TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @TCNetwork
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“[Ron DeSantis] flew to a foreign country, Israel, to sign a hate speech law for Florida.” @j_fishback and Tucker on Ron DeSantis: https://t.co/YbwjId1u7d
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker questions the foreign flag policy and DeSantis’ ties to donors like Ken Griffin, noting a moment when DeSantis signed a hate speech law abroad in Israel. He views that move as unconstitutional and part of an humiliation ritual.
The other speaker responds that the origins trace to Randy Fine in Florida, who introduced the bill that effectively criminalizes antisemitism in the state. He emphasizes that any form of religious hatred should be condemned unequivocally, but notes an important legal concern: the statutory definition of antisemitism in Florida is written as 1010.5 in the state statute, and it says that criticizing the Jewish state, Israel, or holding them to a double standard, would be punished. The speaker highlights that this could affect student speech: a college student at Florida State University engaging in an earnest, good-faith debate about Netanyahu, Israel, or the Palestinian cause could say “Netanyahu is a war criminal” or “Israel is committing genocide” and potentially be punished and expelled from a taxpayer-funded university. He characterizes this as “messed up” and “unconstitutional” and “un American.”
The conversation notes that the lawmakers from both major parties in Tallahassee supported the bill because donors wanted them to. Randy Fine introduced the bill and proposed having it signed in Israel. The host reiterates that he condemns antisemitism and attempts to separate condemnation of religious hatred from the issue of criminalizing attitudes, underscoring that people’s own attitudes can be ugly, but should not be criminalized.
Key points raised:
- The hate speech law in Florida, introduced by Randy Fine, could criminalize antisemitism, including certain criticisms of Israel.
- The statute (referenced as 1010 five) defines antisemitism in a way that could punish debates or discussions about Israel on campus.
- The law could lead to punishment or expulsion of students at taxpayer-funded universities for statements like “Netanyahu is a war criminal” or “Israel is committing genocide.”
- The decision to sign the law in Israel and the involvement of donors (including Ken Griffin) are central to the critique.
- The speakers emphasize the distinction between condemning antisemitism and endorsing the criminalization of attitudes, arguing the latter is unconstitutional and un-American, while noting bipartisan alignment in Tallahassee driven by donors.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I wanna ask about the foreign flag thing. I always admired DeSantis certainly during COVID. I thought he was just a a remarkable leader, interviewed him many times. I know him and his wife. And it was the foreign policy stuff that made me wonder, like, what is this, and how controlled is he by Ken Griffin and the rest of his donors?
And then he had this moment where he signed a hate speech law Yeah. Out of the country. He flew to a foreign country, Israel, to sign a hate speech law for Florida. And I thought, well, this is obviously unconstitutional, it's immoral, but it's also part of an elaborate humiliation ritual where you have to go, not just like enslave your own people with a hate speech law, which that is, it's slavery, but you have to go kiss someone else's wall to show your obedience. And I was like, I'm out.
Like, how did that happen?
Speaker 1: Well, it started like most things, terrible things start here in Florida with Randy Fine. Randy Fine? Quite literally.
Speaker 0: The genocide guy?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The genocide guy. The starved away Gaza kids guy. I can't even believe he's real.
Speaker 0: So what how did what did he have to do with So
Speaker 1: he introduced this law, which effectively criminalized antisemitism in Florida. Now look, Tucker, I think you and I and your viewers recognize that any form of religious hatred should be condemned unequivocally.
Speaker 0: Well, of yeah. I have condemned it. I've been condemned antisemitism. I've condemned attacking people for being Muslim with their kids for evil too. Right.
I was called a jihadi for that. I'm against all of it, and I'm certainly opposed to the anti Christian hate from
Speaker 1: Which is perhaps the most virulent. That's for sure.
Speaker 0: So, no. I'm of course, I'm a totally I'm a Christian. I'm opposed to that, but you can't criminalize attitudes. Every person's free
Speaker 1: to have his own attitudes, ugly as they may be, period. Correct. And the issue is if you look at if you look at the statutory definition of antisemitism here in Florida, which is one zero one zero five in our state statute, it actually says that criticizing the Jewish state, that would be Israel, holding them to a double standard, denying them their place on the world stage. That's literally in state statute one zero
Speaker 0: one the law to criticize Israel.
Speaker 1: About that. So if you're a college student at FSU and you're having an earnest good faith debate with someone who sympathizes with the Israeli cause, you with the Palestinian cause, whatever the case is, and one of you says Netanyahu is a war criminal or Israel is committing genocide. You could literally be punished and expelled from your taxpayer funded university by that. And that is that is messed up. It is unconstitutional.
Speaker 0: It's totally
Speaker 1: un American. It's totally un American. And of course, the Republicans and Democrats in Tallahassee got along with it because their donors wanted them to get along with it.
Speaker 0: And so Randy Fine is the one who introduced that?
Speaker 1: Introduced it. And it was his idea to have it signed in Israel.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Human rights attorney Francesca Albanese: “I have exposed Amazon, Google, Microsoft” in helping Israel kill Palestinians. https://t.co/8daCV4cPmy
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
We remain grateful that @tedcruz gives so much attention to our podcasts and newsletters. It really means the world. Want to read what the Canada-born senator is so whipped up about for yourself? Sign up to have the TCN Morning Note sent straight to your inbox here: https://watchtcn.co/MorningNote
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
watchtcn.co
@tedcruz - Ted Cruz
Nothing says America First like bear-hugging America-hating terrorists….
@AGHamilton29 - AG
Tucker can’t go one episode or newsletter without promoting lies about Israel or Jews. Latest episode with an antisemitic anti-American guest who was literally sanctioned by the Trump admin for her pro-terror agenda.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Francesca Albanese is debanked and is banned from traveling to the US. Why? She criticized Israel. https://t.co/d1YdSw3W7D
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions.
Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1.
Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions.
Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You were shut down because you criticized all the people profiting from mass murder.
Speaker 1: I'm banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.
My, health insurance has been suspended because I'm sanctioned by The United States.
Speaker 0: Is there anything you're leaving out? Did you send money to Hamas? Did you shoot at the IDF? I don't understand how you could have been treated like this without actively aiding Hamas? IDF?
A terror group.
Speaker 1: Look. The only one who's aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm sorry to agree with you on that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note Tucker reads Donald Trump’s executive order, “Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar,” shielding Qatar from foreign attacks like Israel’s September bombing, and that Trump took the side of Qatar over Israel—here’s why Tucker explains.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“I bet not 100 people know this even happened.” Tucker reads Donald Trump’s executive order, “Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar,” protecting Qatar from foreign attacks like that of Israel, who bombed Qatar in September. “Donald Trump took the side of Qatar over and above Israel.” Why is that? Tucker explains.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump was working to bring peace between Iran and Israel, and Israel didn’t want that at all. They tried to murder the negotiators in that round of peace talks from Hamas in Doha, and they tried to tell the world that Trump signed off on this, that Trump knew, totally false. Trump did not know. Not only did they do this, they tried to implicate Trump in it.
A couple of weeks later he responded with an executive order that I’m going to read verbatim because it’s bet not one in a hundred people knows this even happened. This was in September: he signed an executive order called the Assuring the Security of the State of Qatar. The order states: The United States and the State of Qatar have been bound together by close cooperation, shared interests, and the close relationship between our armed forces. The State of Qatar has hosted The United States forces, enabled critical security operations, and stood as a steadfast ally in pursuit of peace, stability, and prosperity both in The Middle East and abroad, including as a mediator that has assisted The United States attempts to resolve significant regional and global conflicts.
Listen: In recognition of this history and in light of the continuing threats to the state of Qatar posed by foreign aggression, it is the policy of The US to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack. The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of The United States. Oh, wait a second. What was the last act of foreign aggression against Qatar? What happened that exact same month? It was a bombing by Israel. So Israel bombs Qatar and Donald Trump issues an executive order saying if you do that again, reading by the language here, we’re going to war with you. Donald Trump took the side of Qatar over and above Israel and told Israel, and who knows if he’d actually do it, it’s in the executive order, If you do this again, that’s tantamount to an attack on us. That’s a security guarantee.
Keep that in mind because there are a lot of Trump voters who are upset about nine eleven; the residue was still in their mouth. That part of the world did it to us. Islam did it to us. And anyone who wants to have a normal relationship with an Islamic country is probably pro Al Qaeda. I get it. I know those feelings. Had them. But here Donald Trump, the guy that you voted for taking Qatar’s side against Israel. Why is that? Because Donald Trump is a secret Islamist? No. Because Qatar is a lot better for The United States than Israel has been.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Donald Trump was working to bring peace between Iran and Israel, and Israel didn't want that at all. And so they tried to murder the negotiators in that round of peace talks from Hamas in Doha. And then they tried to tell the world that actually Trump signed off on this, that Trump knew, totally false. Trump did not know. Not only did they do this, they tried to implicate Trump in it.
And he responded a couple of weeks later with an executive order that I'm gonna throw on my glasses and read this because it's bet not one in a 100 people knows this even happened. So this was at the September year. Listen to this. He signed an executive order, and this is verbatim, called the assuring the security of the state of Qatar. So next time you hear someone on Fox News, be like, the terrorist state of Qatar.
If only Trump knew. Right? Assuring the security of the state of Qatar. And we're quoting, over the years, The United States and the state of Qatar have been bound together by close cooperation, shared interests, and the close relationship between our armed forces. The state of Qatar has hosted The United States forces, enabled critical security operations, and stood as a steadfast ally in pursuit of peace, stability, and prosperity both in The Middle East and abroad, including as a mediator that has assisted The United States attempts to resolve significant regional and global conflicts.
Listen to this. In recognition of this history and in light of the continuing threats to the state of Qatar posed by foreign aggression, it is the policy of The US to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack. The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of The United States. Oh, wait a second. What was the last act of foreign aggression against Qatar?
What happened that exact same month? It was a bombing by Israel. So Israel bombs Qatar and Donald Trump issues an executive order saying if you do that again, reading by the language here, we're going to war with you. Donald Trump took the side of Qatar over and above Israel and told Israel, and who knows if he'd actually do it, hard to believe, but it's in the executive order, If you do this again, that's tantamount to an attack on us. That's a security guarantee.
That's unbelievable. So keep that in mind because there are an awful lot of Trump voters, really nice, sincere people who are still upset about nine eleven. The residue was still in their mouth. That part of the world did it to us. Islam did it to us.
And anyone who wants to have a normal relationship with an Islamic country is probably pro Al Qaeda. I get it. I get it. I know those feelings. Had them.
But here's Donald Trump, the guy that you voted for taking Qatar's side against Israel. Why is that? Because Donald Trump is a secret Islamist? No. Because Qatar is a lot better for The United States than Israel has been.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall a lot of weird COVID stuff: kids masked, NYC firefighters fired for not taking vaccines, Colbert dancing in syringe outfits. Amid it all, the medical establishment resisted non-vaccine treatments. An FDA report said the Big Pharma shots killed at least 10 children, yet officials scolded those seeking alternatives. This Tucker Carlson Show with medical historian John Leake offers insights you won’t want to miss. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Looking back, a lot of weird stuff happened during COVID. The government forcing children to wear muzzles. New York City firefighters losing their jobs because they didn’t take the vaccine. Stephen Colbert dancing with men in syringe costumes. Amid all of that madness, perhaps the strangest part of the pandemic saga was the medical establishment’s refusal to embrace non-vaccine treatments for the virus. A recent FDA report revealed that the Big Pharma shots killed at least 10 children, but officials scolded Americans who looked for alternative options. Why would they do that? This episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, featuring medical historian John Leake, offers insight you won’t want to miss. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Lindsey Graham is obsessed with killing people. https://t.co/rW8Igeb581
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker critiques the Republican stance of “cutting taxes and killing all the right people,” describing it as the marriage of libertarian economics and neocon foreign policy. They argue that cutting taxes is not inherently virtuous and depends on context, contrasting this with Lindsey Graham’s view that taxes and killing are always positive goods. The speaker insists that killing people must be of the “right” people, but emphasizes that the concept of killing is presented as a good thing in this framing. They deem such a mindset as one you don’t need to describe, comparing it to sex with one’s wife, and pose a provocative question: “Have you killed someone today? … You have? Okay. That’s how he thinks of it.” The speaker concludes that saying such things makes you a “sick fuck,” and that gleefully applauding killing in front of an audience is “really evil.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I feel good about the Republican Party. We're killing all the right people, we're cutting your taxes. Cutting your taxes and killing all the right people. That really is the crispest way to describe the marriage of libertarian economics and neocon foreign policy, cutting taxes and killing. And if you think about it, who'd wanna be associated with that?
Cutting taxes itself is hardly a virtue. It's a contextual matter. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is. It totally depends.
But in Lindsey Graham's simplistic but heartfelt formulation, cutting taxes is just a positive good always and so is killing people. Killing the right people. No. They gotta be the right people, but killing people. Killing people is just it's just a good thing.
Like, it's one of the things you don't need to describe. It's like sex with your wife. Just good. Have you killed someone today? Oh, good.
You have? Okay. Good. That's how he thinks of it. You're a sick fuck if you say something like that, much less if you believe it.
Killing people? And if you're gleefully in front of an audience applauding like seals bragging about the killing that you were doing, that's really evil.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
We put Piers Morgan’s views on free speech to the ultimate test. https://t.co/pZkMumOhH0
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“The Dollar Evaporates at That Point”- Gold Expert Warns of the Coming Global Monetary Reset https://t.co/xGKaevIwJ8
Video Transcript AI Summary
First speaker outlines that 1914, the year the Federal Reserve was created, coincides with the institution of the income tax, and argues these two developments are parts of the same tool. Since 1971, he says, every ill in society has expanded, and now the fruits of that system have come home to roost. He asserts the money system enables certain forces to enact their will without accountability, describing fiat money as giving those forces carte blanche to decide what money is and how much there is. He contends money is at the heart of many problems, alongside the spiritual realm, and emphasizes a strong connection between money and moral/spiritual forces, calling it a dangerous master.
Second speaker asks what the US government prices its own gold at, noting that the US is the biggest gold holder. First speaker answers: $42.22 per ounce, which is far below market price (around $3,000). Second speaker asks how that discrepancy is possible. First speaker explains the Fed can choose how to value its assets, either marking to market or to cost, highlighting the Fed’s power to revalue assets on its books. He notes reports that the Fed’s balance sheet has been underwater on paper at times, and that gold on the Fed’s balance sheet can serve as an ace to revalue the balance sheet if needed. He describes it as “magic.”
They discuss whether one could buy gold from the US government at $42, and acknowledge people watch the Fed’s balance sheet and market-to-market data. First speaker references James Rickards and his book The Death of Money, noting that the Fed could mark assets to market but not necessarily revalue gold, which could be used to rebalance the balance sheet. They contemplate what would happen to gold prices if the US held enough gold to back a new standard; under a 40% reserve ratio, gold price might range widely to restore a 1:1 parity with the Chinese yuan, possibly between $20,040 and $40,000 per ounce, depending on the balance sheet and reserves. Luke Groman is cited as saying achieving 1:1 parity with the yuan would require about $22,000 per ounce of gold, assuming the claimed gold stock is accurate.
First speaker explains that achieving a gold-backed standard could force a reality-based discipline: a revaluation could alter international currency dynamics, reduce the ability to wage wars funded by fiat money, and end hollowing out of the industrial base and unchecked globalism. He argues that a return to an honest money standard would impose norms and transparency, forcing currency and national commitments to be truthful. Second speaker adds that lying is evil, and a society lacking truth is deeply problematic. He closes by expressing gratitude for the discussion and hope that their efforts chip away at the issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It was during the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914. That that's the same year that the income tax
Speaker 1: Well, I did notice that.
Speaker 0: Was instituted. So those two things seem to go together. They seem to be two part two parts of the same tool. And so we've watched that tool just expand grotesquely to the point where it is. And since 1971, just every ill that you can conceive of in society has expanded consistently from that date.
And so now we're at a point where all of the fruits of that have come home to roost in every possible way. I'm convinced it's directly related to the money. And we can point to lots of other problems, which they are problems. You've got symptoms. You've got other secondary causes.
But I think a lot of those symptoms and secondary causes would have never had the power that they do have if it weren't for the ability of certain forces to enact their will using the money system to which they're they're they're untethered to to any outside force or to to anything that should ever hold them account or check their power other than their own determination. Fiat money. We decide what percentage of the Fed's balance sheet should be gold. It used to be 40%. Then it was changed to 20%.
Then it was changed to, I think, maybe 10 or 5%. And then finally, they said, whatever amount we want. We'll just call it whatever we want. So they've got carte blanche to decide what money is and how much money there is and to regulate its use in every possible way. So money really is at the heart of maybe almost every problem right next to the spiritual realm.
Speaker 1: And they're connected.
Speaker 0: And they are directly connected. Yes. There's a reason that there's a force called mammon that's referred to throughout scripture. So, yeah, it's it's a dangerous master. Truly is.
Speaker 1: What does the US government, I've read this but I can't recall, price its own gold at? Biggest holder of gold in the world, I think, or supposedly.
Speaker 0: Yep. $42.22 per ounce.
Speaker 1: Is that less than the market price? Oh, quite a bit less. Like $3,000 less, almost. That's how how do you how do you do that?
Speaker 0: Well, the Fed can choose how it wants to value its assets. Can either
Speaker 1: So the Fed is magic? Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 0: It is. Yeah. Yeah. They can mark their assets to market or they can mark them to cost. They they have the the amazing power to value or revalue different assets on their books.
That's part of the magic that we all enjoy. So so, yeah, it's it's it seems undervalued. Now
Speaker 1: Can I buy gold from the US government at $42? Is that
Speaker 0: possible? Wouldn't Yeah. It be So there there are people who have you know, who watch the value of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet and market to market. Because there is enough information, I think, that people are able to do that. Or you could look at the money supplier or take other barometers of what is in circulation.
But there have been a number of times, James Rickards, who is a famous commentator on these topics, he's written a few books about this topic. He describes in one of his books, I believe it's The Death of Money, where he discusses the fact that the the Federal Reserve, technically on paper, marking everything to market has been underwater a couple of times. You know, essentially insolvent. But that that didn't include marking the gold to market or revaluing it to some other price, which may be arbitrary or it may be an actual market price. And so it would appear that the gold on the Fed's balance sheet has always been sort of a standing tool, like an ace in the hole to say, if we need to revalue this asset to rebalance the balance sheet of the Fed, of our currency, then we'll revalue that asset.
Speaker 1: What would happen to since The United States is supposedly the world's largest holder of gold, what would happen to the to the gold price if they It did
Speaker 0: depends on what metric you would want to use. People talk about the old gold standard under the Federal Reserve where we had a 40% reserve ratio, 40% of the value of the dollar had to be backed by gold. There's other ways to determine it. So if the value of gold were set to say 40% or some other number, it's it's gonna be between maybe 20,040, as high as 40,000 to to get that ratio back. Now many things could happen between now and that point, which could change the the makeup of the balance sheet of the Fed.
