is not the same as doing and most of them
will probably die and they know it. And I don't

(01:25:50):
think they're ready to die. They're not that suicidal. Now again,
there they're crazy, and most of these people are most
of the people actually pull the trigger off crazies. And
but civil war requires people to actually be willing to
go fight. I don't know how many people actually willing
to go fight on the left and on the right,
everybody's brave. I mean, god, millions of people are brave,

(01:26:13):
unbelievably brave, sitting behind a keyboard with an anonymous user
name declaring civil war and declaring they're willing to fight
and declaring all this stuff without every revealing their name
of their face. Keyboard warriors A diamond dozen't actual warriors.
Those are actually hard to find, actually hard to find.

(01:26:38):
And you know, I think people are people. Somebody mentions Ukraine,
people are willing to fight, to actually engage in violence,
to fight when they when something's really at stake, like
their lives, like somebody's invading, like somebody's breaking into your house,
something like that. But to go out there and join
a as a tribal action, to go out there and

(01:26:59):
in flick violence on your neighbor, why because they disagree
with you about politics? Were not quite there yet. I
don't think there's just not enough people who are ready
to do it. They might say they are, but are
they actually ready to do it. So, but it's certainly
turned to worry. Test to say thank you, thank you,
Tessa really appreciate it. Mary Lee says I was able

(01:27:21):
to get end States that Sponsored Terrorism published in the
University of Washington's student newspaper in twenty eleven. No way
in hell would that happen today. I had to help
with the cost. That's great. I forgot that that happened.
I'm sure I knew at the time that it was happening.

Speaker 3 (01:27:39):
But yeah, I don't know that you could get that
published anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
And today Yuan is even more of a threat than ever,
at least more recognized as a threat than ever. And
I still don't think you could get that piece published.
That was the peace Land and peacoff road right after
nine to eleven.

Speaker 3 (01:27:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:27:59):
I remember some of my vivid memories with Leonard is
me and him, and I think Amy was there, him
writing us kind of at doing some editing, returning it
to Leonard, rewriting, going back and forth, you know, kind
of an all nighter to get it done, to get
a finished so we could publish it.

Speaker 3 (01:28:19):
It was.

Speaker 1 (01:28:21):
All right, Thank you, Marillian Andrew. I feel terrible about Cook,
but Molly, I have qualms. He went fully in for
Trump and MAGA, including its many ugly positions such as
an immigration trade and even anti yuon strikes.

Speaker 3 (01:28:36):
Shouldn't he have known better?

Speaker 1 (01:28:38):
Yeah, I mean he should have. I mean, Charlie was
not a good guy when it comes to ideas, when
he comes to advocacy, he wasn't. He was an invader.
He took a bad turn. He took a turn towards
bad ideas, and he took a turn because he was
better when he was younger. And I think there was

(01:29:01):
an element of Charlie there was a power lusting that enjoyed,
really enjoyed the schmoozing with the Bushes, with the Bushes,
with the Trumps, with Trump junior, with Eric, with Trump's senior,
with being with being a celebrity. He was a celebrity,
and I think he really enjoyed that.

Speaker 3 (01:29:21):
So again, you know, I don't want to.

Speaker 1 (01:29:24):
Make that the focus because he just died, But yeah,
I mean, I agree with all of that, but that
doesn't change the fact that he didn't deserve to be shot.
Not everybody who's INMO deserves to be shot. Not everybody
who evades were as bad ideas deserves to be shot.

(01:29:47):
And Charlie did not deserve to be shot. I disagree
with him about these days. In the last few years,
almost about everything, he abandoned his defense of capitalism. He
became a cultural religious warrior and that is the enemy,
but not in the sense of violence.

Speaker 3 (01:30:13):
Merrick Merrick, He says, I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:30:17):
Stenning a business helping Chinese students pass an English test
to study in the UK. Most are just individuals trying
to improve their lives, but some steal ip for the CCP.
Should I be worried. I don't want to contribute towards that.
I mean, you should be worried. I don't know how
you protect yourself. You need to think about how you

(01:30:38):
screen for the students who you want to help and
avoid the students you don't want to help without antagonizing
the Chinese government. So I don't know how the business
is run, and I don't know where you get your
students from. But yeah, to the extent that you can
avoid helping those students who are going to be stealing
ip for the CCP, then you should not help. But

(01:31:00):
I don't know how possible that is. It's a really
tricky situation you're in.

Speaker 3 (01:31:09):
Marilyn says a.

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
Student newspaper ad was in two thousand and one. I
was going to say twenty eleven. It was ten years
after in two Thus, the one the paper accepted in
states as sponsor terrorism without a question.

Speaker 3 (01:31:20):
What a difference today?

Speaker 1 (01:31:22):
Yeah, but you know, in two thousand and one, the
Wall Street Journal refused to publish it. We got rejected
by the Wall Street Journal, and I had to I
had to write to write an email, I guess to
the editorial page editor who was much you know, who

(01:31:44):
was somewhat friendly, and say, what the hell is going
on at the Wall Seat Journal? Your ads people won't
run this ad. And ultimately, after a lot of I
guess disagreement at the Wall Streat Journal, they agreed to
run it. But by that point we'd already agreed to
do it with the New York.

Speaker 3 (01:32:04):
Times in Washington Post.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
It was easier to publish this ad in the New
York Times that it wasn't the New Wall Street Journal,
which shocked me at the time. So we ran the
full page ad en states of support terrorism New York
Times and Washington Post. I don't think the New York
Times in Washington Post would run it today. I don't know,
but I don't think so, Neo says Charlie said. That

(01:32:32):
made me think of you antifask so glad you're okay?

Speaker 3 (01:32:34):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:32:35):
I appreciate that your Mosquito run in also brought to
mind Heiserberg's hilarious fly scene.

Speaker 3 (01:32:43):
I can just imagine, Liam says.

Speaker 1 (01:32:46):
John Stossel just did a post about Charlie Cook and
Iron Rand.

Speaker 3 (01:32:51):
I'll have to look for that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:53):
Yeah, I really would rather Charlie Cook can not be
associated with Iron Ran given his positions.

Speaker 3 (01:33:05):
Uh Ja says see above.

Speaker 1 (01:33:08):
God, now I have to look for Jays Jay, you
have to put it into the super chat.

Speaker 3 (01:33:12):
That's the whole point. Jay says.

Speaker 1 (01:33:15):
Let's talk about the psychology of creators versus destroyers and
peters those who can't create. Do I psych pseudo self
esteem from mindless destruction? Yeah? I mean look when you
when you talk about murderers, when you're talking about people
who who destroy a life, you know these are nihilists.

(01:33:36):
These are haters of human life. Now, why do they
hate human life? Maybe it's because they can't create, Cinly,
it's because they don't have self esteem. But these people hate,
it's it's what drives them. It drives everything. And you know,

(01:33:57):
I see this on the left, a lot of hate
to do right from the fact that, for example, they
have to go to work to make a living. They
can't just do whatever the hell they want. Their emotions
they're not what do you call it caressed, They're not
taken seriously, they're not embraced. They're not they want they

(01:34:19):
want their whims to be to be venerated, and they
lash out. They hate the world because their emotions don't
come true, because they're forced to use their mind and
they don't want it. And this breeds nihilism. But yeah,
these are these are people who I don't know, if

(01:34:41):
can't won't create, and therefore their only option is to destroy,
to lash out out of hatred.

Speaker 3 (01:34:58):
Hop a gamble.

Speaker 1 (01:34:59):
When you coffee with Charlie Cook when he was in
high school, did he say why he chose to reach
out to you in particular? I don't know that.

Speaker 3 (01:35:05):
I can't remember.