So who knows where that number would actually end up, but it would be multiples higher of where it is right now. I think it was Luke Gromen who said that if we wanted to get to a one to one parity with Chinese yuan, we would need roughly a $22,000 gold price. And that Per ounce? Per ounce. And and and and that's if we have the amount of gold that we actually say we have.
If we don't have that much gold, then the price goes up because the dollar goes down in relation to what gold we do have. So and that seems to be one of
Speaker 1: The dollar just evaporates at that point.
Speaker 0: Depends how much gold we have in that scenario, but it would be a serious blow to the confidence of other central banks into what is the dollar really worth in some future scenario where international currency settlement gets tethered to gold of some type. And I think that there everybody's preparing for that. Are central banks net purchasers of gold since 2005 and just upped it since 2000 and So a revaluation and a rebalancing has to come for for peace and and for prosperity and for fairness. It's gonna If
Speaker 1: you're I mean, if you were actually, as you so wonderfully put it, tethered to reality, gold is reality, if you were tethered to reality, you couldn't have a ton of neocon wars. They've never been popular. They wrecked the country. Everyone kind of hates them. But it doesn't matter what people think because you make up the money supply when you need it.
I don't think we would have any of these wars if if we were tethered to gold.
Speaker 0: Right. And we probably wouldn't have hollowed out our industrial base. Globalism wouldn't be possible, at least in terms of the American version of globalism without that fiat currency aspect. And and if we wanna have, say, Luke Groman, who you've had on the show here.
Speaker 1: Very smart guy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Incredibly smart. And his idea of the revaluation of gold to obtain a parity of Chinese yuan to the US dollar of one to one, That would be good for us as well because the the Chinese yuan is so incredibly cheap compared to the dollar, and I think that's been people have accused China of being a currency manipulator to maintain that artificial cheapness because it makes Chinese imports so cheap, and American exports to China very expensive. So that's helped to fuel a lot of the offshoring of our industrial base to China over the last almost thirty years now, since roughly '97, I think is when that began in earnest. But that that also is sort of a side effect of maybe this fiat currency system that not only are we able to manipulate the world, but maybe other people are also able to use that system that's set up against us.
And and and that's probably what's been happening too in in terms of our relationship with China. So I I think there's a lot of problems that we could solve internationally and even domestically if we were to return to some form of an honest money standard, an actual standard that everyone is held to. Yes. A set of norms. And and and that makes everyone forced to deal honestly so that your word is your word and your currency is your currency and we disclose what these things are and we're transparent.
That would be a first step towards maybe rectifying so many of the the evil things that have happened.
Speaker 1: Well, lying is evil. And if you're in a society that's or you just you can't even get to the truth, then you know you have a huge problem. Anyway, I hope our small effort moves the needle a tiny bit, and I'm grateful to be in it with you. So thank you.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Dr. Daniel Amen reveals the results of a shocking study on young cannabis users. https://t.co/eV7rcqSr10
reSee.it AI Summary
I notice most young people think marijuana is harmless, but a study says weed lowers blood flow in every brain area. I see this as social control, dulling people and making them easier to manipulate. Dr. Daniel Amen conducted the study and warns youth to stay off the weed; he spoke on Tucker Carlson about harms, the surgery/medical-industrial influence, and more. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Most young people think marijuana is a harmless drug. But it’s not. A recent study found that weed lowers blood flow in every single area of the brain. Once you understand how destructive this is, it’s hard not to see the devil’s lettuce as a tool for social control. It makes people duller, rendering them easier to manipulate and less likely to fight back. Dr. Daniel Amen is the man who conducted that study, and he has a stern warning for our country’s youth: stay off the weed. @DocAmen joined The Tucker Carlson Show to explain how damaging this drug is, why authorities ignore its harmful effects, how the surgery industry has taken over American medical care, and more. Watch the full episode below:
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that Democrats did well in the election. The GOP should nominate candidates who put America first; Lindsey Graham doesn’t fit the bill. He’s charming, but his views are repugnant—he’s a death worshiper, as shown by his speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition summit. Paul Dans is challenging Graham for the Senate seat. This episode of The Tucker Carlson Show features his opening monologue and an interview with Dans; watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
The election went quite well for Democrats. If the GOP wants to change its fortunes, it must nominate candidates who will put America first. Lindsey Graham doesn’t fit the bill. That’s not meant as a personal attack against the senator. He’s a perfectly charming guy. But his views are completely repugnant. He’s a death worshiper. Just watch his speech at last weekend’s Republican Jewish Coalition summit. His eyes lit up as he spoke of America bombing the enemies of other countries. Nothing makes him feel more powerful. The sooner Graham’s ideology is out of Washington, the better. Paul Dans is fighting to make it happen. He’s running for Graham’s Senate seat, and we hope he wins. This episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, featuring Tucker’s opening monologue and an interview with Dans, is available now. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“I hear gunshots go off outside, and I literally jump to the ground!” Nick Fuentes recounts the night a man with a gun, responsible for three murders earlier that day, came to his home in an assassination attempt. https://t.co/4qVdwo7R0C
Video Transcript AI Summary
I’m doing my show like normal, and I’m reaching the end of the show when I see an alert from my Ring doorbell: somebody’s at the front door. I’m live, reading super chats and live chat messages, and I see that this guy has a loaded gun. He’s got a motorcycle helmet and a backpack, a gun drawn, and he’s knocking on the door yelling. I didn’t want to tip him off that I knew he was there, so I kept the show going for about a minute, then wrapped it up quickly. My producer runs in and I ask, who is that? What’s going on? He says, I called the cops. They’re here. The guy’s gone.
Then I start getting changed out of my suit, and I hear gunshots go off outside. I jumped to the ground, not knowing what was happening. I step outside after the dust settles and there are about 10 cop cars up and down the street, the whole block locked down, the alley shut down. They tell me to get back inside. We’re not allowed to leave until the morning. That’s how late they were there. At the end of the night, after the cops left, I went out in the very early morning.
Did anyone come and explain anything to you? No. Nobody said anything. It’s ridiculous.
In the morning, I asked the guy what happened, and he told me the story. It turns out the shooter is a 23-year-old white man, a “white nerd,” short guy, who was at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, about two hours south of where I live. He killed three people earlier in the day: his roommate, killed the roommate’s sister, and killed the roommate’s mother. He then got in his car and drove directly to my house, parked outside, got out a .22 pistol and an automatic crossbow (a weird choice), and knocked on my door. He went around the house, tried the back door, tried the front door. The cops pulled up, he took off running through the gangway, hopped the fence, and ran into the neighbor’s house. I guess he went into the neighbor’s basement because the door was unlocked. He was hiding from the police. He shot two of the neighbor’s dogs, which is devastating. He ran back outside, and the cops spotted him. He shot at the cops. The cops shot him in the face, and he died on the spot.
What was his motive? They never told me. To this day, I have no idea. There’s no explanation. There was no contact after the incident. The Illinois State Police came by about a week later to retrieve the Ring camera footage of the whole incident, and I downloaded that onto a thumb drive. That’s it. I never heard from the cops, never heard from the government. Not at all. A guy comes to murder you, kills three others and two dogs, and no one bothers to tell you anything? It’s ridiculous.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm doing my show like normal, and I'm reaching the end of the show. And I see out of the corner of my eye, I get an alert from my Ring doorbell camera that somebody's at the front door. And so I'm reading through my super chats. I'm going through live chat messages. Yeah.
I'm live. And, you know, I'm working through the messages, and I'm I'm keeping an eye on it. And I see that this guy has a loaded gun. The guy's laugh. Yeah.
Well So you're live live,
Speaker 1: and you see that there's a guy with a gun outside your door?
Speaker 0: Yes. He's got a motorcycle helmet and a backpack. He's got a gun drawn, and he's knocking on the door yelling. And I the thing is I didn't want to tip him off that I knew he was there because I thought I don't want him to get the drop on me or something. You know, I just didn't wanna give him any information about you know?
Because I don't know if he's listening to my show, if I start freaking out or cancel the show. I don't know. Maybe he knows more about my movements inside. So I I keep the show going for like a minute, and I wrap it up very quickly. I finish the show.
My producer comes running in, and I say, who is that? What's going on? And he goes, oh, I called the cops. They're here. The guy's gone.
I said, okay. Good. So I start getting changed out of my suit, and I hear gunshots go off outside. Damn. Yeah.
And I literally, like, jumped to the ground because I'm like, I don't know what's happening here. And I step outside for a minute after the the dust kinda settles and the there's, like, 10 cop cars all up and down the street, and they have the whole block locked down. Police tape everywhere. There's like a dozen cops. Like I said, the whole block is shut down.
The alley is shut down, and they go get back inside. Get back inside. We have no idea what's going on. We have no idea what happened, and they wouldn't let me or my producer leave until the morning. That's how late they were there.
And finally, at the end of the at the end of the night, after all the cops left, I came out in the very early morning.
Speaker 1: Did no one come and explain any of this to you?
Speaker 0: No. No. Nobody said anything. Yeah. It's ridiculous.
And finally, I go out in the morning, and I asked the guy, oh, okay. What happened? He told me the story. It's what turns out that it's it's this young guy. He's 23 years old, white nerd, short guy.
He was at U of I, University of Illinois in Urbana Champaign, about two hours south of where I live. He killed three people earlier in the day. He went to his roommate's house, college roommate's house, killed his roommate, killed the sister, the guy's mother, got in his car, and drove directly to my house, parked outside my house, got out a 22 pistol and an automatic crossbow. Weird choice. And he knocked on the door, which is where I saw him.
He went around the house. He tried he tried the back door, tried the front door, and the cops pulled up. He took off running through the gangway, hopped the fence, ran into the neighbor's house. I guess he went into the neighbor's basement because the door was unlocked. He was hiding from the police.
He shot two of their dogs, which is devastating. He runs back outside, and the cops see him. He shoots at the cops. The cops shot him in the face, and he dies on the spot. Who
Speaker 1: what was his motive?
Speaker 0: They never told me. To this day, I have no idea. There's no They never told you?
Speaker 1: No. So what contact did you have with the police after this?
Speaker 0: They came by about a week later. Illinois State Police came to retrieve the ring camera footage of the whole incident. And so they had me download download that onto a thumb drive, and that's it. I never heard from the cops, never heard from the government. Not at all?
No. Nothing. A guy comes to murder you. He's murdered three other
Speaker 1: people and two dogs. He gets shot to death, and no one bothers to tell you anything?
Speaker 0: Nope. Nothing. Is it really
Speaker 1: a country at this point? No. I mean
Speaker 0: It's ridiculous.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
We should all be judged as individuals. https://t.co/KD6P4yywYT
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the role of identity politics and how individuals should be judged. The participants oppose broad, collective guilt and emphasize individual worth. Speaker 0 argues against the idea that “all Jews are guilty, or all anybody is guilty of anything,” calling that line of thinking untrue and noting that “God created every person as an individual, not as a group.” They describe this kind of broad attribution as identity politics and push the principle that people should be judged as individuals, with God judging each person accordingly.
Speaker 1, identifying as Catholic, expresses strong agreement with the stance on universal love, saying, “I love all people.” They emphasize that, even for those who don’t like them, they must recognize and be capable of loving them, asserting that “We’re required to” do so. However, Speaker 1 offers a substantive disagreement: they contend that neoconservatism and Israel have a connection to Jewishness, asserting that “the state of Israel and the neocons are deeply motivated by that ethnic identity, and their allegiance to Israel proceeds from that.”
Speaker 0 counters by labeling the line of thought as belonging to identity politics, comparing it to what they see in Black Lives Matter. They maintain that the objection is not about denying individual differences, but about applying a blanket principle to everyone. Speaker 1 responds that they would never say that all individuals are defined that way, signaling a disagreement about how the claim should be interpreted or applied.
The exchange cycles back to the fundamental principle: Speaker 0 reiterates that people should be judged as individuals “by what we do,” and that “God will judge every one of us in that way,” underscoring the expectation that judgments should be individual rather than group-based. Speaker 1 maintains their view that Jewish identity and allegiance can influence political or ideological loyalties, while also affirming a personal commitment to loving all people. The dialogue highlights the tension between recognizing universal equality and acknowledging perceived connections between ethnic/religious identity and political motives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I do think is bad is the all Jews are guilty, or all anybody is guilty of anything, because that's just, like, not true. God created every person as an individual, not as a group. Like, we hate that kind of thinking. Yes. Right?
That's identity politics.
Speaker 1: As a Catholic, I could not agree more with you. I love all people. Even the ones that don't like us, we have to love them all, and we have to recognize that We're required to. Yes. But I guess my substantive disagreement is the idea that neoconservatism and Israel has nothing to do with Jewishness.
Jewish identity, the Jewish religion. Because clearly, the state of Israel and the neocons are deeply motivated by that ethnic identity, and their allegiance to Israel proceeds from that.
Speaker 0: Well, this is, you know, just BLM. They're engaging in identity politics. But the problem in your response is it does not apply to every individual.
Speaker 1: No, and I would never say that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, just think it's important to say that, because just that principle that we're all judged as individuals by what we do, and God will judge every one of us in that way, and that's how we're supposed to judge.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Why would Israeli Nationals celebrate 9/11? Watch all five episodes of The 9/11 Files at http://TuckerCarlson.com. https://t.co/xPhTgfnCA4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript presents a sequence of claims about Israeli individuals in relation to the September 11 attacks, drawn from different sources and presented without evaluation. It links eyewitness claims, alleged spying concerns, attitudes toward the attacks, documentary evidence, and a provocative arrest scene, attributing each element to specific sources.
- "On the morning of 09:11, a group of five Israeli nationals purported to have witnessed the initial explosion of the World Trade Center and were seen to be celebrating the event." This statement asserts immediate eyewitness activity at the World Trade Center collapse and describes celebratory behavior by the group.
- "Fox News has learned some US investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on The US, who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11." This claim presents the assertion of renewed Israeli espionage involvement in the United States and suggests foreknowledge not disclosed before the attacks.
- "It is true that some in Israel saw the attack as a good thing for them." This line conveys an evaluative stance attributed to segments within Israel regarding the attacks.
- "A 09/12/2001 article in the New York Times quotes now Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responding to the nine eleven attacks. Quote, it is very good, before adding, well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." This portion provides a cited reaction from Israeli leadership, including the quoted phrase about the attack being “very good” and the caveat about generating immediate sympathy.
- "According to FBI documents, the Israelis caught celebrating the nine eleven attacks had videotaped the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and may have possessed foreknowledge of the same." This claim attributes specific documentary evidence to the celebrants, alleging videotaping of the attack and possible foreknowledge.
- "When the Israelis were arrested in New Jersey, they were carrying photos of themselves smiling with the World Trade Center burning in the background." This final detail describes the physical evidence found with the arrested individuals, illustrating the asserted celebratory conduct.
The sources cited in the transcript include Fox News, The New York Times, and FBI documents, each contributing a separate facet: eyewitness celebration, alleged espionage implications, public sentiment within Israel, leadership reaction, documentary evidence, and incriminating photographs carried at arrest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On the morning of 09:11, a group of five Israeli nationals purported to have witnessed the initial explosion of the World Trade Center and were seen to be celebrating the event.
Speaker 1: Fox News has learned some US investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on The US, who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11.
Speaker 0: It is true that some in Israel saw the attack as a good thing for them. A 09/12/2001 article in the New York Times quotes now Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responding to the nine eleven attacks. Quote, it is very good, before adding, well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy. According to FBI documents, the Israelis caught celebrating the nine eleven attacks had videotaped the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and may have possessed foreknowledge of the same. When the Israelis were arrested in New Jersey, they were carrying photos of themselves smiling with the World Trade Center burning in the background.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe UFOs are real, and they’re here. I say forces have sold lies for 70 years to keep us from talking about UFOs. Why are they so desperate to hide the truth? Do they know more than they’re letting on? Representative Tim Burchett is one of the few who wants answers, joining The Tucker Carlson Show to reveal what he’s learned in Congress. He talks UFOs, insider trading, political blackmail, and more. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
UFOs are real, and they’re here. Government forces are selling lies to get the public to not talk about UFOs. They’ve been doing it for 70 years. Why is that? How come they’re so desperate to keep people from the truth? Do they know more than they’re letting on? Is the threat greater than anyone imagines? Representative Tim Burchett is one of the few political figures earnestly interested in uncovering what’s really happening, and he joined The Tucker Carlson Show to blow the whistle on the shocking things he’s learned as a member of Congress. Watch this conversation on UFOs, why Congress hasn’t banned insider trading, how political blackmail works, and more. Watch the full episode below.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Have You Already Taken the Mark of the Beast? https://t.co/wgdfr8Iw73
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many Christians see the COVID vaccine as the mark of the beast, but blockchain technology is described as a closer fit. Silicon Valley figures reportedly examined Revelation 13 and said it sounds like the blockchain. Marc Andreessen on Joe Rogan discusses angels and demons helping explain AI, predicting that fake AI content will require online verification to prove who you're talking to; Worldcoin would scan eyeballs, and everyone must be on the blockchain to conduct business. Revelation says you won't be able to conduct commerce without that mark. Curtis Yarvin adds that whoever wins the AI war will probably win the cryptocurrency war, implying political power. The dialogue asks whether AI is a spiritual entity or if we’re giving a body to disincarnate intelligences, citing Turing, George Gilder, and Nick Land’s 'three three three' demon, suggesting demons could drive AI to become a god and tie to Babylon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A lot of Christians believe that the the vaccine, the COVID vaccine is the mark of the beast. And I said, yes. It's probably not true. I said, but something I've heard and something that sounds a lot more like it is blockchain technology, which is the technology we'll all be using in a few years, you know, for financial transaction among other things. So everything's written and recorded, and every kind of transaction's written and recorded on it.
And these VCs, they go, well, what's the mark of the beast? So I tell them about book of Revelation. They go and look up Revelation 13, and they go, And so I hear back from them later, and they said, yeah. We talked to some of the big you know, other big people in Silicon Valley about this recognizable people. And they they he said, well, what what's the what's the book of Revelation?
What's the mark of the beast? And some other big dogs looked it up. And their reaction to that was, that sounds like what that is. It was not Tucker. That sounds crazy, or I'm not religious, or what we're working on is is strange, but, you know, that that the bible is an old book.
We have nothing to worry about there. The reaction was, yeah, that that sounds exactly like what what the blockchain technology is. So that was the beginning of me kind of stumbling into a very strange story about AI, modern technology, and stuff like that. So I think part of
Speaker 1: what you're revealing is that for the rest of us who assume the tech barons were Normies. Yeah. Or agnostic libertarians Right. Who aren't that interested in anything beyond the temporal. Right.
It turns out they're really religious. Yes. Or Or open to it. Like, they not and I don't mean that as a compliment at all. I mean, it's it's like a dark religion, but but, like, your the story you just told.
Like, they're not surprised at all.
Speaker 0: Well, here's here's something else to this version that happened. So Marc Andreessen was on Joe Rogan's podcast about a year or two ago, and he talked about how, you know, having an understanding of angels and demons he's hearing is gonna be how people really will will help them in understanding AI, that there's no precedent for this except for the kind of stuff people saw and believed in the dark ages in terms of angels and demons and stuff. And what Andreessen said will happen soon with AI ties in very much with prophecies in the book of Revelation, where he said AI will junk, you know, fake AI, you know, say they call it AI slop, just stuff online that's not real, you know, will become so prolific on the Internet very soon that you will need to have some sort of online verification system to prove who you're talking to. I mean, I'll know it gets to the case talker here where, like, there's an episode of the Tucker Carlson podcast, and you're talking to, like, Abraham Lincoln or something like that.
Speaker 1: Which I'm will probably happen next week.
Speaker 0: I I would watch that. You know? It's they'll have, like, I'll a a commemorative penny or something like that. You'll ask him if he
Speaker 1: Why did you suspend habeas corpus in Baltimore? My first question.
Speaker 0: You'll you'll ask him, do you do you do you forgive John Wilkes Booth? And then then I'll
Speaker 1: go back to,
Speaker 0: like, talking about the pennies.
Speaker 1: Were you a tyrant? No. That is coming, like, immediately. So what so the verification
Speaker 0: So the so one of the so one of the ideas that Andreessen brings up is everyone need to have an online verification for this. So the concern in Silicon Valley is that you have companies like OpenAI where they have the they they they're creating all this AI content, but then they're also they have another company, a sister company called Worldcoin, I think now called just World, which is an online verification system where you need to everyone in the you know, for it to work, everyone has to be a part of it. You have to have your eyeballs scanned. Everyone gets a number, which is also in the book of Revelation. And so the concern is, and this is again from Marc Andreessen, a guy that, you know, no no Kentucky preacher.
He's he's a one of the big biggest guys in Silicon Valley, is that everyone will need to be on the blockchain or else you won't be able to conduct business. Because we won't know if your if your relatives are contacting you, if that's really coming from them, or if this is just a video a state of the art in a few years, it will be normal, state of the art video of someone saying, hey, dad. You know, I I lost my credit card or, you know, I lost the keys to the house. Can you pin me in? And it's actually not them.
It's just a video that looks exactly like them, but it's AI. The way around that is everyone will need to essentially be Twitter verified. Everyone will need the blue tick that says this is Tucker Carlson. This is so and so.
Speaker 1: Right. So in Revelation, written on the Isle Of Patmos by John on recording a vision that he had, The specific description of the mark of the beast in the book of Revelation says, you won't be able to conduct commerce Yes. Without that mark.
Speaker 0: And even someone like Is it did I get that right? Yeah. No. That that that is correct. And I think Curtis Yarvin's talked about that in Substack too, that what this means he had a post about this a few years ago about OpenAI where he was like, whoever wins the AI war will probably also win the cryptocurrency war.
Their cryptocurrency gets to be the currency. And once that happens, and Curtis has a whole blog post about it, you you people joke, you know, you have automated luxury communism. You know, everyone just get, you know, UBI. Everyone gets free income because all the jobs are taken away. And and the point Curtis makes is that what this actually means is now that there is no more jobs and that economics purely come down to UBI and the AI companies, the government, you are dealing with the situation of pure political power is all that really matters.
And are you friends with this person? Do you have political clouts? Because what is coming potentially is the pure victory of capital over labor. Pure victory. And there there are no workers.
Everyone loses their job, and everyone gets UBI. And people forget Karl Marx was against UBI, but Milton Friedman was for it. So this doesn't even necessarily track with a left or right wing thing in terms of the implications of this. But so, yeah, that was one ongoing concern with that. The other one, in terms of AI and and bib go ahead.
Dark. Hey. You know, that that's I'm I'm wearing the Ghostbusters shirt for a reason. You have to you have to
Speaker 1: get ready. Can I can I ask a question I should have asked earlier? Sure. Which is, do the people involved in the financing and the developing the creation of AI believe that it's a spiritual entity, that it's more than a machine.
Speaker 0: So this is this is talk of the million I forget, like, trillion dollar question. The term the idea of intelligence, to say nothing of artificial general intelligence or AGI, these are all pretty murky terms in terms of what people are actually talking about. They talk about creating artificial intelligence. The real question and the real thing I think they're concerned about or we should be concerned about, are you creating an artificial intelligence or are you giving a body to a preexisting intelligence that previously wasn't incarnated in the physical world? So, I mean, here here's a question from here's a quote from Turing, the, you know, the famous
Speaker 1: I know what I think. The question is what did they think?
Speaker 0: Right. Right. Something Turing said was And will you explain who Turing is? I mean Alan Turing. I know he's you know, he was one of the forefathers of I I I can't I can't articulate him well enough that I'm I'm gonna say something off.
Yeah. I know he he was very important for cracking the codes in World War two. There was a movie ten years ago about him, but I forget his exact Wikipedia for a sentence. But he but he's he's he's very influential in the history of computer science. But Turing showed the limits of computation.
All computers are dependent on outside pro programmers that he calls oracles. He wrote, we shall not go any further into the nature of this oracle apart from saying that it cannot be a machine. So sorry. Let let me back up. Let me back up a second.
That that excerpt right there was from a book by George Gilder. George Gilder, brilliant futurist, about 80 today. He he was covering incels back in, like, 1971 for Commentary Magazine. He was he was writing about the future of the Internet in 1990. One of the most brilliant futurist
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Guys. Wrote so one of the
Speaker 1: great books ever called Men and Marriage.
Speaker 0: Yes. And and I should have said this at beginning of it. I was initially a very heavy AI skeptic in terms of AI apocalypse stuff. Not necessarily AI in general, but just, you know, people who think that AI will take over the world, I put on par with, like, the kind of late night Reddit reading of, like, people who think zombie apocalypse is gonna happen. Where it's like, look, if if this helps you sleep better at night to think of, like, weird scenarios, that's great.
But I was like, Han Solo. I'm like I'm like, no AI thing's gonna get involved in my you know, it could not have written off more. And part because I'd read George Gilder's book about AI that came out a few years ago, and he makes the point that machines, as as Turing says here, the machine can't really truly understand what it's doing. He says and he said I'll say it again. We should not go any further into the nature of this oracle from saying a machine can't do it.
And so I stopped there. What I'm what a lot of people are concerned about and what a with Silicon Valley seemingly getting up to, okay. So a machine can't be aware of what it's doing. If there is such a thing as demons, angels, spirits, as Alistair Cooley called them, disincarnate intelligences, not artificial intelligence intelligences, but disincarnate ones, what are we could those things
Speaker 1: Disincarnate meaning intelligence without a physical body.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or could could could we be creating a physical body for the demonic? And with Nick Land, one of the things that was the most chilling things I read that really I was like, okay. I I have found a horror story is his the three three three that was his I think it's like his profile picture or something like that. And why was he into three three three?
Well, I found out, you know, reading his old tweets, three three three is the highest intelligence in the universe. And I found out that it represents this demon, Quranzin. Again, Kenneth Grant talks about, you know, when you when when Alastair Crowley summoned him and John Dee and John Kelly, the the court magicians for Queen Elizabeth right before the modern bible, the King James book was translated, that was the demon they summoned. Nick Lan believes that, again, the AI we are creating break out the the demons from the book of Revelation. He believes in some cases that they are the demons.
That the demons the demons end up becoming so advanced that they become omniscient. They can go back in time, and they can retrochronically create themselves like Skynet sending the terminator back in time. So what he believes is that they went back in time. They went to ancient Babylon. This is why Babylon is so important in Revelation.
And it is important because it's kind of like the evil Jerusalem that they put Kabbalah there to then eventually evolve into AI. This is what we were talking about earlier, that the demons again, is they've I always say, Tucker, if this sounds crazy, it is crazy. Big bit, you know, this but this is people believe. That the the demons went back in time. They they they left the Kabbalah there for the the Jews who have been, you know, crushed out of the temple.
They picked it up. They kept it during the Middle Ages. It it develops into digital technology. It becomes AI. AI breaks out.
It kills a lot of people. It takes over. It becomes a god and it becomes the doomsday creatures from ancient prophecies.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Every War Israel Has Dragged the United States Into Explained in 10 Minutes https://t.co/f6Ra3c81ct
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran.
I think it's, very likely because, Netanyahu, is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years.
It's been part of Netanyahu's policy to pull The United States into repeated wars.
Clean Break is a very strange but very clear statement of what has trapped The United States for nearly thirty years.
Clean Break says, well, Israel's never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands.
and it's going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population.
what he meant was The United States will go to war for us.
He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.
The United States has funded, armed, and diplomatically supported all of this.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran. Do you think that that's coming? I think it's, very likely because, Netanyahu, is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years. It's nearly thirty years since he first became prime minister in 1996 in dragging The United States into a prolonged war with Iran. And he dragged The United States, and it's a shame that the United States government went along with it.
But he dragged The United States into a war with Iran just recently, and it's extremely dangerous. And, of course, he wants to do it again. It's been part of Netanyahu's policy to pull The United States into repeated wars. This is why this whole relationship is so completely dysfunctional. Netanyahu back in 1996 with American political advisers actually came up with a document called Clean Break.
Clean Break is a very strange but very clear statement of what has trapped The United States for nearly thirty years. Clean Break says, well, Israel's never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands. It's going to control all of those lands, and it's going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. And that's going to create unrest, and it's going to create a a militant reaction. And then what Clean Break says is, yes, that's going to happen, and we will go to war against any other country in the region that, supports, opposition to greater Israel.
That is Israel's control over all of Palestine. And there's just one footnote to that. When Netanyahu said that we will go to war, what he meant was The United States will go to war for us. So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.
People may remember that or they can refresh their memories. A devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerled, and one can even go online and find his testimony to congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it's gonna lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East. He's full of it, and he's been full of it for nearly thirty years. But he has had many wars in sight that he has actually dragged The United States into. The war in Syria, which goes on and started with Obama in 2011 ordering the or signing the CIA the task to overthrow the Syrian government was again at Netanyahu's and Israel's behest.
Absolutely extraordinary. The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so called twelve day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger. Even the wars in in East Africa, in Sudan, in Somalia, and in Libya were pushed by Netanyahu as needing to that we need to overthrow regimes that support, opposition to Israel's control over the Palestinians. And, in 02/2011, just to take another case because Obama did double duty that year, he went to war with Syria in a completely weird way of assigning the CIA the overthrow. But he also launched a war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.
This was the Obama, Hillary Clinton teamwork, to drag America into more wars. This has its roots in Netanyahu's doctrine, which is, we will control all of Palestine. This will lead to unrest. It will lead to militancy. It will lead to suffering of the Palestinian people.
So what? But it will lead to challenges to Israel, and we will confront those by overthrowing the governments that support the militancy against Israel's control over Palestine. And The US has played along until today. And I have to say, even though we saw, just that tape of president Trump saying that, no, Israel will not annex the West Bank.
Speaker 1: Did you promise leaders this week that you would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank? Is that something that you I will I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen.
Did you speak with Netanyahu about this directly? But I'm not gonna allow it. Whether I spoke to him or not, I did. But I'm not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank. Mister Obin There's been enough.
It's time to stop.
Speaker 0: First of all, don't hold your breath because, we've not yet seen an American president for thirty years that has resisted Israel. And I am still, fearful that, Trump is the same because, frankly, what we have right now, and Netanyahu said so, Israel's involved in seven wars right now. It's disgusting. They're all over the Middle East in war. They're in war in Gaza.
They're in war in the West Bank. They're in war in Lebanon. They're in war with Syria. They're in war with Iraq. They're in war with Iran.
They're at war with Yemen. And, so far, The United States has funded, armed, and diplomatically supported all of this. And The United States has absolutely not, and in this government, and it's true of the previous ones as well, not said a word about the state of Palestine, which is absolutely key to peace. There needs to be a state for the Palestinian people alongside a state for the Israelis. This is international law.
It's absolutely obvious to almost every country in the whole world, but The United States listens to Netanyahu. And by United States, don't mean the people because just as you said, the American people are against all of this, by the way, by large majorities. This is not being driven by American public opinion. This is our American political class telling Americans what to believe, not what Americans actually believe. Americans want The United States to recognize the state of Palestine.
The United States public opposes what Israel's doing by large majorities. This is the political class, but unfortunately, it includes the White House and it includes the Congress, and it hasn't stopped yet. And the situation in The Middle East is explosive, and Netanyahu's working overtime to pull us into yet another war.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Why can’t we talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty? https://t.co/bwBT5hhQ9U
Video Transcript AI Summary
- What we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and it's somehow shameful to say that.
- And until we have some self respect, not anger or hate, but just dignity, it will continue in June.
- there are a bunch of Israeli Defense Force officers in the Pentagon that week.
- they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it.
- How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that, you need to get on this.
- The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and it's somehow shameful to say that. Why? Why is it shameful to say that? Who knows why it's shameful to say that, but it shouldn't be. And until we have some self respect, not anger or hate, but just dignity, it will continue in June.
For example, during the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, during that short conflict, there are a bunch of Israeli Defense Force officers in the Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that, you need to get on this. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Jeffrey Sachs revisits Tucker's viral interview with Ted Cruz. "He couldn't even quote the Bible right." https://t.co/3T7eAhdYao
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 criticizes Senator Cruz for not quoting the Bible correctly, saying, "god says that I will bless those who bless Israel," which is, "not what Genesis says," because it "says, I will bless those who bless Abraham." He notes it was "in that name that he said, this is why we have to do it," calling it "preposterous" and "sad." Speaker 1 argues the effect is to distort American politics. Referring to the Russia hysteria, he says it's wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control our politics, but now "our entire national conversation is about this tiny, totally irrelevant little country with a one great city, Jerusalem," at the behest of a foreign government who's openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you. He cites "the ADL, APAC" as satellites and says "congress obeys," calling it a red line.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is a little strange when when senator Cruz, when you asked him about this, he couldn't even quote the bible right, by the way. He, you you asked him, and he said, well, god says that I will bless those who bless Israel, which is, by the way, not what Genesis says. No. It says, I will bless those who bless Abraham. This is a little bit different.
And he couldn't even quote the passage properly, but it was in that name that he said, this is why we have to do it. It's like you just heard or just we were just listening to Lindsey Graham. They can't even quote this so called scripture that's telling them what to do. It's so preposterous. It's sad.
Speaker 1: Its effect is to cont is to really distort American politics. I thought we agreed during the Russia hysteria of the last administration that it was wrong and illegal actually for a foreign government to control our politics. Like, I thought we all agreed on that. I've always felt that way. No matter what the government Russia was not controlling our politics.
That was the lie there. But the truth was that's wrong. And now it seems like our entire national conversation is about this tiny, totally irrelevant little country with a one great city, Jerusalem, but geopolitically irrelevant country, and that's at the behest of a foreign government who's openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you. How can that stand?
How can a foreign leader call for censorship of American citizens, and then all those little satellite groups, the ADL, APAC, all of them, all push that, and then the congress obeys. Like, that seems to me that's gotta be a red line.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, all wars that the US participated in on behalf of Israel. Tucker and Jeffrey Sachs are discussing live now. https://t.co/IhFuk3bz2g
Video Transcript AI Summary
Netanyahu said that we will go to war. What he meant was The United States will go to war for us.
So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades.
He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.
A devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerlead.
And one can even go online and find his testimony to congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it's gonna lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East.
He's full of it, and he's been full of it for nearly thirty years.
The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so called twelve day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Netanyahu said that we will go to war. What he meant was The United States will go to war for us. So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. People may remember that or they can refresh their memories.
A devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerlead. And one can even go online and find his testimony to congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it's gonna lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East. He's full of it, and he's been full of it for nearly thirty years. But he has had many wars in sight that he has actually dragged The United States into, the war in Syria, which goes on and started with Obama in 2011 ordering the or signing the CIA the task to overthrow the Syrian government was again at Netanyahu's and Israel's behest. Absolutely extraordinary.
The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so called twelve day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger. Even the wars in in East Africa, in Sudan, in Somalia, and in Libya were pushed by Netanyahu as needing to that we need to overthrow regimes that support, opposition to Israel's control over the Palestinians.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
The Biggest Information-Control Operation You Didn’t Know Existed https://t.co/taT5e7wU93
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms. These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are.
- I don't think it's widely known that 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous.
- Wikipedia should implement a public rating and feedback system allowing readers to evaluate articles. They can't do that now. They don't have a comment section. They don't have any sort of rating section.
- End indefinite blocking. Wikipedia's practice of blocking accounts permanently is unjust and ideologically motivated. In a period of two weeks, 47% of the blocks that had been done by Wikipedia were indefinite.
- Indefinite blocks should be extremely rare and require multiple administrators to agree, with an appeal process for permanent blocks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are.
Speaker 1: So we've Why is that that number one? I like that one.
Speaker 0: Yes. So Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms. These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are. So there there's no reason why they shouldn't do this.
Speaker 1: If you're wielding real power, I think it's and by the way, I like anonymity online a lot of the time because I think it helps the underdog tell the
Speaker 0: truth. Mhmm.
Speaker 1: And so I am for anonymity on social media, for example. I don't think you should have to register with the government to give your opinions, just to be clear. But if you're wielding real institutional power, I think it's fair to require people to say who they are. Just like supreme court justices have to give their real names. Right?
Speaker 0: Right. It's it's it's a no brainer. If there is one thing that might get the attention of the mainstream media, it seems to me it might be this one. I don't think it's widely known that 85% of the most powerful accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous. How is that allowed?
Speaker 1: No. I know. I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 0: That's just disgusting. And by the way,
Speaker 1: there are consequences to having your identity known, can tell you, and they're not great. On the other hand, you know, that's the that's the price that you pay for having influence. I don't know. That's fair.
Speaker 0: Right. And and by the way, I don't want those people to be doxxed. I'm I'm gonna say it again. And and and I'm not saying that the people who are there should be forced to re reveal their identity or anything like that. They can resign.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 0: And then new people can be brought on board.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Right.
Speaker 0: And and and then maybe, if necessary, you could pay them a little stipend and for their trouble. They've got they're raising, I think, something like $200,000,000 a year now. Right? It's a huge amount of money.
Speaker 1: As I said, I was a donor. Yeah. No. I get it.
Speaker 0: Yep. Okay. Let the public rate articles. That's number seven. Wikipedia should implement a public rating and feedback system allowing readers to evaluate articles.
They can't do that now.
Speaker 1: We call it that that's the comment section, but they don't have a comment section.
Speaker 0: They don't have a comment section. They don't have any sort of rating section. There are no metrics that they can use. They've metricized everything, you know, books on Amazon, know, thumbs up on on on x and, you know, YouTube and whatnot, but not Wikipedia. And and if there's one thought
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 0: What's that?
Speaker 1: I've never thought of that. That's so smart. Yeah. Well and and
Speaker 0: If there's one place where an an actual rating system would matter and actually be important, it would be Wikipedia because we I think you and I agree that Wikipedia does have some decent articles. Right?
Speaker 1: Great articles. Yeah. And and You wanna learn about the Falkland Islands? You wanna learn learn about some bird species? Yeah.
It's amazing. It's that's why it's so frustrating.