Speaker 1 (01:35:07):
I don't know that I reached out to him or
he reached out. I think we had a guy in
Chicago who was managing activities in Chicago. Charlie was living
in Chicago's family lived there, and he was getting known
and I think this guy approached Charlie and said, hey,
you on.

Speaker 3 (01:35:22):
Book's going to be in town.

Speaker 1 (01:35:23):
Would you like to meet him? And Charlie said, yeah,
I'd love to Charlie had seen my videos, was a
fan of my moraleity of capitalism stuff, had read Iinrand
was an iron Ran fan and he wanted to meet
because he was an Iran fan and he was starting
this movement I think originally at high schools, and mophed

(01:35:45):
into universities very quickly and was interesting and interested in
an Iran connection. And in the early years of Turning
Point irand was really everywhere. She was pretty prominent in
Turning Points stuff. People read her, talked about her objective speakers.

(01:36:05):
That all went away at some point, but that was
really there initially. Now, even at that coffee he said
he was religious, and you know, it was understood that
he was an objectivist and he wasn't going to be
an objectivist, but there was a certain admiration there of
him for Rand, and later you could see, you know,
and that we met a few times after that a

(01:36:28):
Turning Point at a big Turning Point conference in Florida
and then at Steamboat at Steamboat Institute conference in Colorado.

Speaker 3 (01:36:39):
But yeah, I think it was his interest.

Speaker 1 (01:36:40):
In nine Rand. Margaret says, thank you for your compassionate
take on the on the Cook tragedy. I've never listened
to him, but him grieving his horrific death. It's given
me a lot of comfort in my grief to hear
your compassion, even though you two disagreed.

Speaker 3 (01:36:56):
Thank you, Margaret.

Speaker 1 (01:36:57):
Yeah. I mean, look, and you have to under stand
also the what this means.

Speaker 3 (01:37:06):
I mean, I agree for the country. I agree for speech,
free speech.

Speaker 1 (01:37:10):
I grieve for anybody who goes out and now speaks
in front of large audiences is going.

Speaker 3 (01:37:15):
To be afraid.

Speaker 1 (01:37:17):
I agree for the country, hapacamb But wo mom, Donnie
Sanders and AOC now have targets on their back. I
mean maybe maybe, I mean I think I think that
a lot of targets on people's backs. It's and look,
this is the point because because of the culture of

(01:37:39):
this country, which which has guns and gun training and
gun enthusiasm is part of it, both on the left
and on the right, a lot of.

Speaker 3 (01:37:48):
People are trained on guns.

Speaker 1 (01:37:49):
It's relatively easy for anybody who's a little nuts or
stupid or irrationally passionate about violence to get a hold
of a gun and to go up to a person
and shoot them. It's super easy to do, and you
can have security around a person and it's not that

(01:38:12):
hard to kill him anyway. I mean, look, this is
what happened in the sixties when when JFK and then
Martin Luther King and and JFK's brother, and Robert Kennedy
and what's his name, Welcome X and and a whole
series of public figures were assassinated and killed. It's relatively

(01:38:33):
easy to do if you want to do it, if
you commit it to doing it, it's not that hard,
right Andrew, How does determinism impact moral judgment? If murder
isn't chosen, can it be morally condemned? Why is moral

(01:38:55):
condemnation of virtue when it.

Speaker 3 (01:38:56):
Is well, I mean, if there's determinism.

Speaker 1 (01:39:01):
Then you know, I mean, I don't think you can
condemn it. Although determinists do condemn murderers, they partially because
they don't want them inflicting their harm and people, so
they want to, you know, lock them up even if
they're determined to do it, still lock them up because
they might be doing it again. But of course, if

(01:39:21):
you're determined, who knows who will kill? When you just
don't know anybody could have the murder instinct in them.

Speaker 3 (01:39:31):
You don't know what's going to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:39:32):
The whole thing, The whole idea of determinism ultimately is
incompatible with human life and incompatible with really thinking about
human life. Why is more condemnation of virtue when it
is well because your life depends on it. Tomlly condemned,

(01:39:53):
somebody is to distance yourself from somebody. To Molly condemned,
somebody is to identify somebody as a threat to you,
and the condemnation is a foam distancing and protection against
that person. Caleb, I'm thirty, never listened to a red
Charlie's work and barely followed him over the years, but

(01:40:14):
his assassination really really disturbed me.

Speaker 3 (01:40:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
I think his assassination should disturb you, guys. James. I
was watching Charlie Cook's interview with Alex Epstein just before
this happened. Unspeakable Rest in peace. Yeah, Charlie did interview Alex,
not that long ago.

Speaker 3 (01:40:37):
Yeah, and it would make sense for him to do
so on some issues. He was good.

Speaker 1 (01:40:46):
Clark says, it's going to be strange not scrolling through
new Charlie clips on Instagram.

Speaker 3 (01:40:51):
Yeah. I'm not in on Instagram, so I won't miss it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:56):
Clark, the left of studying a war, They can't handle Yeah,
I mean they started the war a long long time ago.
As I said, I think they started the war right
after nine eleven. And yes, and I don't think they
can handle it. I think the victory of Trump and
the audacity of Trump and the willingness of Trump to
take the reins, if you will, and to impose kind

(01:41:17):
of more and more thoritarianism on this country is an
indication that they can't handle it. And again, this was
not started yesterday. It started a long time ago. Now.
To have a Jago hythim to prefers iron ran it's
easy to destroy, it's how to create.

Speaker 3 (01:41:32):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:41:33):
It took Charlie over a decade to build what he
did and lost everything in a second of a trigger pull.
It's tragic and.

Speaker 3 (01:41:42):
Hollow, and you have to admire what he did build, even.

Speaker 1 (01:41:45):
If you disagree with You know, it's philosophical foundation, which
I suddenly do, all right, that dudeo bunny. Charlie was
fostering open conversations with young people to figure out what
they believe. He was committed to talking to people who
disagree with him and lost his life foot Yes, I

(01:42:07):
mean that's the that's the admirable thing about Charlie is,
in spite of his bad ideas, he was he was
not hiding them.

Speaker 3 (01:42:14):
He was engaged, he was he debated and.

Speaker 1 (01:42:18):
Now arguably a lot of the videos he put out
afterwards he edited them to make himself look good and
he did stuff like that.

Speaker 3 (01:42:24):
But I think everybody does that except me, And but
he was out there.

Speaker 1 (01:42:32):
He was on a regular basis on campuses, engaging and
debating and discussing, and he got large audiences because he
was such a controversial figure and he had such a
huge standing in the culture. James says, how long do
you think the news media will take to forget Charlie
Cooke was assassinated. Will this have any long term impact

(01:42:53):
on the media.

Speaker 3 (01:42:56):
As a whole?

Speaker 1 (01:42:57):
You know, I don't know. Look, I think the media
is already shifting. I think the media is shifting to
the right. You're seeing this with what is it, CBS
buying the Free Press and giving Barry Weiss a significant
position at CBS. Now that's not made official, but that's
only rumored. But if that happens, you're seeing ownership of

(01:43:19):
different media assets moving and it's moving to the right.
So I think you're going to see the media shift
to the right in any case, that's I think where
the action is. And I also think the media is
very intimidated by Trump, and so I doubt that they're

(01:43:40):
going to forget this because well, I mean, it depends
what happens now. A lot of it depends on what
happens now and how this evolves from now. But the
media is going to have to deal with this because
they're going to be constant reminders of it.

Speaker 3 (01:43:57):
I think.

Speaker 1 (01:44:00):
Harpa Campbell says, to Ben Shapier's credit, he said, We're
going to pick up the bloody microphone where Charlie left
it and never stop. Yeah, that's the right sentiment. Although
I do understand it. Ben Shapier has canceled his campus
tours for the foreseeable future. James MSNBC fires and analyst

(01:44:23):
Matthew Dowd for unacceptable comments about Charlie Cook. Do you
see this as as capitalism or free speech by a commentator? Now,
this is capitalism.