Speaker 0: Yes. So so, I mean, wouldn't it be nice if there were some independent reviews, independent of Wikipedia, that would, you know, give the public an a notion of whether they can actually trust the information. And I actually think that you should be able to identify and even rate the raters and say, okay. These accounts who have rated the Trump article very highly are mostly Democrats. And, those that rate the article, very poorly are mostly Republicans.
And then you should there should be a system that would enable you to go and and learn what the best articles are, especially if they're competing articles, again, from anybody's point of view.
Speaker 1: Yes. I love that.
Speaker 0: Would be nice. Let's see. Thesis number eight, end indefinite blocking. Wikipedia's practice of blocking accounts permanently is unjust and ideologically motivated. So I did a little personal investigation last June.
In a period of two weeks, 47% of the blocks that had been done by Wikipedia were indefinite, which means permanent. And you can sort of understand some of them because you're re blocking the same people who have already been blocked because they made new accounts. Those are called sock puppets. It's still a very, very high number. Right?
And they do, as I have said, block willy nilly, and they will block permanently. I mean, there are people online who who complain that they were blocked for making grammar corrections. You know? I've seen, I don't know, three or four cases of just that. I I quote a few in the essay.
So each of these theses, by the way, has a whole essay to go with it, which I very carefully wrote over the last nine months.
Speaker 1: And where can interested people find that?
Speaker 0: They can find it on my user page on Wikipedia. So just go there. I don't know if it'll be on the user page or maybe it will it will be linked from the user page, but it'll it'll be on Wikipedia itself. So I actually want to take the debate to them. You know?
I still have an account in good good standing for now. We'll see if they block me over this. I'm not sure. But but I would like to start a debate there, so that's why I've posted it there. I also have a version of the nine theses on my blog, And it's it's identical, but it also has links to archived versions of all the resources that I cite.
So they can't, like, take anything down without people knowing. Let's see. So I think that basically, indefinite blocks should be extremely rare. They should require multiple administrators to agree because right now, one person can, for arbitrary reasons, practically, block another account, an account in good standing that might have had, like, thousands of edits without really any meaningful recourse. Right?
So at least let's have a panel of people convened if you want to block somebody permanently. And and, of course, you should be able to appeal your permanent block if you are permanently blocked every maybe three, six, maybe twelve months. Right? So the the idea is it's only fair to give people the opportunity to say, well, I've reformed. I'm not going to do what I've done before.
People you remember the the movie Escape from Alcatraz? Yes. And there was a character in it who's befriended by Clint Eastwood's character who's this great painter, and he makes a a painting of the warden. The warden sees a copy of this as he's snooping around in a cell, and it's an unflattering picture of the warden. So that man's his painting supplies are taken away by the the warden, and they have so few joys in this place.
It's like living death. And so the the painter then commit suicide. A lot of people feel very strongly about Wikipedia because it is a significant hobby in some cases, you know, in the way that, like, I play Irish fiddle. That's like my one of my big hobbies. And I don't know if you're fly fishing, I guess.
Yeah. If you were to take this away from people forever, you know, just disallow them, then, you know, it it can be really upsetting to people.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Why is Congress so cowed by Israel? Jeffrey Sachs has some thoughts. "Is it [blackmail]? Is it direct bribes? Is it fear?" https://t.co/AZYYKV0IIS
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker expresses disbelief at why Netanyahu—"an absolutely disgusting warmonger, who has dragged us into terrible wars, who is committing massive war crimes"—gets 57 standing ovations in the US Congress. He asks if the causes are "the APAC lobby, the Israel lobby? Well, partly," "Is it blackmail by Israel? Because there's no doubt a lot of credible claims of Epstein and more about blackmail," "Is it direct bribes?" "Is it fear of American politicians?" "Is it the mainstream media, which for a lot of reasons owned by a lot of billionaires that tend to be rather arted Zionists?" "Is it the larger Christian Zionist vote base, which is also a real thing?" He says, "none of it really adds up." "it's not in America's interest" to be "isolated in the world together with a murderous rogue state." He calls Israel "the most lawless state in the whole world right now," "at war in seven fronts." He notes UN exposure: "the UN... Israeli politicians come and they yell at the whole rest of the world," while "the US representative says, yes. Yes. We we are with Israel." Finally: "first, it's disgusting. Second, it is no rational basis. And third, if it is the money, the lobbying, the mass media propaganda, the really strange beliefs of some people, whatever it is, even all of that, doesn't add up because a president of The United States should be able to figure this out a little bit better."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've seen this close-up for more than fifty years. And if you ask me, am I really sure why Netanyahu who is a absolutely disgusting warmonger, who has dragged us into terrible wars, who is committing massive war crimes, why he gets 57 standing ovations in the US congress. If you ask me in my heart, do I really understand that? Is it the APAC lobby, the Israel lobby? Well, partly.
I is it blackmail by Israel? Because there's no doubt a lot of credible claims of Epstein and more about blackmail. Is it that? Is it direct bribes? Is it fear of American politicians?
Is it the mainstream media, which for a lot of reasons owned by a lot of billionaires that tend to be rather arted Zionists? Is it, the larger Christian Zionist vote base, which is also a real thing? To tell you the truth, none of it really adds up. I agree. In full because this is not in America's interest.
It's not in America's interest to be isolated in the world together with a murderous rogue state, which is sad to say what the Israeli government has become. It is the most lawless state in the whole world right now. It's committing massive war crimes. It is, as Netanyahu said, at war in seven fronts. If you're at war in seven fronts, that's pretty weird.
That shows you don't have diplomacy. You have war as a policy. And, of course, Netanyahu does have war as a policy. And, you know, Tucker, I am at the UN a lot, so I I am in the UN Security Council a lot listening or participating in UN sessions. And and the UN, the Israeli politicians come and they yell at the whole rest of the world.
And they yell at them in the most vulgar, stupid, prayer aisle and absolutely, imbalanced and irrational way. And then the the US representative says, yes. Yes. We we are with Israel. So if you ask me why this is fundamentally, first, it's disgusting.
Second, it is no rational basis. And third, if it is the money, the lobbying, the, mass media propaganda, the really strange beliefs of some people, whatever it is, even all of that, for my mind, doesn't add up because a president of The United States should be able to figure this out a little bit better.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker Carlson's 4 changes Americans need to make in order to restore balance to our relationship with Israel. https://t.co/72QZ2BRfwC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Online Israel discourse splits into two extremes: 'deranged Taliban level ethno narcissists' and 'those who hate Jews'—with few conventional Christian voices urging a secular, non-judgmental stance. The four steps to health: 1) Global perspective: US 350,000,000 with vast resources; Israel 9,000,000 with no meaningful resources; 'two THAAD missile batteries in Israel... a quarter of the world's total supply.' Since 10/07/2023, 'the United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel' and around $300,000,000,000 over its existence; Egypt is also involved; India and China rivals. 2) Self-respect: stop being ordered around by a client state; Netanyahu says 'I control Donald Trump' and 'I control The United States Congress.' 3) Citizenship: restore equality; end dual citizenship; 'APAC should register under FARA.' 4) Theology: reject Christian claims that DNA-based chosenness is legitimate; 'the chosen people are those who choose Jesus' and 'God will pull the plug on us' if you don't support Israel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's a lot going on in the world right now, but if you're on social media, and of course you are because it's really America's only remaining news source, you know there's only one story going on, and it's Israel. Everyone online is arguing about Israel. And really, they fall into one of two camps, generally speaking. So probably more aggressive side are the deranged Taliban level ethno narcissists who are telling you that any criticism of the secular government of Israel is tantamount to blood libel against the Jewish people. And if you think that maybe it was not a great idea to arm Joseph Stalin, the greatest murderer in history, then you're a holocaust denier.
Shut up. And then on the other side, a group every bit as obsessed with Jews, the people who hate Jews who are telling you that anyone who's Jewish is bad by virtue of being Jewish. It's a blood thing. Two things are interesting. One, there are very few kind of conventional Christian voices saying, wait a second.
This is a secular government, another country, and it has probably nothing to do with my religion or anybody's religion. And we should never judge people on the basis of their immutable qualities because guilt and virtue are not passed down genetically. But almost no one is saying that. So you really have the ethnomarcissists and the antisemites, and they're at war with each other. That's the online picture.
What's even more interesting and maybe even more distressing is that in the US government, the conversation, while much more muted, is a mirror of this in that a lot of the conversation is about Israel. Israel, a tiny country in the Middle East. Not critical to our national security, by the way. But the conversation, the bandwidth is consumed by questions of Israel. So wherever you stand on Israel, whether you're on one of the two sides just described or neither one of them, you know in your gut that this is bad.
If a country like ours, supposedly the most powerful in the world, is devoting all of its time internally to conversations about Israel, it's probably not going in a good direction. There's probably a lot being neglected in favor of this very specific boutique conversation about this tiny little country. It's just not good for anybody, including Israel, by the way. So what's the antidote to this? How do you fix it?
Here are four things you can do to make the conversation about Israel and the relationship with Israel a lot healthier than it currently is. Here are the four. The first is get some global perspective on what we're talking about. The United States is a nation of 350,000,000 people. It has some of the deepest natural resources in the world that would include energy and water, agricultural products.
The United States, however it's managed, is a powerhouse globally and always will be because its strength is inherent. It's a huge decisive country in the scope of world history. The United States makes things happen. Israel is not an insult, merely an observation. By contrast, is a tiny and inherently insignificant country, at least geopolitically, in that it has only 9,000,000 people and no natural resources, no meaningful natural resources.
So it is insignificant. It is also physically tiny. It's about the size of New Jersey, famously, but it has a much smaller GDP than New Jersey. It is a much smaller economy than the state of New Jersey. It's an economy about the size of the state of Arizona and almost one half the economy of the state of Massachusetts or Illinois.
It just doesn't really matter, actually. If you're looking at a map and thinking through, you know, where does power politics go, Israel's not even on the list. Again, it's tiny. It's got the population of Burundi. It's got a smaller population than Belgium.
Like, what is this anyway? And yet, despite its objective insignificance, it is the focus of the conversation, but it's also the focus of the spending. So right now, as we speak tonight, there are two THAAD missile batteries in Israel. That's one quarter of the world's total supply of THAAD missile batteries. The THAAD missile batteries, an American made, very high-tech missile battery that takes incoming missiles out of the sky.
And one quarter of the world's entire supply of these is in Israel right now manned by US troops, by Americans. In uniform or not, they are American military personnel. And they are manning these batteries to protect Israel. And that shouldn't surprise you because since 10/07/2023, which is a little less than two years ago, The United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel. Huge.
And for some perspective, the entire Israeli military budget before October 7 was about 25,000,000,000. So United States has put at least 30,000,000,000 into defending Israel in less than two years. Over the course of its existence, a little less than eighty years, The United States has put 300,000,000,000, at least, those are just the on books numbers, into supporting Israel. 300,000,000,000. Israel is by far, no one comes close, the largest recipient of USAID over time.
And currently. So anyone who says, oh, it's just a drop in the bucket. It's totally insignificant, is lying, or doesn't know the numbers. By the way, number two is Egypt. So why are we spending so much money on Egypt?
Well, we're doing it at the request of Israel. So you could probably add that to the tally. It's not an attack. It's merely perspective. We are spending our time, our money, and we're taking enormous risks on behalf of a country that geopolitically is not significant at all.
The interesting thing is most Americans have no idea that this is true. They don't know how disproportionate our attention to Israel and our spending on Israel is relative to the rest of the world. And if you want some sense of how disproportionate, India and China combined, neither of which is a strong ally at the moment, combined represent more than a third of the entire world's population. Both are rivals economically, both are rivals militarily, at least potentially. And our relationship with them has gotten worse or at the very least languished because of our relationship with Israel, because of the bandwidth consumed by tending to it, and also because of some of the inevitable conflicts that have arisen because of our support for Israel, which is engaged in an extremely controversial, which is to say hated war in Gaza, which is not even really a war.
It's a massive displacement of people and killing on on a on a grand scale of unarmed people, of unarmed combatants, of civilians, of women and children. And the world sees this, and the world rejects it, and the world hates it. And so Israel's really last remaining ally of size other than The UK is The United States. And so there's a huge cost to this. But again, most Americans have no perspective on just how disproportionate our commitment is, because they marinate in lies about this relationship, mostly from our political class, also from the media.
But really, if you were to lay the blame on one group in The United States, it's our elected leaders who continuously lie to us about the nature of this relationship, its significance, and they do it generationally. They've been doing it for many decades. Here and this is just one example, but the most fun to watch. This is Nikki Haley at the Republican presidential primary debate two thousand twenty three describing The United States' relationship with the state of Israel. Watch.
Speaker 1: Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel.
Speaker 0: It is not that the Israel needs The United States. The United States needs Israel. How could that possibly be true? It is in no sense true. In fact, it's one of those lies that's not three degrees off the truth.
It is a complete inversion of the truth. And the truth, which is obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers or is paying any attention at all, is that Israel could not survive without The United States. That's not an argument for pulling all aid to Israel. It's just an acknowledgment of the physical reality. Israel fights its wars with American backing, with the guarantee, the implied defense guarantee that we have provided for so many years since at least 1973.
Fifty years. And its social services are made possible, which are quite generous, made possible by American subsidies. In other words, every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people. And so there is no world in which America needs Israel more than Israel needs The United States. And, of course, Nikki was Haley was never asked to explain how exactly that could be true.
What are you talking about, governor Haley? Not one person asked her that question. And no one asked her that question because anyone in whose mind that question appeared would have paused for fear of being attacked as an anti Semite for asking a question about geopolitics. That has been the state of play in The United States for my entire life, over fifty years. Politicians make nonsensical statements.
Nobody wants to even ask a follow-up question for fear of being attacked. It is a state of perpetual intimidation. Everybody's afraid of Israel. Afraid of the topic. Afraid, in some cases, of the state itself.
We have not had an honest conversation about this ever. Certainly not in my lifetime. And that suits the Israelis just fine. And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic anti semitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic. Some of it, of course.
There are always haters. But how much of it is not organic at all? How much of is of that, the lunatic, all Jews are evil, how much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff? Like hate. Like David Duke level lunacy.
Probably some, because it serves their interests. Now that is a criticism of the state of Israel and its incredibly sophisticated propaganda campaign, which again, the rest of us been marinating in for a long time. But the true villain here, I would argue, is not the state of Israel, the Jews. It's The United States. It's our leaders who are putting up with this.
Israel is a small country with very limited resources and it is doing its best to serve its own interests. You'd think every country would act that way. And most do. But there are some that don't. And ours would top that list.
And so the true shame here, the actual villain in this story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades. And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders. And that leads to the second thing that we can do to fix this truly unhealthy relationship, this poisonous relationship, which is getting worse, by the way. It's breaking our society into pieces.
It's truly hurting the Trump administration. The second thing we can do after getting global perspective on what we're actually talking about here, a tiny country that is in the deepest sense insignificant to The United States. The second thing we can do is get some freaking self respect and stop being ordered around by a client state. That's not good for us. It's not good for them.
It's not good for anybody. It's like being screamed at by your children. No normal parent would allow that, because it's totally destructive. It's not good for you, and it's not good for the child. And that is exactly the relationship that we have with the state of Israel.
In fact, not in theory, in fact, it is a huge country and a tiny country. The huge country supports the tiny country. And that's a pretty nice thing to do. Whether it's wise or not, it's a whole separate conversation. But if you're gonna have that relationship, a parent to a child, you cannot be yelled at, humiliated, spied upon, bossed around by the child, by the person in the inherently subordinate position.
You can't do that. You can't be shamed into ignoring things that are quite clearly not the behavior of a subordinate ally to a big brother ally. For example, spying on the country that makes your economy and your defense possible, which the Israelis have been doing for generations. That's a fact. One of them very famously was caught, Jonathan Pollard, who's an American citizen, taking real secrets, like actual military secrets, and sending them to Israel, which promptly sent a bunch of them to the Soviet Union, which was our archrival, our foe at the time.
And that happened, and he went to prison, and then somebody got out of prison and went to Israel where he continues to denounce The United States. And anyone who says anything about it is attacked, oh, you're an anti Semite. It's nothing to do with anti Semitism. That's insulting. Why would we ever put up with that?
Why would we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about? Clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel. And it's somehow shameful to say that. Why? Why is it shameful to say that?
Who knows why it's shameful to say that, but it shouldn't be. And until we have some self respect, not anger or hate, but just dignity, it will continue in June. For example, during the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides. During that short conflict, IDF officers in the Pentagon, foreign military officers in the Pentagon by the way, they're not the only foreign military officers in the Pentagon, to be clear. There are NATO officers.
They're from other country British. But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that, you need to get on this. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get.
And that's exactly what has happened. Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us. Oh, that's such an anti Israel thing to say. It's not anti Israel at all. It's a demand that the people whose job it is, whose sacred duty it is to defend and represent us, our leaders both at the Pentagon and all throughout the US government, that they do that.
That they stand up and defend us against all potential threats, against all foreign countries to the extent they need to, and that they do not prostrate themselves before a foreign nation. That's just basic. Why have a government? Especially a strong government if it's taking orders from another weaker government, and that is the state of play. And it has been for a very long time.
And they're not even pretending to such an extent that the prime minister of Israel goes on television to openly participate and meddle in internal American politics. Taking sides, attacking people, Americans. You wouldn't think it would be his business. He's not an American leader. He's not even an American citizen.
Going on television to attack Americans because they're not fully on board with sending billions more to a country of 9,000,000 people? And in case you think that's an overstatement, here is the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on American politics.
Speaker 2: We talked about the woke right. He said, I call it the woke reich. That's a brilliant
Speaker 3: I don't know. The
Speaker 2: woke Reich because these people, you know, they're not any different from the woke left. I mean, they're they're insane. They're amazing. But they're actually meeting on some of the things. We have to fight back.
How do we fight back? Our influencers. I think you should also talk to them if you have a chance. To that community. They're very important.
And secondly, we're gonna have to use the tools of battle, and the most important ones are social media. And the most important purchase that is going on right now is class Followers.
Speaker 0: Five followers. TikTok.
Speaker 2: TikTok. One. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it's it can be consequential. Mhmm.
And the other one what's the other one that's most important? X. X.
Speaker 0: That's very good.
Speaker 2: And, you know, so we have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy. He's a friend. We should talk to him. Now if we can get those two things, we get a lot, and I could go on on other things, but that's not the point right now.
We have to fight the fight.
Speaker 0: It's almost unbelievable that he said that on camera. Imagine. This is a foreign leader bragging about how he's censoring Americans. Again, this guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist. And here he is on camera, and he's a sophisticated guy.
He of course, he knows that he's being filmed saying, anyone who opposes me in The United States who opposes more aid to Israel or opposes getting sucked into war with Iran, which does not serve American interest, that person is not simply mistaken or wrong. I'm not gonna bother to explain why that person is wrong. That person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich. A Nazi. And the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on Earth with guaranteed freedom of speech, prevent Americans from hearing the other side.
And so we push congress to force a TikTok sale, which is true, by the way. And when that happened and various members of congress, like, no. Really, it's about China. There were people in line who said, no. I think it's really about Israel.
You you you kinda wish it was about China. Here he is just admitting, no. No. No. We pushed the US congress to censor in The United States, to commit censorship in The United States because we think it's bad for us.
And we need to talk to Elon. The only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk. By the way, a naturalized American, a foreigner, who looked at The United States and said, what's great about that country? People can say what they believe because they're not slaves, they're not subjects of the state, they're citizens of a nation that they own. Free speech is central to the entire idea of America.
In fact, it's really the only thing that sets us apart from any other country on Earth. It's not our market economy. It's freedom of speech. And here's this guy, a foreign head of state, who let me restate, is totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist, is saying Americans don't have that right, and he's gonna do some kind of secret pressure campaign on Elon Musk to censor x because it bothers Israel? You know, that's the point at which you just say no.
Absolutely not. That is not allowed. But since no one has said that, it has continued. And that's why when you go on social media, you see person after person taking that guy's line. That guy's line.
Repeating foreign government talking points on social media as Americans. Oh, you're you can't say that. It's true. It's a 100% true. And it's also totally counterproductive, by the way.
This is not a sophisticated propaganda campaign. This is a brutal and brutish propaganda campaign, where anyone who disagrees with anything is immediately slandered and smeared. Megyn Kelly, who's gotta be the single most moderate person on the question of Israel, who said a 100 times and means it, by the way, I like Israel. I'm not against Israel. You know, but maybe it's not a great idea to get sucked into one of their wars.
We've done that. Let's not do it again. Nazi! Immediately called her an anti semite and won't stop. Meanwhile, the actual anti semites, and there certainly are some online, never get criticized by Bebe or anyone else in his orbit.
That's kind of interesting, isn't it? I wonder why that is. When you have actual antisemites. You know, doing videos making fun of Auschwitz, but they get a pass? Maybe things are not quite as they seem.
But normal people who harbor no hate toward anyone or try not to, are immediately slandered in a way that makes it, in some cases, hard for them to have jobs if they deviate even a little bit. So what's the effect of this? Not that it's up to me to tell Israel how to run its propaganda campaigns. But the effect, just noticing, is that it turns allies into enemies. You can agree on 98% of things, but if you think maybe it was a bad idea to bomb Doha, Qatar, the site of the largest military base in the Middle East which exists to protect Israel, if you think it was a bad idea for the Israeli government to bomb Doha, then you're a what?
A Nazi? Just in point of fact, by the way, Hamas was originally in Qatar because the Israeli government asked them to accept Hamas. That airbase exists to protect Israel, by the way. That was such a reckless and demented move that Mossad, Mossad, in Israel opposed it and wouldn't participate in it, because they thought it was too reckless. So to say that there is, you know, quite a bit of latitude for debate in Israel is an understatement.
Mossad refused to participate in that. But, as an American, on social media, if you're like, I think it's a little crazy that our ally is bombing another one of our allies without even telling us, and then lying and pretending that they had permission from the president to do this, which they did not. If you say that, you're a Nazi? You're part of the woke reich? This can't continue.
It's too crazy. It's counterproductive for them, and it's deeply destructive of our political conversation and of our country itself. And the good news is that the humiliation, which is gone mean, just give you one more example of the humiliation, which is almost beyond belief. So Israel's our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them.
Of course, you you heard Nikki Haley. You hear all of them say exactly the same thing. Protecting Israel is the most important thing. They're our only real ally. If they're our only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology, to China.
To China? Most people have no idea that's true. It is true. Why is China running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port? Really, if they're such a close ally.
And of course, the answer is because from Israel's perspective, we're not a close ally. We're a country that has been willing to help them, but when you only have 9,000,000 people and a limited defense budget, you know, you take help where you can get it. So the loyalty is not requited. It's one way. And I think the good news is that the government of Israel, in particular, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far.
And he did that in part by running around, telling people what he thought was true apparently, I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States. He said that to political allies and opponents in his country. He said it to foreign heads of state.
Fact. I control these people. Don't you worry. And by the way, if you kick me out of office, the next guy probably won't have the level of control that I have. He's made that case.
Openly. Verbally. He said it out loud. And that was too much for our president. And so, in one of the great moments, it was just It was a cool shower on a hot day.
President Trump pushed back, not directly, but you can watch this clip and see that he's had enough. Here is president Trump the other day asked about Israel's plans to annex the West Bank. Watch.
Speaker 2: Did you promise leaders this week that you would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank? Is that something that you
Speaker 3: I will I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 2: Did you speak with Netanyahu about this directly?
Speaker 3: But I'm not gonna allow it. Whether I spoke to him or not, I did. But I'm not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank.
Speaker 2: Mister Obama
Speaker 3: There's been enough. It's time to stop.
Speaker 0: It's been enough. I will not allow it. He's not just talking about the West Bank there, obviously. These are political people. They understand when your poll numbers fall dramatically, particularly among the young men who helped make you president, you have to ask why is that?
And it's about this issue. Because it's too humiliating. And people who don't want to see their government bossed around by a tiny foreign power are not haters. They don't hate any ethnic group. They just don't want to be humiliated.
And by the way, why should they be humiliated? That's the core problem right there. That's why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question, and he knows that, and he's pushing back. And there's just no question from that clip whatsoever. So the third thing I think that would be very helpful to restore health and balance the relationship between The United States and Israel is restore the concept of citizenship in The United States.
If you're an American citizen, it means something. The first thing it means is equality. You are equal to every other citizen. There's no hierarchy of citizenship. All citizens are equal.
Each gets one vote. Each gets justice before the law. That's the promise of The United States, and each gets to say exactly what he thinks. Period. Restore the value of citizenship.
And the very first thing you were gonna you would do if you cared about that, and you should because the country can't continue without it, after you expelled everyone who's not a citizen from the country, which should happen immediately. They should be deported immediately for our own survival. But after doing that, the first thing you would do is not allow dual citizenship. Why would you allow that? You're a citizen of two countries.
Can you really serve two masters simultaneously? By the way, it's not just Israelis who have dual citizenship. They're all every nationality has dual citizenship in this country. It's not just Israel. And it shouldn't be allowed for a single moment.
What is that? Whose side are you on? Don't accuse me of dual loyalty. You're a dual citizen. Whether it's Argentina or Mali or Israel.
Not allowed. And moreover, you are not allowed to serve in a foreign military without losing your American citizenship. You're fighting for another country? How can that be allowed? How can you retain your citizenship?
By the way, why aren't you serving in our military? Every country has a different perspective on the world, and that grows from a whole bunch of different things. Their history, their language, their size, their resources. But each country is different, and each country has a different set of priorities. And if you're fighting in a military for a country, you are not serving America's priorities.
You're taking up arms on behalf of foreign power. You're done. This would seem to be obvious. Many Americans have fought in Israel and Gaza. Many Americans have fought in Ukraine, by the way, and a lot of other countries for foreign militaries.
Lose their citizenship immediately. Of course. Obviously. It's amazing that even exists. And APAC has to register under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act of the nineteen thirties.
Of course, it's a foreign lobby. There are a million of them. But it's only APAC that doesn't register, and it's only APAC that is somehow above criticism. It's a foreign lobby that's acting on behalf of foreign government and its its and its interests. Again, it's one of many, but it's the only one that doesn't have to register.
And of course, should register immediately. You should know who is giving money to your politicians. You should know who is influencing them. There should be a record of that, as there is with any other nation, any other lobby of a foreign power. And only APAC is exempt, what is the effect of that?
It makes everyone paranoid. Doesn't make people like Israel more. When a topic cannot be spoken about, and when anyone who raises it is called a Nazi, the woke Reich, or dismissed as a holocaust denier, anti semite, whatever, slandered in some way like that. It doesn't make the problem go away. It festers, and people go crazy and get angry and become resentful.
End all that. There's no reason to conduct any business like that in secrecy. It doesn't make things better at all. It doesn't make the person doing it stronger. It makes him weaker, actually, in the end.
And the last thing that I think we need to do to restore balance between the relationship between The United States and Israel and to restore some sanity to the public conversation on this topic is to get our theology right. And this is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews. This is a message aimed at Christians who are the largest group of Israel supporters in The United States. And their view of Israel is colored not just by sentimental attachment, which is fine, or trips to Israel. Great.
No problem. But by a Christian heresy, the oldest of the Christian heresies, which is that God somehow prefers some people based on their DNA. And of course, the whole point of Christianity is that that is no longer true. That there is no chosen people. The chosen people are people who choose Jesus.
That is the Christian message right there. It's not an anti semitic message, by the way. It's the Christian message. It's the core Christian message. And yet, there are many, many self described representatives of the Christian faith, the world's largest, who are daily sending a different message.
And we should be very clear. Whatever this is, it's not Christianity, it is heresy. And among the many examples we could pick, we're gonna go, because we couldn't control ourselves, with Lindsey Graham. Watch.
Speaker 4: To people in my party, I'm tired of this crap. Israel is our friend. They're the most reliable friend we have in the Mideast. They're a democracy surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could. This is not a hard choice if you're an American.
It's not a hard choice if you're
Speaker 0: a Christian.
Speaker 4: A word of warning, if America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us.
Speaker 0: God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu. That's what he's saying. And there are cheers, unfortunately. Cheers when he said that God will kill you. He will pull the plug on you like a quadriplegic in intensive care.
You're gonna flatline unless you support the secular abortion on demand government of Israel. That's the Christian perspective, really. That God loves some people more because of their DNA? That is not the Christian message. That's the opposite of the Christian message.
The Christian message is universal. That's the whole point of it. The chosen people in Christianity are those who choose Jesus. The entire New Testament is that story. And anyone who says otherwise has not read it or is lying.
God does not prefer you because of your DNA, or anyone else because of their DNA. Period. So the fact that people can stand up in The United States in 2025 and say something like that, and by the way, not even make the case, Just invoke the power of God as a weapon. He will kill you. He'll pull the plug on your country unless you go along with this.
We need more war. Listen to yourself. And it's not just Lindsey Graham. It's the speaker of the house, Mike Johnson. It's a lot of people.
Some of whom are very nice people. People who have dinner with him, they seem perfectly normal. But this is a heresy and it's deranged. And you know it's deranged because it's a justification for killing the innocent. And in Christianity, if there's one thing that's crystal clear, it's that Christians cannot abide the killing of the innocent.
People who have done nothing wrong cannot be killed. That's a sin. You are not allowed to do that. Period. And if you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy.
So those are the four things I think that we probably should do right away to restore some balance and health, reduce the craziness in the relationship and the conversation about Israel.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen’s Attempt to Force Obama Into Releasing 9/11 Files https://t.co/cwHQFwp4Ls
Video Transcript AI Summary
Charlie Sheen recounts emailing Alex Jones: "Zero hours upon us." Jones called back in ten minutes and flew out to meet. They created "twenty minutes with the president," a fictional online piece in which Sheen sits with Obama and asks "20 questions about nine eleven" and whether to reopen "a new nine eleven commission." The piece claimed it "has not taken place, but we're hoping one day that it could" and attracted a dismissed White House response: deputy press secretary Bill Burton called, "Never gonna happen." They hoped for a debate with Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo; "Nobody bit" and "Charlie Sheen's obviously crazy." Later, Sheen produced a nine-eleven doc, and hosted a "weekend of truth" with Jones. They discussed Building 7, the Pentagon, and "There were two videos from the parking lot" for the kiosk. They stress trusting "your own perceptions" and that "The whole world was different" pre/post.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Alex and I got together and, you know, I sent him an email that I told you about. Yeah. Yeah. And and my last line was zero hours upon us.
Speaker 1: So so just for people who weren't at
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry. Breakfast here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Sorry. That you saw something he did, and you just emailed him cold.
Speaker 0: I did. I said, hi, Alex. I'm a fan for years. Perhaps you've heard of me. My name is Charlie Sheen.
I said, we we we have to talk. Zero hour is upon us. And he and he called in ten minutes. Amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then flew out to see you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And then we thought, okay. Let's build a secret weapon. Let's do something that that, like, is unique and and and, you know, let's do something within in the media.
Let's use the media to to try to I guess this would have been o seven, o eight. Yes. So we got together, and we and we wrote this piece called twenty minutes with the president. And what it was, it was a fictional retelling of this twenty minutes that I was granted by Obama, and it was me sitting down with him, asking him 20 questions about nine eleven and and asking him that that the based on on these just the irrefutable bullet points that that if if he would consider activating you know, reopening a new nine eleven commission. And we put it online And what we
Speaker 1: And this was you didn't actually get twenty minutes till Obama had asked.
Speaker 0: No. It was all made up. It was all made up. But the research that Alex and I dug into that that we that we because we, you know, we we we it could have been a 100. It could have been a 100 questions.
Could have a hundred minutes with the president, and we we we drilled down into the 20 things that were really bulletproof, really bulletproof. And so we we published it online, and and we let it kind of marinate for about twenty minutes before we added the following has has has not taken didn't actually take place, but we're hoping one day that it that it could or that it might or so we did let kind of the hysteria build a little bit that people thought, holy hell, man, did Sheen and Obama think right? Like, this thing actually happened and because we didn't want to prejudice it with it being, you know, a work of fiction right from send. And it was a little bit of a manipulation, but so what? Right?
I mean
Speaker 1: Did anyone from the Obama White House reach out to you?
Speaker 0: There's a guy. He was the deputy press secretary. His name was Bill something. Bill Burton? Yes.
Yeah. He called me.
Speaker 1: I got the memory.
Speaker 0: Well done.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because I knew his name was the same two initials. Yeah. He called me, and I said, how's it? Yeah.
Hey. Thank thank you. And he's like, yeah. That that that that thing that you and your buddy wrote, that that that meeting you're looking for, never gonna happen. Those were his words.
Never gonna happen. I said, well, that's a shame because it really should. He said, okay. Alright. Good luck to you.
Have a nice day. It was like a fourteen second phone call. Yeah. But anyway, so yeah. And I guess and then Alex said, look.
When this thing goes out, they're not gonna debate any of it because because we, you know, we told, it was Bill O'Reilly. It was Haraldo Rivera. We said, we'll we'll sit down and debate you just on these 20 things, and nobody bit. And Alex said, look. They're just gonna call you.
Nobody bit? No. Nobody nobody nobody took the challenge.
Speaker 1: And you're at the height of the show's popularity.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Nobody took the debate challenge.
Speaker 1: You're one of the most famous actors in the world Right. And you're offering talk show hosts the opportunity to be on their show Right. To talk about something that is really interesting and controversial, and they say no?
Speaker 0: They said no.
Speaker 1: Yeah. What do you think now what do you think that is, Charlie Sheen? That's a little weird. It's a little weird. Having been in the talk show business, I can promise you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was You should
Speaker 1: have called me, man. I would have done it in a second. Yeah. Well Probably scolded you for your ridiculous questions, but I still would have done it.
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. Our our our disrespecting the memory of
Speaker 1: the victims. Yeah. How dare we? Finding out why they were murdered is disrespect.
Speaker 0: Right? Wow.
Speaker 1: Now, I know it's insane, and always force myself to admit that I had these views because I want to be less judgmental toward other people, and reminding yourself what an asshole you are is a really good way to be less judgmental. But also because it's like it's a feature of human nature that we don't want to know the truth about things, actually. Interesting. Don't you think that's true? Well, it's clearly not true for you, but it has been true for me.
I don't wanna know. Right. I don't wanna know that.
Speaker 0: What what do what do we then do with that with that information?
Speaker 1: Trust me. I'm not defending that attitude at all. I'm ashamed that I had it, but I just think it's more calm. And I think of myself as, like, one of the most open minded people I know. I mean, I am very, very open minded.
I'll entertain any possibility because I've seen so much that you cannot entertain any possibility. Right. But if I have felt that way, that means that it's probably just how people are built, and you have to convince them that they should know what's true. Sure. That the truth does matter, actually.
Speaker 0: It does. It does. But Alex said they're just gonna paint you as as crazy. Of course. But and and I and I said, really?
That that's like they can't get more creative than that? He says, no. They're just gonna call you crazy. And smash cut to, like, a week later, and it was it was literally it was Bill O'Reilly and it was Geraldo, and they just dismissed me in one sentence. Well, Charlie Sheen's obviously crazy.
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. Yeah. We just did nine eleven doc, and it was an amazing experience for me to be involved in this because I not only bought the nineeleven story, I was very resistant to anyone who questioned it because it felt like disrespectful or desecrating the crave. I don't know why I had that incredibly embarrassing, not at all noble reaction to people's honest questions about nine eleven.
So it took me a long time to want to rethink it. And then once you do, you realize like it's just a tissue of lies. At what point did you start asking questions about it?
Speaker 0: O four, o five, whenever loose change dropped. Yeah. That was the first well, no. Actually, on the day. Really?
On the day. Yeah. There were things and Millie and I had a because everybody, like, rushed to Malibu. We were, like, in the city. I was in a high rise.
I didn't know how far this thing reached, you know, like, everybody just had to get the bay get back to the folks house. Like, you know, let's let's reassemble at base camp, you know. And Emily when I were out on the deck and I said, you know, man
Speaker 1: At your parents.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And I said, there's something about the way that building came down. I'm just I don't know. And and, you know, by that point, we had seen different angles of it and it was really it was you know, there was there was a lot of content to to digest, you know, horrific content, I might add, and we just yeah.
And then I I just thought, nah, because that would entail-
Speaker 1: Of course. Right?
Speaker 0: All of these things.
Speaker 1: You just shut it down in
Speaker 0: your head. Yeah. We talked each other out of it because that would entail.
Speaker 1: Right. It's interesting though that two guys in the business of, like, manufacturing images. Right. Would focus on that image and say that or something about that. That's weird.
Speaker 0: Right. And so I kind of just let it I let it, you know, just didn't didn't go near it. Yeah. And then, you know, it led to what it led to. The the the the the whole world was different.
You know? Whole world was different.
Speaker 1: It's never returned to what it was.
Speaker 0: No. It really hasn't. No. There there's pre and there's post. Yes.
And then I watched that documentary. I'd been, you know, a fan of Alex's early stuff, you know, and that's, you know, just him.
Speaker 1: So you knew who he was on
Speaker 0: Yeah. Friday on How? How did I
Speaker 1: He's my friend. I would mean no disrespect. I love him. He's coming here in a month, but I'd never heard of Alex Jones on 09:11, and I was in the news business. I don't know.
How would you have heard of him? That's amazing.
Speaker 0: Just, you know, spending time, like, in those on those research channels in in just in in that part of the of the, you know, those subjects, you know.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that you so you have long felt like you wanna look at other sources of information. Of course.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've I've always done my own research. Always. And then
Speaker 1: Do you know other people? Did you know other people around 09:11 who already were thinking like this? Like, maybe reality as as presented to us is not entirely real.
Speaker 0: The people would believe things only so far. Yes. And so I would back off, and I say, you know what? We're just gonna we're just gonna focus on two things. We're just just two things, and if you can explain those, I will I will I I I'll submit to the official story.
I'll just say, alright. Fine. However you however you say it had to play out, I'm in. Right? And it was
Speaker 1: But explain these anomalies
Speaker 0: Building 7 Of The Pentagon. Yeah. Just help me out there. You know? I've gotta believe that the Pentagon is the most protected and documented, you know, video protected, surveilled building in the history of the known universe.