Speaker 3 (01:44:32):
It's a private company.

Speaker 1 (01:44:33):
They can do whatever the hell they want. They got
a lot of flak for what he said when he
said it, and they fired him. And again I think
it shows that there is a there's a movement to
the right, even on MSNBC. I don't think a few
years ago they were to have fired him, but I
think now they're taking so much flak, there's so much

(01:44:57):
energy on the right and not on the left left,
that they had to fire him in order to sustain
their business. Friend harp Up, can you comment on the
tolerance paradox I've seen some people cited in relation to
Cook's assassination. I don't know what the tolerance paradox is,

(01:45:19):
so you'll have to send me a link or something
about what it is. Liam should the assassin received the
death penalty? I mean, I'm not against the death penalty,
other than I fear that it's sometimes used against innocent
people and it's completely irreversible, so.

Speaker 3 (01:45:38):
I don't like it.

Speaker 1 (01:45:39):
But if it's unequificult in terms of who it is,
then yeah, I have.

Speaker 3 (01:45:44):
No qualms about it.

Speaker 1 (01:45:46):
It's a cold blooded murder, and I think cold bubbled
murderers do not have a right lose their right to life.
Thomas says, Hey, Ron, I'm reading books with older English
John Locke, and I'm having a hard time understanding what
they're saying. I don't have any tips. I don't understand.
To me. As a consequence, I find it much easier

(01:46:07):
to read like people writing about rather than read the originals.
John Locke is hard. Anna Smith is hard. You either
have to slug through it or read somebody writing about them.
But then who you have to find the right person.
There's no easy solution to it. It really is hot.

(01:46:30):
You just have to do it slowly. And maybe I
don't know if there are any dictionaries that can help,
but maybe the Oxford Dictionary can help.

Speaker 3 (01:46:41):
John.

Speaker 1 (01:46:42):
If it turns out Assassin was a right wing not
trying to start a violent war, would that be better
or worse?

Speaker 3 (01:46:50):
Yeah, I don't know. It would still be horrible.

Speaker 1 (01:46:53):
In some sense, it would be better because I don't
think the left is equipped to start a civil war.
I think the right is, so I'd rather put the
burden on the left to do it than on the
right if I wanted to prevent it.

Speaker 3 (01:47:08):
So I guess it would be better.

Speaker 1 (01:47:13):
Andrew, the Conservative cause isn't good enough for the pronouncements
of present of perseverance for its adherence in the wake
of this tragedy. The Conservative cause isn't good enough for
the pronouncements of.

Speaker 3 (01:47:29):
Perseverance of its adherence.

Speaker 1 (01:47:31):
And I think I understand what you're saying, and I
think I agree with you. Yeah, I mean the conservative
cause is not worthy and says if this has mainly
a few speech issue, then doesn't that mean government isn't
the only force that can silence speech, but also those

(01:47:52):
using force or pressure. Yeah, I mean obviously I've always
said that, right, I mean, it's the whole points, the
whole point of which this is a free speech issue
is you can't use violence assign once somebody pressure something else.
A private company can use pressure. A private company can

(01:48:13):
can stop publishing somebody. They can't kill him. You can't
kill people. But the government's job, and this is where
the free This is where the government steps in. The
Government's job is to prevent people from killing you because
of your speech. And the government is defaulting in a
responsibility to protect free speech when it doesn't protect you,

(01:48:35):
so defaulted and its responsibility visa a v free speech
when it didn't protect eliminusity. Here, you know, the issue
is resorting to violence, which inherently is a violation of rights,
including free speech. Because of speech, that is the free

(01:49:01):
speech issue here. But the only you know again, censorship
can only be done by the government, you know, or
the use of force and the use of direct force.
But firing somebody cancel culture. Putting pressure on somebody is

(01:49:24):
not force, is not force. You don't have a right
to use somebody else's property to articulate ideas that they
don't believe in. They don't want you to articulate. So yeah,
but you don't have a right to silence people. You
don't have a right to beat them up because of
what they say. You don't have a right to, you know,

(01:49:45):
and to to stop them from speaking when they own
the stage. And Charlie owned the stage, he was invited there,
he owned the stage. I would say the same thing
about violent protests. The violent protesters are using force to
island somebody and there for the government's job is to
stop the protesters. That's the government respecting free speech, all right,

(01:50:14):
Christa's troops on the streets, presidential assassination attempts, and public murders.
America has become a sick culture, yep. And my point
is it's been a sick culture since ninety eleven. It's
been getting worse because it's never dealt with the sickness.
It's never addressed the sickness. It's never confronted the sickness

(01:50:36):
something in might eye and never looked in the right
places for a cure. The cures that were proposed all
enhanced the sickness, all made it worse. John, Facebook not
allowing me to put money on a question, Well, it's YouTube,

(01:51:00):
not Facebook, but I don't know why that is. I mean,
everybody else is managing to do it, so I'm not sure. John,
Maybe there's a wood YouTube doesn't like in the question.
Let me just do some of these stickers. Steven Harper,
thank you for the sticker.

Speaker 3 (01:51:17):
Let's see I saw other stickers here.

Speaker 1 (01:51:24):
Paul, thank you, and obviously Dave thank you fifty dollars
and Wes thank you fifty dollars.

Speaker 3 (01:51:31):
Really appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (01:51:33):
You guys have been great, and Gail thank you, and
Jeffrey thank you, and Jacob thank you, and John again,
thank you. And let's see, I know we had Troy
of course of five hundred Australian dollars. Thank you, Thank you,
thank you many many times over, and Clinton, thank you,
and the thumb, Mary Eileen, thank you. And I think

(01:52:01):
I got everybody. I think it's possible they got everybody,
all right, Benjamin, Is it proper to consider those that
murder people like Brian Thompson and Charlie Cookers animals? I
just don't see them seeing how else it makes sense. Yeah,
it's human beings who revert to an animal state.

Speaker 3 (01:52:23):
But you know, what do you consider hamas?

Speaker 1 (01:52:26):
What do you consider I don't know, terrorists generally, suicide
bombas the I mean the monsters, the human beings who
have rejected their humanity have turned themselves into an animal.

Speaker 3 (01:52:41):
And that's a monster.

Speaker 1 (01:52:42):
It's a human being that's turned himself into an animal.
They're not just an animal because that's animal. There's no
moral condemnations, just an animals doing what animals do. But
a human being who turns himself into an animal, that's
a real moral monster. Michael. Even though statistical crime is down,

(01:53:03):
is the use of force being seen as more morally acceptable?
It seems like in some quarters for some crimes. Absolutely.
I mean, you know, maybe maybe the event that kind
of set this up is the Magiana. You know, the
killing of Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. There was

(01:53:26):
so praised on the left that kind of violence is
celebrated that kind of violence is seen as morally acceptable,
and that is how horrific. I mean, their ballot initiatives
in California named after this guy, after the murderer, named
after the murderer, celebrating the murderer. That is sick. That
is despicable, anti American, anti civilization, anti human, anti life.

(01:53:55):
And it's it's people like that that are going to
bring the end to this country because they're going to
play right into the hands of the people who will
take it over. Who is John Galla says, will you
be better protecting yourself now? I mean again, I take
precautions now. I don't think there's a real threat to

(01:54:18):
me again. Charlie was Charlie. I mean, he was millions
of followers, he was headlines in the press everywhere. But
I will evaluate. I will continue to watch what's going
on and keep evaluating what is happening. As I said
after nine to eleven, I wore a bulletpoof vest and
had security. But since two thousand and eight, I haven't