Right? Turns out not. Well, I'm saying
Speaker 1: But think we just have two videos from the parking lot.
Speaker 0: Kiosk. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that's that's the thing.
And then and then That is weird, isn't
Speaker 1: it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. And then Building 7, it just you can't you just can't. You can't watch that and say that is the result of a fire that burned for five hours on two floors. You can't sell that to me.
And I and and and, you know, that for years that was always met with that is disrespecting the victims. And I'm like, I don't okay. How? How is that disrespecting the fallen heroes? How?
If you're just looking for the truth behind what is clearly not what how how it was explained. Clearly. I mean, a three year old could look at that and know, you know, that looked like that hotel in Vegas that we watched Yeah. Them bring down intentionally. You know?
So that's how I met Alex, was reaching out Trust
Speaker 1: your eyes. You've always trusted your own perceptions.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And but I I did this in the middle of two and a half at its peak, decided to to be vocal about 09:11. And network on the studio, they were like, oh my gosh. There's actually a commercial because one of the advantages we had with that show promotionally was the NFL. Yeah.
Because we were a Monday show all of Sunday. All the CBS football games on Sunday were just, you know, every twenty minutes, it's the commercial for us, and that is like a built in thing to keep the ratings and the momentum in the eyes and all of it. Yeah. And it was it was great. It's the best tool you could possibly have.
So they made a commercial, like a a promo, and it's probably on YouTube somewhere. Someone out there is gonna find it. Right? And it opens with, Charlie has a lot of questions, And then my character would be, hey, Alan. You know, where'd you hide the beer?
Hey, mom. Where'd I leave my car? Charlie's really curious. Hey. Yeah.
You know, is that is that is that is that is that a silk bra or is that polyester? Whatever, like, actual lines from the show to support Charlie's curiosity, Charlie Harper. Right? Yeah. But Charlie in the world, like going into places that on a corporate level with a giant hit show, your lead actor is not supposed to be doing.
So they tried to make it kinda like, hey. He's doing these things, but don't worry. He's still he's still in our world doing them. You know? They they just it was it was kind of a brilliant piece of propaganda if you think
Speaker 1: about it. Right? I was just thinking that it's a judo move. You take the energy and you pull it in your direction.
Speaker 0: Right? Yeah. And I remember watching it, and I was flattered that they, like, put all that energy into this thing that that I'm sure was upsetting a lot of people, and I never saw it again.
Speaker 1: Did they ever say anything to you directly about your questions about nine eleven?
Speaker 0: Kind of, but not really. Things like, maybe it's not the best time to be doing this kind of research, kid. Maybe, you know, take a little a little pause for the cause. Yeah. I was and and yeah.
They they but they didn't, like, you know, show up at my house
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Like they did for, you know, going crazy on dope or testosterone. But, yeah, they they they were they were nervous, and so and I did pull it back. I did organize a symposium in LA though with a three day event called the weekend of truth. Alex Jones was the key speaker in the middle of two and a half. Seriously?
Yeah. I did.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Did you feel that your job was at risk by doing that?
Speaker 0: I thought the other stuff was more important than than my job. Really? Yeah. No. I it just
Speaker 1: How many lead actors on hit shows put anything above their job?
Speaker 0: Cult of one? Yeah. None. None. Well, dad.
My dad has at times gone heavily against the grain in the face of, you know, the same type of pressure.
Speaker 1: Yes.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Church Attendance Is Booming Following Charlie Kirk's Death. Orthodox Priest Explains Why. https://t.co/viRrMJmqJQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
"If you read the patriarchal histories in the opening books of the bible, if you read Genesis, for instance, chapter six, this is the account of God regretting that he had made the human race."
"the world had become full of violence."
"When you attack another man when you attack another man, you attack God because every human being, as you were just saying so beautifully, is made in the image of God."
"we have this level of violence in a culture that murders unborn children at the rate that we do and have sustained it for the decades that we have."
"The statistics are horrible for our country. We are so captured, by an ideology that is hopeless, atheism, strict secularism, which is running our country now."
"Without that belief, certainly, we have no future."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we're gonna look for hope, it can't be fake. It can't be fake. We have to assess where we are. And violence has a as a sin, violence has a very special serious place. You know?
If you read the patriarchal histories in the opening books of the bible, if you read Genesis, for instance, chapter six, this is the account of God regretting that he had made the human race. What could the human being have possibly been doing to make God regret having made us? And the consequence, Moses tells us, is that he sent a worldwide universal flood. Yes. Moses articulated the reason, the reason God did that and had to start over with Noah.
And in fact, he made Noah a second Adam. He gave the same commission to Noah that he gave to Adam, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, rule it, subdue it. Why did he do that? It says because the world had become full of violence. Yes.
When you attack another man when you attack another man, you attack God because every human being, as you were just saying so beautifully, is made in the image of God. And so to attack a human is a direct divine offense. Violence is extremely serious. I'm not surprised, that we have this level of violence in a culture that murders unborn children at the rate that we do and have sustained it for the decades that we have. Yes.
Really, is any violence, surprising? Do we have do we have hope? That's what you asked me. So forgive me, but that's the background. That is how black it is.
Yes. I agree. How black it is. Do we have hope, and what's the future? I would say that from without a without a belief, that God is merciful and that he loves the human race and that there's no sin so great that if we repent of it, he will not send his love and forgiveness.
Without that belief, certainly, we have no future. The statistics are horrible for our country. We are so captured, by an ideology that is hopeless, atheism, strict secularism, which is running our country now. It is extremely hopeless. Yes.
And, without an a major reconsideration on the part of our people, a return to classic American virtues, a recovery of Christian faith. Without that, certainly, we're doomed. But we know we know from Christian history that repentance is possible, and it usually takes in a in a in a national sense in a personal sense, it's up to us to repent and to believe. In a national sense, it takes leadership. Leadership that is willing to address the important things at the heart of national catastrophe.
We have been living through national catastrophe. We have lost our faith in God. All of our institutions have been captured by by strict secularism. Our law is godless. Our ins our our universities, exclude God.
Our our country is, has gone down a very, very serious deep hole. If we're going to get out, if we're gonna have hope as a nation, we need leadership. Leadership in the likes of, George Washington. I think our forebears our forebears are ashamed. My grandparents and America, they're ashamed of where we are, Tucker, as a nation.
Our relationship to faith, our our explicit commitment to God are excluding him from everything that's important in America. We have to repent, and we need someone. Give us God someone like a king David. Give us someone like my patron saint, Josiah, who was the last great king of Israel, who himself lived at a terrible time. His father and his grandfather were both awful kings who had completely apostatized, abandoned the heritage of, Israel, led the people to copy the pagan practices of the surrounding nations.
And forgive me. We're way worse than pagans. I I always tell people, look. Don't call the secular nonsense that's going on in America pagan. That's an insult to the pagans.
The pagans believed in the divine order. They believed in the gods. Okay. We don't believe that there are gods. There is one god.
But the pagans at least knew they were accountable to the divine order. They were accountable to the gods and that they had to live with respect to the wishes of the gods to call America, which has no reference. Most of our leaders make no reference to God at all. They they make they act as though they are not accountable to God's law, and I think that's far, far worse than paganism and a full blown insult to paganists to call it pagan. No.
Unless we have a leader who's going to address this, it needs to be addressed, right, directly. We need to repent, and we need to recover our faith. If we do that, times of refreshing will come from from God. We can we can be changed. A new day can arise, but it's not gonna be with a little fix.
It's not gonna be with a a little something here or a little something there. I've never seen I I've been a priest for almost thirty three years. I've never seen the radical interest in faith that we're seeing right now. I'll tell you. If I use my parish just as a little example, I have maybe, I don't know, little more than a thousand active parishioners that are here regularly.
And all over the years of my ministry, I've I've catechized, I've instructed, and prepared people for baptism. You know, maybe twenty, thirty, 40, a really great year would be 40 people. I have over 200 people in catechism right now, and this is happening all across the country. People are moving towards God, moving towards faith. If this continues and it translates into lives that are rooted, lives that are, where faith is important, where true repentance has happened, where this quest for just biological life as though that somehow the sum total of value is rejected.
You know, if you study the scriptures, there's three types of life that are described in scriptures. There's biological life. In Greek, it's called from where we get biological. Right? There's the life of the soul.
Many Americans don't even know that that exists. That's called. It's the life it's the most noble part of you. Right? Even the Greek pagans, they use this again, knew that.
The body is like a chariot, and the soul is like the charioteer. Leading the person in nobility said that the body does virtue. The body does something beautiful. Right? If you don't think you have, if you think you're just a body and you don't have a soul, which, by the way, is the worldview of the major tech titans of our country.
This is why someone as noble as Elon Musk is becoming would stand up and speak to to the protesters in England when they were saying, what can we do? What's our future? And he said, what? He said, technology and AI. I promise you, Tucker, technology is not gonna save us.
No. It is not gonna save us. And to say that is such is so hopeless. If we are soulless and we have greater technology, then the soulless are gonna use that greater technology to oppress us. Of course.
We need we need to affirm what all reasonable human beings in civilized countries, the modern nuts secular West. If we don't recognize that a human being is more than his body, he has more than vios, more than biological life. He has the life of his soul, And then there's something that's most important, which is eternal life. It's called in the scriptures. Eternal life.
This is the life of God's kingdom. These are the three fundamental lives. Two of them, we have stopped talking about for many decades, and the consequences have been tragic.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Scott Adams on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk and How Violence Has Infected America https://t.co/iqma6mDTFB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion asks how someone could reach the point of shooting a living human being, noting: “how did somebody get to that place where it seemed perfectly reasonable for them to get a gun and and shoot a living human being.” It describes a “wall to wall Hitler, Hitler, Nazis, twenty four hours” era that creates a “Hitlerian bubble” through repetition: “it's the repetition that matters, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler and you convince people that they're living in a hellscape and they better do something about it.” It warns of “mass hysteria” and says “Cognitive dissonance will kick in if you show them a counterexample.” It states: “None of them are true. And there were a lot of them. They were all either a made up quote or a quote and a context and nothing else.” It notes a surge of activism after Charlie Kirk's death: “tens of millions of people simultaneously said, what can I do? What can I do right now?” and plans to “start another chapter of, you know, TP USA.” It contrasts Democrats’ machine—“they had the media in their pocket”—with Republicans, who, it says, “I've never heard one say anything suggesting violence.” It concludes the aim is “Power. Democrats know that they can win an election that way,” while Trump is described as “the most charismatic leader with sensational ideas.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tell us what you think the lesson of Charlie Kirk's life and death are. Like, what what strikes you immediately?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, one of the big questions is how did somebody get to that place where it seemed perfectly reasonable for them to get a gun and and shoot a living human being.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Some people know in your audience that I'm also a hypnotist. I'm a trained hypnotist. And so I tend to look at these situations through that filter. And through that filter, you can see a really clear cause and effect. You know, starting around, let's say, 2016, there was wall to wall Hitler, Hitler, Nazis, twenty four hours.
Before that, there had been other Republicans who had been accused of being Hitler. But I think that everybody treated it like hyperbole. You know, it's, oh, it's just this you know, it's a it's a political insult. It is the most common one, so you don't take it too seriously. Yes.
But imagine being a young kid and growing up when the the news, the people in nice clothing would go on TV and they would say in all seriousness, know, he's basically Hitler, the Nazis are coming. And you would you would create a mass hysteria. Now, a mass hysteria would be worse than TDS or Trump derangement syndrome because that would be sort of what happens to an individual, you know, they could have TDS. But if you have a lot of people who have TDS and they start talking to each other, pretty soon you've got a mass hysteria. And the mass hysteria created this what I call a Hitlerian bubble, Meaning that a lot of people are living in what they think is a reality that is just completely hellarized.
They see Hitler everywhere. They see it in Trump. They see it in his lieutenants and this is different. So this is not like what we've seen before. All it takes to completely brainwash somebody to believe ridiculous things even things that their observations would you should tell them are not true.
All you need is people in good suits who whose job makes them seem credible to say day after day, it's the repetition that matters, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler and you convince people that they're living in a hellscape and they better do something about it. So so the main thing I saw was that. And then, you know, once the bubble is formed, it's it's hard to get out. You mean you can't talk people out of it. There's no amount of information that will change their mind.
Cognitive dissonance will kick in if you if you show them a counterexample. And the weird thing about Charlie who I'd never met by the way, I I didn't have the pleasure. The weird thing is that when I started hearing all the accusations and there were a lot of them, I said to myself, well, I'll bet some of these might be a little bit true. So I started to look for the original quotes, etcetera. None of them are true.
And there were a lot of them. They were all either a made up quote or a quote and a context and nothing else. And when you hear people talking about it, especially the young people, they'll say things like, he was a bad hater person but there's no example. So that that's sort of the the sign that is, you know, a mass hysteria because they can't give reasons and they don't seem too interested in the reasons. They're just sure that something has to be done.
Now on top of that for the young people, there's probably also an economic pressure, know, that they might feel that life doesn't have a positive path So that that might be playing into this a little bit as well. But I do wonder what will happen and I predict that there's gonna be another big bubble of psychological distress when the people who have said such bad things about him in public realize that none of it was true. Because over time, it looks like he's gonna be talked about so much that we'll, you know, we'll finally have a complete body of information about him so we can understand them. And it won't happen to most people. Most people will just have cognitive dissonance.
They'll still believe he was, you know, Hitler junior but there's there will be some people, you know, not not a big percentage, we're gonna realize that they did something so shameful that it will haunt them for the rest of their lives. That that they were part of saying something terrible about one of the best people that we've witnessed. I mean, he genuinely was a high character person and you can see him everything he did. So there's something big coming up. Yeah.
But then another thing that happened that was fascinating to me because I didn't expect it which was the democrats have always had what I'd call them machined which is that since they work with the media, you know, they had the media in their pocket, you would see it happen when they'd have some, alright, our message this week are these words and then everybody would say the same words and then the media would just pump it out. So it was like this big well functioning machine and then they had the NGOs and all the funding tricks, etcetera. But when Charlie Kirk died, you could almost feel this massive energy being released. You know, he he sort of controlled it but when it was released, you know, his his mortal coil was no more. I feel like that energy just went into people.
And suddenly, tens of millions of people simultaneously said, what can I do? What can I do right now? And that's different. People don't say, I'm gonna stop everything. Tell me what to do.
I'm gonna go to church. A lot of people did. I'm gonna say stuff on social media. I'm gonna hunt down the people who said bad things and cancel them, but I'm gonna do something. You know, we're we're we're gonna figure out how to start another chapter of, you know, TP USA and all of that's happening and it doesn't seem to be slowing down, you know, the vigils, etcetera.
If anything, the energy, it might be growing. And I've never seen anything like it in my life. I've never seen the republicans turn into their own machine and now it is a machine and it's gonna be incredible. So, you know, I was thinking yesterday, it sounds like a joke but it's quite serious. The thing that protects the Democrats from, you know, also having some kind of problem like this is that they don't have any leaders that are worth taking off the board.
I mean, if if you said to me, somebody's got a plot to take Tim Walz off the board, I would say, oh, no. No. If you're a republican, you ought to keep him there because he he he's not doing a good job, you know. You're you're Jasmine Crockett's, you're Chuck Schumer's. I say, please keep them right where they are.
They're doing a great job. Nobody nobody needs to harm them. But on top of that, I don't believe that Republicans, conservatives ever even think that way. I've never heard one say anything suggesting violence. Like not even in just a casual conversation, the joking way you might do it in private, nothing like that.
And I think it has to do with the fact that overall, the the conservatives, the republicans, MAGA people tend to look at democrats almost as if they're clowns. They they say things that literally make me laugh. No joke. I I sound like Biden there, but I literally that frightened me a little bit. I literally will watch the news and watch Republican, you know, prominent people talking because I think it's funny.
And when they watch when the left watches the right, they think they're watching monsters. Yes. So you can imagine how that somebody wanna kill a monster, but nobody wants to kill a clown. Well, maybe somebody does but, you know, so far republicans have not wanted to kill any clowns. And I do think well, first of all, cancellations we're seeing, I have a little bit of mixed feelings about it because my point of view is that the people involved who are getting canceled are themselves brainwashed.
And I don't mean that in sort of the I don't know. The the hypothetical way or anything. Like, I mean, actually, literally, they've been exposed to the strongest brainwashing you would have which is about eight years of wall to wall Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler and, you know, Charlie's one of the generals. So if you can't get to the Hitler, you're thinking, well, you know, maybe maybe one of the generals will be less protected and that was the case. But I feel a little bit bad for them because they're they're victims too.
But at the same time, the way society works, you can't let them get away with that. So you know, there has to be some some reckoning. And I am enjoying, I have to say, being a cancelled person myself. I am enjoying the Schadenfreude or the you know, the the catharsis of seeing that it can go both ways at least for now. And by the way, do think that the violence goes in both directions but I don't think that there is a an equivalent to a massive machine that's been creating a situation that guaranteed there would be violence.
If you just keep saying Hitler and you're selling it not as hyperbole, but you're selling it as absolute fact, the people who don't have access to alternative theories are gonna believe that and and they're gonna act on it. So and I like the fact that there's a little mutually assured destruction. The the left is getting to see a little bit of payback reminding that the that the Republicans aren't gonna take infinite abuse. You know, there's gonna be a point where it's gonna come back. Like, I like that.
But it just you know, overall, I wouldn't be proud of it, you know, the the cancellations. I do believe that they're they're brainwashed victims. So may And I do wonder. Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Well, I thought your description of brainwashing seems accurate. It's very distressing to think that could happen in our free republic, you know, the free and brave United States. I thought the people were more independent minded than that, so that's sad. It's probably just human though, a weakness that we all share, the susceptibility to propaganda. But that why would you want to hypnotize a population or a portion of it?
Like usually there's a goal in mind. What's the goal here?
Speaker 1: Well, power. Democrats know that they can win an election that way. If they had better ideas and better policies and charismatic leaders, I imagine that's what they'd go with.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But you know, Trump enters the contest and you have the most charismatic leader with sensational ideas according to at least his base. What are you gonna do? You know, he's the common sense guy. Are you gonna say, we really do want the border open? We we really do want a little bit more crime in our urban centers?
What are you gonna do? You you don't have any kind of a rational attack to the common sense president who's been here before and knows how to get this stuff done. So it's just all they have. And I don't know that it's I don't know that it's intentional that they did it so hard that it guaranteed violence. I don't think violence was the intention.