(01:54:41):
thought I needed it. And other than the Antifa attack,
which was there more for the other guy who was
with me on stage and for me, I haven't felt
threatened andrew this outra doesn't promote force If so, how yes,

(01:55:03):
because it promotes resentment. It's a moll code that says
that if you are oppressed, and oppressed means you're poor,
your needy, you've got less than others, then the others
owe you. They owe you, they're morally obliged to give

(01:55:24):
you stuff, they're morally obliged to sacrifice to you. And
all you're doing by using force against them, by mugging them,
by stealing their stuff, is applying, you know, It's just
getting them to do what they should have done to
begin with. It's a flip side of the guilt that
the wealthy have that they should be giving more. Well,

(01:55:49):
this is hatred because they should be giving more, and
that hatred can easily lead to violence. And it certainly
promotes force in the sense of it promotes the welfare state.
Happer says, I sent you a picture which summarizes call

(01:56:10):
Papa's tolerance paradox to your Oh, it's Papa's power.

Speaker 3 (01:56:15):
I think I know what this is.

Speaker 1 (01:56:16):
Okay, I don't know if this isn't it.

Speaker 3 (01:56:28):
There there?

Speaker 1 (01:56:34):
All right, Let's see if I can see this should
a tolerance society tolerate intolerance. You want more tolerance, tolerance,
respect my ideas.

Speaker 3 (01:56:48):
This is a Nazi saying. The answer is no.

Speaker 1 (01:56:51):
When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant,
let's give.

Speaker 3 (01:56:55):
Them a chance.

Speaker 1 (01:56:56):
The tolerant ones end up being destroyed and tolerant in
tolerance with them. Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution
must be outside of the law. But that's of course
the paradox, because you know you are now being intolerant.
I mean, this is the thing, this is the thing.

(01:57:18):
Tolerance is not the right term to use for any
of this. The question is a question of rights. You
don't lose your rights by having evil ideas. That doesn't
mean I should tolerate your evil ideas. And I don't
tolerate evil ideas. I condemn them, I fight them, I
argue against them, I excise them from my environment. I

(01:57:43):
don't allow them into my theater. I don't publish them
in my newspaper. If I own Twitter, they wouldn't tweet.
I believe in speech standards. I don't believe in having
no standards for speech, in tolerating everything. So I'm intolerant

(01:58:07):
to bad ideas. But that does not mean I will
use force against bad ideas. I'm intolerant to bad ideas,
and I respect their rights, their right to hold bad ideas.
While I don't tolerate them, I morally condemn them, I
morally attack them, I morally argue with them, and that
present alternatives so that the intolerant don't win. The intolerant

(01:58:34):
only win if you tolerate them. In the sense of ah, okay,
people disagree, they have their ideas are bad, nod is
are evil. There is a destructive don't follow their ideas,
we hate their ideas. We're we're not going to use
force against them because we believe in rights, we believe
in freedom.

Speaker 6 (01:58:55):
But don't go to their rallies, don't listen to them,
boycott them, don't put them on your radios, don't put
them on your TVs, don't follow them on Twitter.

Speaker 1 (01:59:08):
Be intolerant towards them. So that is my solution to
paradox in that scenario. If you will need to fight
bad ideas, then the political tolerance is not a problem.
It's not an issue because that's not where the battle
is one or lost. The battle is wan or lost

(01:59:28):
in a tellectual battle. Ye Hill twenty five. Hew you on,
there's been another school shooting in Colorado. As a result,
people are calling for more gun control laws. I'm not
sure more gun laws are the best way. What do
you think? Look, I don't have a worked out position

(01:59:54):
on the exact nature of what gun laws should be.
You know, we saw the horrible We saw the horrible
killing on the in Charlotte. He used the knife. People
who want to murder will find ways to murder. But

(02:00:16):
guns are the legitimate concern of government. And I know
a lot of people hate me for this. A lot
of libertarians and a lot of objectives hate me for impositions.
But guns are legitimate concern of government. The government is
an legitimate interest in regulating guns because there are tools
of violence and.