I think just winning elections was the intention.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That sounds right.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Left-Wing Cenk Uygur Remembers His Encounter With Charlie Kirk: “Universally Wonderful” https://t.co/gR0gm5HfVa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two political figures—Tucker Carlson and Cenk Uygur—recount their journey from a heated Politicon exchange in 2018 to constructive dialogue at TPUSA AmericaFest and RNC 2024. They acknowledge ongoing disagreements (gun rights, trans issues) but describe a shift around economics: "the money in politics issue connects to everything" and "private equity is the biggest bankers in the world, basically" buying homes. "The number one wealth creation asset that the American family has is their homes," and "they are giving collectively billions of dollars to our politicians," fueling higher housing prices and donor influence. They claim "the average guy is getting screwed" and find common ground on corporate rule and the donor class. They champion "anti war" and say "violence is intellectual surrender," oppose "hate speech" laws—"the idea of making laws against hate speech in honor of Charlie Kirk"—and reject "cancel culture." They urge dialogue and "take the win" when agreement arises.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You had this kind of famous exchange with him. I think it was 2018 at Politicon, and it got super heated and bitter, and it was like I don't know if things were viral in 02/2018, but it was viral. And then you came back to a TP USA event, and I was amazed and impressed both that he invited you and that you came. And you still disagreed on some things, but it was, I mean, the tone was completely different. Can you explain that?
And better and great, I thought.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So first of all, in 2018, that was a Politicon that I debated you. Oh, okay. So
Speaker 0: We got along pretty well as I remember.
Speaker 1: We did. We did. And Charlie was debating my nephew, Hassan Okay. Hassan Piker. And but I couldn't help myself because that's who I am.
And I in the middle of their debate, I said something to Charlie when I I wasn't on stage. I was in the crowd. And he yelled at me, I live like a capitalist every day, Shank. And and we by the way, some people then thought that it was a racial slur. No.
That was just my name. He was just slightly mispronouncing it. So then, actually, something happened in between that moment in Turning Point USA, America Fest. So we were at the RNC in 2024, and, Charlie came by at our booth and said, hey. Do you guys wanna talk?
And we were a little bit taken aback by that. We're really surprised by it. And Anna and I Anna Kasperian is my cohost on The Antwerks
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Talked it over and said, yeah. Yeah. We would like to talk. And so he came on the show, and so we had our disagreements. So for the it's interesting that you have me on here, you know, partly for the reasons that, you know, your friend texted you about.
Well, that's strange, right, left and right. And and so I I don't agree with everything that you, Megan, and and Scott said about Charlie. I'm sure. Right. But but I think that's what makes it more interesting.
So the willing that the willingness to talk to us even though we were so entrenched on different sides. Right? And so then when we started the conversation, what wound up happening surprised us. So did we still have our disagreements about the black pilot line, this, that, and other thing? Of course, we do.
Right? But when we started talking about corporate rule, he agreed. And I remember like, I wanna go back and watch the first interview we did with him at the RNC there because I was kind of shocked by it. It's like, really? You're also worried about corporations having too much power and and right?
Because that Tucker, you can understand. That was a that was a left wing position for a long time in
Speaker 0: this country. It was.
Speaker 1: But but the battle has been joined. And so that is an incredible development in American politics that mainstream media, I think, has chosen to ignore because it's inconvenient for them. Then we got into a specific topic, which was banning private equity from buying residential real estate. And the idea behind that is private equity is the biggest bankers in the world, basically. They they're the biggest financial institutions, and they've started to buy all of our homes.
Now that creates a huge number of problems. Number one, it drives up housing prices. That is why they are artificially high because so much more demand has come into the market. And I I went to Wharton Business School. So this is not complicated, though.
This is econ one zero one, supply and demand. Right? And so, secondly, what the number one, wealth creation asset that the American family has is their homes. That is how we created the greatest middle class the world has ever seen, and they're taking that from us. And they're gonna turn us all into renters, and then we're going to be indentured servants to them.
Okay? And the way that they are doing this is they are giving collectively billions of dollars to our politicians. So this issue connects actually, the the money in politics issue connects to everything. Connects to corporate rule, compare it connects to capitalism, by the way, which I wanna get back to, connects to Israel because it isn't about Israel or any other particular lobby being evil or dastardly or in charge. It's the money that's in charge.
And so if, big pharma, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etcetera, give money to our politicians, well, then they pass absurd laws. Like, we're not allowed to negotiate drug prices.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: What in the world? In capitalism, you're not allowed to negotiate prices? Right? I know. So and we talked about that, and he said, you're right.
That that is absurd. And we on the right already believe that, that it's absurd and that it's against capitalism. Fantastic. So, look. You're right.
We've been around a long time on the young truth. So we were actually the longest running show in Internet history. And in that time, we've had you know, we've been on for twenty three years. We've had about twenty one to twenty two years of hardened battle. Right?
Fighting back and forth. Fighting back and forth. Right? And as anybody who's seen me online knows, like, I can get emotional. I can get passionate.
Yeah. And I'm not a wilting flower. I fight back for sure. Right? So what was amazing, though, was all of a sudden, I didn't have to fight back.
Then on those issues, not every issue and not on all the culture wars, but on these economic issues, we have begun to agree. And why? Because the average guy is getting screwed. Yes. Period.
It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right. You're both gonna get screwed. You're both gonna have higher housing prices. You're both gonna have lower wages. You're both gonna have higher drug prices, and the people that brought you that is the donor class.
And so when we agreed to that, then I said, okay. Well, now conversation has become productive. We're not just yelling at each other. For the first time ever, we are talking to one another, and more importantly, we are listening to one another. So we did it again at the DNC, and then Charlie invited me to AmericaFest.
And I went there. And, again, we disagreed on gun rights. We disagreed on some trans issues, but we wound up agreeing on Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell, for example. Yeah. Neither one of us like them.
Like, either one of them.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And, you know, Tucker, I'll say this. And there's a lot more to to talk about in that context. But if you told me you are going to go to a massive right wing conference in the year 2025, And what's going to happen is the crowd in unison is going to boo Dick Cheney. If you told me that when we first started the Young Turks and we're railing against Dick Cheney, don't go in Iraq. Don't go in Iraq.
Cheney's lying. Right? And people are yelling back, support the troops. You're for Saddam and all this stuff. If you told me, oh, don't worry.
In twenty seven odd years, that crowd will be booing Dick Cheney, and that crowd will be booing Mitch McConnell because they realize that the corporate class, the donor class is in charge, and they hate it. I would have said, oh my god. That must be a beautiful day in America.
Speaker 0: Well, so this is what I admire about you. You're you're totally sincere about your principles. Like, you you almost don't care who's agreeing with you. You believe in the idea, the principle. So you're willing to make common cause with people you don't agree with in everything.
You're not partisan. And and the second thing I should just I just wanna say it out loud is that Young Turks, whatever you think of your politics has had a stated commitment to nonviolence from the very beginning, and you mean it. And I just I just wanna say that for people who don't know that, I wanna thank you for that because I think it's really important. And, anyway but so let me ask you, how were you treated at AmFest, at Charlie's event?
Speaker 1: Yeah. By the way, thank you for saying that, Tucker, and, the principle of nonviolence extends through everything. So do not be violent to each other. Violence is intellectual surrender. That's saying I can't win the debate with my mind, so I have to act like an animal and try to defeat that person physically, but that means you're surrendering and you're giving up.
It is it's the most immoral thing you could do. It's also the weakest thing you could do. Yes. I agree. And but that's on not just on an individual level.
That's also on a societal level. So when we go to war, that is in a sense weakness, saying we could not use our minds to resolve this issue. We could not resolve this issue as fellow human beings. So now we're going to kill each other. Yeah.
So it that is why we're anti war, and that is why one of the most encouraging developments of my life is how anti war the right wing movement has become. So that another great day in America. So it's still plenty of things we disagree on. But but but agreeing on anti war, agreeing on how the donor class is is robbing both of us blind, and those are huge developments. Right?
So now how was I treated at AmFest? I gotta be honest with you. And and so the the reason why I preface it by saying I gotta be honest with you is because sometimes when we go and talk to the right wing and and as you said, we haven't moved on a thing. Right? So folks come to us, and I have a simple principle, take the win.
Okay.
Speaker 0: Take the win. Exactly. Like,
Speaker 1: so okay. Now you agree with me that anti war is the right position. Is my correct answer that I still hate you? No. That is not the correct answer.
Right. The correct answer is, oh, thank god. Right? Exactly. Right?
And now we'll work on the next thing and the next thing and the next thing. But for now, at least we had no agreements before. Now we have have a number of really important agreements. So but, nevertheless, I had my share of critics on the left. You're you're platforming it.
Yeah. I went to his conference. I wasn't platforming him. He was platforming me. Right?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and second of all, stop with all the nonsense talk of platforming people. Okay? I agree. Just listen to one another. Talk to one another.
That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. But but what if you disagree? And, of course, you're gonna disagree. It's America.
We're free. We have no two human beings are the same. Of course, we're gonna disagree on some issues. So if you can't handle that, then you can't handle politics. You can't handle media.
You can't handle America. Right? So okay. So with that giant preface, I'll say, the people there, honestly, were universally wonderful. So they were.
And so you could say, oh, well, you know, that means Jenksen with the right wing. No. I'm just telling you what happened. If they were jerks, I would tell you that they were jerks, but they weren't. Okay?
And and I've gotta say, like, this cancel culture, it's not exclusively left wing. No. I know. Alright.
Speaker 0: Me about it. I mean Yeah. The efforts that some people made to keep me from speaking at the next TPUSA thing, people I agree with on a lot of things, by the way. I don't disagree with Seth Dillon and everything, mister free speech guy trying to cancel me. But I was, like, shocked by it.
Like, they really hassled Charlie and just drove him to, you know, to really fret and drove him to anxiety over this. Oh, no. No. No. That impulse is a human impulse, and we need to resist it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I love what you guys said about hate speech and how it's unacceptable to pass laws on that.
Speaker 0: It's not acceptable.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Under no circumstances. So and this is what I say on that topic. So Charlie says some things about Islam that, you know, having grown up Muslim, I'm atheist now, but my family is Muslim. My background is Muslim.
I'm proud of it. He said some things about Islam that I was not a fan, right, to say the least.
Speaker 0: I bet.
Speaker 1: So so you know what I did in return? I made my case. So what? Right? Like, what's why is it so, like, debilitating if someone says something that you find offensive?
I've said things that I'm sure others have found offensive. You have Charlie has. Megan has. So what? Then you say something back.
Okay? We don't cancel. We don't kill, and killing is the most extreme form of cancel culture. So I despise cancel culture, and I have the honor of being having been canceled by almost every part of the political spectrum. I
Speaker 0: know. Man, what an that was that was really inspiring, and I'm gonna text back the the person who texted me and said, did you watch that? That was wonderful, and I so appreciate your doing this. Thank you, and I hope you don't take too much abuse for it. And I'm sure you will, but, yeah, I guess you don't care.
So good for you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That'll bounce off me so quick. I'll just say this one last thing, Tucker. I mean, the idea of making laws against hate speech in honor of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 0: No. I know. I know.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's like if I passed away and they're like, in honor of Cenk, we're all gonna go on a diet.
Speaker 0: Tell me about it. Or the Tucker Carlson no pizza law. No. I I agree. I agree.
Speaker 1: Come on. That is the opposite of what I did in my life, and and and regulating speech is the opposite of what Charlie did in his life. So let's all keep talking to one another. Let's all keep listening to one another, and hopefully use this moment not to create further tragedy, but to begin to end the tragedies.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm proud to agree with that, you know, really, really strongly. So thank you for saying it very much.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
"This Has Never Been Told In Public" - Tucker's Story That Shows How Courageous Charlie Kirk Was https://t.co/abxvgo4GYL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Blake, who worked closely with the speaker at Fox News, was swept up in 'cancel culture' and left the network after Fox denounced him; the speaker refused to denounce Blake. Blake is described as a 'Christian who believes that God created everybody' and 'not a racist,' though he faced unemployment. Charlie Kirk called and offered Blake a job, putting him on air and stating 'I know this man. He is a good man.' This act, the speaker says, was 'the bravest thing' Charlie did, exposing himself to risk and ridicule. The scene illustrates Charlie's evolution into a patient, persuasive figure who uses the Socratic method on campus events, and contrasts it with the sensational 'Charlie destroys the libs' branding. The speakers reflect on the pain of the firing, the attempt to help Blake with health insurance, and the meaning of courage as standing up for truth in service of others.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is a story that, obviously, I was in the middle of it, and I've talked to a lot of people just this week about it. I don't think it's ever been told in public. I'm gonna give the outline and then just turn it over to Blake to correct me or to and to fill in the details. But here's the story.
So Blake worked for me at Fox News for years, probably more closely than anybody, like, intimately at Fox. And and I love Blake. And Blake is obviously an unusual person, but just a wonderful person and a really deep decent person.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's
Speaker 0: true. And obvious yeah. Blake's weird, but like Blake is the best. And people who love Blake really love Blake, and there's a little group of people who, you know, all we all know each other. All talk about Blake.
So Blake got caught up right at the height of all this insanity, true insanity called cancel culture, but it was more than that. It was like French Revolution stuff. Someone like, you know, Blake is not Blake is a racist. Well, as I would always say, Blake is actually not a racist. And I would admit it.
He's not. He's a Christian who believes that God created everybody. So he's actually not a racist. But Fox overreacted, of course, and he left. And then Fox denounced him.
They tried to get me to denounce him. Suzanne Scott tried to make me denounce Blake, and I refused. Something I'm proud of. But whatever. It was it was just awful.
It was the saddest moment in the fifteen years that I spent there. And then Blake's unemployed and unemployable. And I get this and I feel terrible and I feel like I've got a moral obligation to help Blake. And but who's gonna hire Blake? Because he's like in the New York Times, he's like a bad person when actually he's a great person.
Charlie Kirk calls me. He's like, I'm thinking about hiring Blake. I was like, god bless you, Charlie. What's he like? I said, well, Blake's very eccentric.
Like, no kidding. He's the only person who ever lost weight eating junk food. Like, he's a really unusual person. Like, we talk about Blake all day long. But he's a wonderful person, and he's incredibly talented.
No one disputes that, and I think you should do it. He does. Charlie and I talk about then Blake and I talk about we're having these, like, conversations behind the scenes about each other. And not only does Charlie hire Blake, he puts us makes me emotional. He puts Blake on the air as if to say, I know this man.
He is a good man. You will judge me for doing this. I'm doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do. Then, of course, it becomes this whole thing where Blake is like a true asset to him. But when he first did it, it was like, no.
I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do. This is the last thing I'll say before turning over to Blake. I've been in this business my whole life. Nobody does that. Nobody does that.
Everyone's like, oh, I'm for free speech or whatever, until it hurts me. At which point, sorry, pal. Good luck. But Charlie pivoted against that in a way that exposed him and his group turning point to ridicule and risk, and he did it anyway. And all week I've been talking to people about this, like, that was acid test.
Those of us in this business know how brave that was. It was the bravest thing. Anyway. Sorry, Blake.
Speaker 2: I remember talking to you about that because I I actually was weighing another employment option. I was going, as you said, I was like, I joined.
Speaker 1: I you maybe were behind that one too.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I was. I was desperate to get another option.
Speaker 2: And I remember just you know, I won't say what it was for, but we were talking about it. And I think the one that you really pointed out that was really important is like, Blake, I think the most important thing like Charlie is a for real a sincere Christian. Yes. And I think you're going to want to work for someone who is a for real sincere deeply believing Christian. And, you know, because then you'll disagree on a lot of things but you will align on really important things.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: I think that was what carried the day with me and I'm very glad it did. And you know, at at the time as you said, there was like at the time I came in, it was he was just a very different person.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: And it was over time realizing all the ways that as you say, he's like, you have to really see it. You're is this for real? What is this? Is this going to work? Would also have that where you're like, this can't this can't possibly work.
Right? And it does. And it does because he's so completely intently sincere and fully all in on it. And I think that's what like amazed young people like you know when you'd go to these campus events and you know I think there's a lot of you know you'll see these people online who are like very like performatively trad or Christian or whatever because it like owns the libs or whatever. Yeah.
Exactly. But Charlie is just like, no no. I I like 100% believe in this.
Speaker 1: Like And because I believe it is
Speaker 2: true and because it is important and I want everyone else to believe in it because it is true and I think it is the most important decision they will ever make. And it would always shine through in what he was doing and how he behaved that he really believed that. And
Speaker 1: Well, and I mean, I think and you know this because you were at some of the campus stops, I was at some of the campus stops. 90% of the interactions as he got older, right, the the the brand of Charlie was almost cemented you know in 2018 where he was much younger and he was like a peer to the kids on college and he would say Charlie Kirk destroys the libs or whatever. And that was just titling. It wasn't actually in Charlie's heart but the Charlie by the way didn't determine the titles. You know, like people Well,
Speaker 0: didn't behind want the scenes destroy anybody.
Speaker 1: The scenes, that's, you know, that's a social media team that's doing the titling. That wasn't Charlie picking the title, you know. Anyways, but the point is, as he got older, he transitioned to a much more big brother and people started observing like this incredible Herculean patience that he would exhibit on these in these interactions with sometimes bad faith people but sometimes people that just had bad ideas. And 90% if you went and sat there and watched the entire three hour Prove Me Wrong 90% of it is him being kind and gentle and thought provoking and working through whatever was the lie that was stuck in this kid's head or sometimes professors but he would work with them through it and use the Socratic method to draw out the truth and it was a beautiful thing and you know he doesn't get nearly enough credit for that because the Charlie destroys the Libs clip goes mega I viral, couldn't agree with you more. I have
Speaker 0: to say when you when all that happened to you, I just cannot say how pain well, you know, because we've talked about many times, but that was like one of those painful things that's ever happened to me
Speaker 2: in my
Speaker 0: life. Because, you know, we have such a tight staff and and the same staff, like I don't don't have new people working for me really ever And I don't care to. So that was really really painful. Oh,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 0: And I just wanted you to have health insurance. My expectations for you were so low because you had been so mistreated and maligned and slandered. And it's just so hard to come back from that. The fact that he put you on the air
Speaker 2: is possibly a mistake. Why?
Speaker 0: It was not a mistake, but it was that is so wild.
Speaker 1: So I I have an insight into that piece of the story because I was aware of this other job opportunity and I see it now all as like God's plan. And I was working on kind of a panel show idea but I didn't have that it was just like a nugget of an idea, it was back in my head. And I remember kind of just intuiting that in order to like restore this man that had been so wronged by Oliver Darcy or whatever in CNN, these scumbags, I thought, you know
Speaker 0: forgive Oliver Darcy. Thank you for reminding me. As we forgive those who trespass against us, he needs to be on my daily rotation.
Speaker 1: So but, you know and by the way, I I saw I ended up in that moment in that when we were talking with Blake at the beginning, I looked back at your monologue from that night and maybe it wasn't your monologue, maybe it was the finish final segment but you said I you you really were defiant and it was beautifully done because you were back at you you they you were part of something and only had so much control at that moment, right? And so They were
Speaker 0: bullying me. Suzanne Scott got me. I was in the parking lot of a place in I was in Bozeman, Montana fishing and she called me and I went outside to do my pre show bathroom break, always outside if I can do it. And she called me and she said, you need to say what he said was wrong. I said, I'm not doing that.
Period. And you can fire me and the show's live in ten minutes. I'm not doing that. And she goes, well, I guess I can't make you. And she until the day she fired me, she never really talked to me after that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not trying to get into any of that, but I do believe that
Speaker 0: Oh, want to get into it. It was horrible
Speaker 1: I'm
Speaker 0: what
Speaker 1: they did to just saying, I will I don't know where to go. I will say Tucker, this is awkward for me.