Speaker 3 (02:00:39):
Government is responsible.

Speaker 1 (02:00:40):
Now, how much to regulate? Where did you all the line?

Speaker 3 (02:00:44):
What guns?

Speaker 1 (02:00:46):
You know? I believe that you have a right to
have a gun for self defense. What counts the self
defense a self defense? The same in Denver as it
is in the middle of nowhere in the Rocky Mountains. No,
it's not so. Should the gun laws be different in
different places?

Speaker 3 (02:01:02):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (02:01:02):
I think so. Anyway, it's a lot to be thought about.
I don't have the final answer. But the problem of
school shootings is a psychological philosophical problem. It's a problem
of how we manage to how do how do we
manage to create so much anger and hostility and hatred

(02:01:25):
and nihilism so as to being about you know, so
much of this violence, right, And that is ideological, that's philosophical,
that's about educational system. Gun laws will not solve that problem. Andrew,

(02:01:49):
I think partly what informed the intensity of Randsmall judgment
was the strength of a conviction and free will. I
tend to allow us some more leeway than her for
psychological problems, though not regarding violent thoughts. Yeah, No, absolutely,
she really believed the free will. You are in control,
you create your soul, you are who you created. Now,

(02:02:12):
I think she understood that there is such thing as
meant to an illness that goes beyond what a person
can control, and I think she understood that. And I
think she understood the certain things that are beyond free world,
that is beyond your control. And I think she would
have been open to that. But her Mall condemnation was
in the context of the normal of the human There

(02:02:34):
was in control of his mind and the human that
allowed his mind to get to the point where they
could be violent, that they could do something horrific. But yes,
she had a strong conviction in world. But more than that,
she understood in Mall condemnation was a requirement for her
own life that if she didn't condemn evil, it strengthened evil.

(02:02:57):
Evil left alone got strong, and a stronger evil threatened
her life. It was an issue of survival, and she
understood that who is young gal? Do you think anyone
deserves to be pu pewed?

Speaker 3 (02:03:16):
I don't know. Pew puwede means.

Speaker 1 (02:03:19):
Especially those that campaign on the promise of using force
seems the same as a threat. Just wait until I
get into power? Why should I wait? I think I
understand the question. So, No, you know, it has to
be a threat. It has to be real for force
to be used. I you know, I for force to

(02:03:42):
be used, it has to be it has to be
a credible threat. It can just be an offhand thing.
It has to be credible.

Speaker 3 (02:03:50):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (02:03:50):
And then you can use for short of that, No,
you're just asking for.

Speaker 3 (02:03:54):
An escalation of force. Uh.

Speaker 1 (02:03:57):
And and you'd have to be able to stand in
front of a jew. We say, here's the proof that
this person deserves to be shot.

Speaker 3 (02:04:06):
Because he was gonna attack.

Speaker 1 (02:04:07):
Me, he was going to do with that do So,
there's no justification of shooting politicians because they say this
or that. It has to be a incredible threat. And again,
it has to be a threat that you can't address

(02:04:28):
in any other way like calling the police. All Right, guys,
thank you, thank you all the super chatters.

Speaker 3 (02:04:39):
I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (02:04:40):
I appreciate all of you being here. Difficult times, tragic times,
but we will get through them. I will be back
here tomorrow to talk to you, so I'll see you
all tomorrow. And yeah, don't give up.

Speaker 3 (02:04:57):
Don't give up.

Speaker 1 (02:04:58):
It's your life to live.

Speaker 3 (02:05:00):
It's all about life.

Speaker 1 (02:05:00):
Don't let all the bad news knock you down.

Speaker 3 (02:05:04):
Bye, everybody, see you tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (02:05:09):
M

All Episodes

9/11 to Charlie Kirk's Assassination -- The Unraveling of America | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}9/11 to Charlie Kirk's Assassination -- The Unraveling of America | Yaron Brook Show