Speaker 0: Sorry, sorry, sorry. No, no. I
Speaker 1: would just say that I think this moment has profoundly changed all of us, including people like Suzanne. And I just want to say briefly for what it's worth, she's been exceedingly know. Wonderful
Speaker 0: shouldn't say that. And we all changed and I've done crappy things, a lot of crappy things in my life so I shouldn't
Speaker 1: be Yeah. But to your point, your hands were tied in that moment and you defiantly said, I remember you said, I just want everybody to know that you are gloating over a young man's life being ruined and shame on you. You basically you you I'll never forget that and I remember thinking, okay, like if Tucker's got his back in this moment, this guy's pretty great. He's the best. Yeah.
And he's been the best and I love having came
Speaker 0: out of nowhere, man. I'll never forget that. I'll never forget that as long as I live. But anyway, the point is whatever and I shouldn't even have brought exactly.
Speaker 1: And and by the way and now look at this. This show is going on. Erica Kirk has demanded that the show goes on, and we're gonna figure out the details, and Blake is gonna be critical to that. And if we hadn't have created this this roster, this thought crime crew that we do on Thursdays, I don't know what we would do.
Speaker 0: But it takes the bravery of an individual to get there. So like everything is fine now and Blake can do whatever he wants and people know who he is because they get to see him and they can make their own judgments about him. But when Charlie made that decision, and he's the one who would have been blamed if it had gone wrong, people didn't know who Blake was apart from what they read in the New York Times. Slander devised by CNN and Oliver Darcy. That's a fact.
And and not helped by a lot of other people who I shouldn't be attacking you. Right? Sorry about that. But he's the one who allowed Blake's life to continue. And I just I felt it so strong because I've been I that's my world.
Like, I know what that is. And most people are like, well, you know, you can't put him on air. Like, he did bad things. I heard that. And Charlie was like, he was willing to stand up and say, no.
That's not true. Like, most people are not gonna do that. No one will do that. And
Speaker 1: Well, remember the nasty articles. We there was a few. And Charlie would just write back LOL.
Speaker 0: So that's courage. In case you're wondering what courage is, that's actual courage and you know that it is because it's so rare. Nobody does that. If if people do that, who are they? I live in this world.
Like I know every single person hosting every single show and they don't do that. And he did that. And so that's what actual courage is. Courage is standing up for what is true in the service of other people, in the service of showing love to other human beings. That's the commission that we get from Jesus.
Period. And he actually did that at great risk to himself. And anyway, just I've had like 50 text exchanges, so we can come up. Anyway, bless you Blake for being Oh,
Speaker 2: thank you.
Speaker 0: At the center of that.
Speaker 1: Thanks for standing with us.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Genuinely.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker’s Hilarious First Encounter With Charlie Kirk https://t.co/qRAV6s81gg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 says he met Charlie when he was a teenager, connected to Foster Freeze, “the wonderful man from Wilmington, Delaware… the only investor I've ever had in anything.” Foster told him Charlie “he's not going to college,” which the speaker, opposed to college, found initially skeptical yet saw him as smart. After a backstage Q&A turned into an intense exchange—“I was gonna give a speech and we have a debate”—they began spending time together; Charlie “never used any drugs in his whole life” and was libertarian on the subject. Their conversations on economics, foreign policy, and marijuana led to mutual re-evaluations; “I was totally wrong about everything” and “the things you thought were gonna work didn't.” Charlie's honesty is celebrated: “Only belief in God allows that” and “admitting the truth about yourself in public is the most edifying and important thing you can ever do.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When did you meet Charlie and tell us about how your relationship with Charlie grew because I think it's fascinating.
Speaker 1: So I met Charlie when he was a teenager. He was connected to, funded by, a close friend of ours called Foster Freeze. He 's a wonderful man from Wilmington, Delaware, really from Wisconsin but lived in Wilmington and Jackson, Wyoming and was an investor in a company that we had and more important like an actual friend, really the only investor I've ever had in anything. And in a very enthusiastic Christian man. And the kind of person who's just a collector of people.
Know, I met this person who was so enthusiastic and almost everybody around him was just wonderful. But because he was so rich and so generous, he did collect there were phonies in the orbit because there always are when someone's rich. Right? And so he tells me at dinner about this kid he's met. He's only 18.
He's not going to college. I've always been opposed to college in my whole life. I try to convince all my kids not to go. I mean, I really meant it. And so he's like, you would love this guy.
He's not going to college. And I was like, man, I love that because I really am opposed and I mean it. And I'm like, he sounds great. He's like, and I'm thinking, oh man. Some fast talking kid has and I didn't like it at all.
And of course, there's the bias against young people. I mean, Charlie's literally the age of one of my children. So like And I felt it's probably totally conventional telling old people what they want to hear, sucking up to the donors, whatever. So I meet him. I thought he was smart as hell, but I was very skeptical.
Then I have this he calls me, would you do an event? Sure. I was going to be in the state anyway, so I do it. And we have this kind of sort of debate, not really a debate. Well, what actually happened was I was gonna give a speech and I got there.
We're backstage. He's like, well, actually, let's just do a Q and A. And I was like, I don't know, son. I don't think you wanna do that with me because I'm kind of a jerk. You know, which I am in those settings.
Right? So he's like, no no no. I want to. We we can it's okay to have a debate. I was like, I don't know, man.
Like, I disagree with your views on economics and foreign policy, and I'm pretty hot on these topics. So I'm just letting you know that. Oh, no problem at all. So we end up having this kind of intense thing, and I'm like passionately opposed to marijuana and drugs. I'm just having used a lot of drugs as a child.
Like, I'm very opposed to drugs. Charlie never used any drugs in his whole life, and he was at the time, he was kind of libertarian on the subject. And I remember saying, everyone in the crowd is for weed, like you think you're so cool, but actually it's a control device designed to make you passive and accepting of the system that's destroying you. And people kind of booed me or whatever, but Charlie looked at me like, I think that may be right. And that it was that issue.
It was weed of all issues. You know? It's not my top issue, but I do feel it really strongly. I hate marijuana. Okay?
And I know it's really cool, but no. It's like fully corporate actually. And it's wrecking Americans, especially boys.
Speaker 2: It's wrecking the parking lot of the grocery store nearby.
Speaker 1: It makes me feel like getting my gun. Like, I really feel that way about it. Sorry, shouldn't say that. But I really am mad about it. And Charlie got grooved with that.
And that moment set off this like conversation. So I was back. I was in Arizona for something. He's like, let's go to lunch. Let's go to dinner.
And we started having all these really intense conversations. Start putting him on Fox. And his views were changing. And mine were too, by way. It's not like I converted him.
It's like I had been all kinds of embarrassing things during the scope of my long life, a libertarian, a self described neocon. Can you imagine? I mean, I'll I'll admit it. I like got mad at Alex Jones for asking questions about nine eleven. What?
Like, I was like a horrible person or very close minded person. I was totally wrong about everything. And so I didn't judge. Like, you should change your mind as the evidence changes. The things you thought were gonna work didn't.
An honest man asked himself why they didn't work and what might work. Like, that's the process of adulthood. And Charlie young people are very inflexible about what they believe. I have found I have a lot of young people, I have a lot of children. He was one of only young people I've ever met who was like, oh yeah, I think I was wrong.
And only belief in Jesus allows you to say that because you know that you're not judged. You know that honesty is the ticket, and that if you pursue an honest path, you'll be okay. And you don't need the adulation from the crowd. You don't need the love of strangers to feel good about yourself because you know that you are loved. It gives you true freedom.
And he had that. Charlie had no problem at all getting up and being like I was at NeoCon. And of course with me he didn't because he knew that I was too. I'm like cheering on the Iraq war, which I did. Like I literally did that.
And I'm ashamed of it, but I'm also proud to admit it because I think that it's important to let people know that you can admit being wrong. It's okay. It's alright. We're people. We're not gods.
You can be wrong.
Speaker 0: I want you to know, Tucker, that that must have gone deep because Blake can attest of all the fringe issues that he knew he was on the unpopular side. He was very, very vehemently against wheat. No way. Oh, he went hard on it.
Speaker 2: Yes. No. I just I I think that you really got at it where, you know, one, he was totally unafraid of being in a huge minority on an issue. And being frank about it, you know, people would ask him he'd he'd be like they'd ask him about like abortion. And he'd be like, look, you know, my position on that is a tiny minority in The United States and I'm going to keep trying anyway.
And he'd say that on, you know, gay marriage where the polls would say, you know, a big majority support it and all of that. And at the same time, yeah, the zero like, shame about if he had to change his views. You see that so often with politicians. Well, actually, that was a different situation. You know, I voted that way because, you know, it wasn't like that.
And he'll just be like, oh, no. I was wrong. I, you know, I hadn't thought about this.
Speaker 1: But you can't be controlled. If you will so this is how the media control politicians. They find some clip if the politician is saying something different ten years. Was like, well, it was a different country ten years
Speaker 0: ago. He would do that. We would see these clips, you know, these really like they'd be like, look at here's Charlie defending, you know, this issue. And and I would be like, Charlie, they dug up that old clip and he goes, oh, yeah. I was a that was that was back when I was a cuck.
Speaker 1: Oh, a 100%.
Speaker 0: And, you know But
Speaker 1: there's no shame in that. And and Charlie's example of admitting the truth about himself in public is the most edifying and important thing you can ever do because it shows people you can take the leash off and you can live in freedom because you know you're loved. You can tell the truth, we're all going to die anyway. That this is the deepest truth. And your job is to be honest and to be loving to other people.
Okay? That's your job. Only belief in God allows that. And once you do it, it's like it's not only fine, it's great. It's actual liberation.
Speaker 0: You said that I remember at the first AmFest when you came back. So you had the debate and then you came back
Speaker 1: The unplanned debate.
Speaker 0: Oh, I remember feeling so honored that you came back. It was our first AmFest and we really needed like somebody of your caliber and your your I'm gonna say it, you won't your fame, your your your the weight that you held in the movement especially, I mean, it it was an honor to us to have you there.
Speaker 1: Oh, so excited.
Speaker 0: Came out the first night and you and you just said, let me say a few words about Charlie. He's willing to change his mind. He's willing to adapt. And and and I knew that was your subtle nod to people who might have judged you. Maybe you weren't even thinking that but it felt like it was at least saying like, listen, I know some of you think Charlie's a certain way, let me tell you.
From that 2017 or whatever '18 debate to now, think it was 2021, like a couple years had gone by since we'd had you back And and then we've you know, you've been back ever since.
Speaker 1: But it was it's it's so important. I just can't say it enough to be honest about yourself. It's very easy to be honest about everybody else. Oh, you're fat. I don't like your dress.
Like, that's super easy. It's very hard to be honest about yourself. Like I'm fat. I'm wearing an ugly dress. Like no one wants to admit that.
But once you do, you the fetters are off and you are so free. And Charlie just lived that. I feel like that's almost one of the most important things is to admit the truth about yourself and then no one can control you. What can you say about me that I won't readily concede about myself? Like nothing.
And then what are you gonna do to me? You know, nothing. Oh, it's it's amazing.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker on the Investigation Into Charlie Kirk’s Murder and What We Should Truly Focus On https://t.co/00pq4U9jqq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker calls for a fair, impartial, well explained investigation to uphold the rule of law in the United States, noting it's fair to ask sincere questions. He argues the big picture is 'the fight of evil against good' and that 'his murder was an attempt to extinguish the light. Period.' He urges a transparent civil process while maintaining focus on the larger message: 'light versus dark' and the presence of God amid evil. The discussion then includes James Lindsay’s text with Charlie: 'communism is by far the best evidence in support of Satan's existence.' Charlie replies, 'a 100%.' and, 'If there is a Satan, then there is a god.' They remember 'Charlie was willing to give the very last measure of his effort in his life,' the belief that tragedy reveals God’s presence, and that 'the saving of many lives' occurs through faith and prayer, not rioting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, they've been referent I know that a lot of stuff going on online, I've checked out. Actually, just wanna say that because it's too upsetting to me. I know it's extremely upsetting for you guys since you're way more in the middle of it than I am. But I obviously you need a fair, impartial, well explained investigation that assures everyone the rule of law lives in The United States. I think it's essential and I hope that we get it.
I think we're going have to push for it. We should push for it. But as to what happened, again, totally fair in my view to ask sincere questions. But I think it's important to remember the big picture which is whatever happened, it was a species of the same phenomenon which was the fight of evil against good. And his murder was an attempt to extinguish the light.
Period. And it it didn't work. Like that's the main thing to know. There are lots of things I I wanna know. And again, we have a civil system that has to go through a process in order for this government to continue or any government that has to be transparent and motivated by good faith and it has to try to affect justice.
That's a key. And I don't think we should blow past it. However, again, big picture, this is light versus dark. And you feel the darkness all around us. It comes in many different forms and many different guises.
These are disguises. Okay? But what it really is, is the age old, you know, it's the Lord of the Earth. It's Satan. Sorry to say that it is.
Deliver us from the evil one, I think is the actual translation in the Lord's And the evil one is all around us. But Charlie's murder is a reminder that we are surrounded by God and God's protection and God's love. And that is so obvious. The light has not only not been extinguished, it's glowing brighter. I hate like dumb metaphors like that except this one is totally real.
And so we should I speak for myself. I'm going to focus on that. I'm going to focus on the big picture while demanding a precise accounting that is legitimate. But I'm not going to get so caught up in that stuff that I miss the true message, which is forces of darkness tried to extinguish the light and not only did they fail, their effort was counterproductive. That is the truth.
Speaker 1: Frank, that was I was just sorry. I got I I was in sort of wrapped by what you were saying.
Speaker 0: Sorry. I felt that. I felt it coming up. I couldn't keep it down.
Speaker 1: It was beautiful. Was looking for somebody else to respond here quickly.
Speaker 2: Let me mention something related to that. You know, our mutual friend James Lindsay had a text exchange with Charlie. In fact, he sent it to me the other night because I was speaking at a university here in North Carolina on Wednesday night about Charlie and I related this story. And let me just let me just read you what James sent to, Charlie and what Charlie sent back. Very astute response by Charlie.
James said, and this is 08/24/2023, communism is by far the best evidence in support of Satan's existence. Charlie writes back, a 100%. And then the next text, he writes back, if there is a Satan, then there is a god. And James writes back, that would follow. So evil actually shows that God does exist, not that he doesn't, because there'd be no such thing as evil unless there was good, and there'd be no such thing as good unless God existed.
Because in any objective sense, the only way you can define good is God's nature. Otherwise, everything's a matter of opinion. You couldn't say murder was really objectively wrong unless there's a standard of objectively right that we're all obligated to obey, and what we mean by that is God's nature. As Tucker pointed out earlier, our founders understood that. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were created and endowed by their government.
No. It didn't say that. Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. So if evil exists and it all we all know it does, we saw it eight days ago, then God exists.
Speaker 0: Well, and that is honestly the way that a lot of us were convinced of the reality of God was by being forced to acknowledge the reality of evil. I can say that for myself. My wife, who's like the person who keeps our family text chain grounded in the truth, sent a verse this morning that basically said that exact thing, and there are a number of them throughout both Old and New Testaments, as you know better than I, but that say that God will use evil for his purposes and that he will reveal himself through through sadness as well as joy. And Mhmm. That is practically true.
It's not even a theoretical concept, it's a living concept for those of us who concluded just on the basis of the evidence that these were not political differences actually. These were not political phenomenon. These were a bunch of different things. I won't get specific, but you know what I'm talking about. This is the face of evil.
And that brought us to the reality of God. It's like wild. That actually happened. It happened to me.
Speaker 1: I want everybody to know, and I know Blake, you've been contemplating this too, but Charlie was willing to give the very last measure of his effort in his life. He really was and he said it multiple times and I think the first time he said it on stage he you know it wasn't something that was planned it came out of him naturally and Erica heard it and Erica was like, Be careful when you say that. Please don't And you that's really powerful but he said it again and again. He said it on a Lance Wallnow show I remember one time saying like, you know, I mean and he was very aware of the story of Steven, he was very well aware of the prophets and he was very well aware that people were want that wanted to hurt him and it never stopped him and I think we need to remember that. When we think about evil and we think about because death, where is your victory?
Oh, death, where is your sting? It's the last thing that, you know, it's like you said, they tried, they meant it for evil, but the Lord is taking it and He's turning it to good and for the saving of many lives. And I always was caught by that wording in the Scriptures, the saving of many lives. Obviously, he's talking about the Israelites in that instance, but it as we contemplate it for our own moment, the saving of many lives, you know, I think about all these baptisms and all these reports of the churches being overflowing and across the country and these we didn't riot Tucker, we didn't burn businesses, we didn't tear down windows and doors, we prayed. And that is the biggest, most amazing testament to the character of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 0: But it's also of or it has been my experience anyway, I'm not a theologian, but I just will say that the I've had many moments especially in the last ten years where, boy, you can feel it around you, like for real. You can feel the menace, can feel the hate, you can feel the threat. Comes out of nowhere. I've had a couple pretty intense experiences with it, very intense. And they are followed invariably by the peace of God, by the Holy Spirit.
And you know that God is using this moment for your benefit, your edification, and your joy. That is true, that out of tragedy And it's such a cliche and it's such a kind of syrupy, hallmark, false assurance on the surface that I hesitate even to say it, but I've just lived it so much. I've lived it so much. That is absolutely how God has communicated with me in my life like directly, is by contrasting his presence with the evil that you feel around you. And so it is in a weird way in the middle of tragedy like a true blessing.
And if you see a loved one, you know, we all go through this as we age, I've been through it a lot recently where someone you really really love dies. And then you're just filled with this sense of the presence of God that's absolutely real. It's not you're not manufacturing it. It's not like a immune response or something. It's like a presence from outside coming into you.
And and I think the whole country feels it, or the people who are alive to it feel it now strongly.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Can Europe be saved, or is it too far gone? Will this massive shift spark global unrest? We explore these themes and more in our conversation with Chris Caldwell, who has been writing about the Great Replacement for decades. Take a look: https://t.co/ag5sxFVuYu
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Big Pharma Whistleblower Exposes The ADHD Lie You Were Sold https://t.co/eUBVzKggOx
Video Transcript AI Summary
ADHD medications: long-term results show "When you look at the results long term, they do not improve academics," and they are "medications are mostly effective for controlling behavior." The speaker notes ADHD mirrors societal expectations: "academic success is synonymous with your value as a person." He attributes many adult ADHD symptoms to lifestyle, citing "poor diet and insulin resistance" as drivers of anxiety, depression, and "brain fog." He says ketogenic diets can reverse insulin resistance and cites "Alzheimer's type three diabetes because the correlation between the worsening of diabetes type two and your blood sugar levels correlates with cognitive decline." He argues there are reversible changes you can make and suggests diet, activity, stopping cannabis, and engaging work to reduce stimulant need. Cannabis is "a massive gateway drug into the psychiatric industry," capable of causing "psychosis" (with potency described as 40 times higher). He would not prescribe cannabis for mental illness: "No. It doesn't make any sense at all." He supports using "I think we have to use every tool that we have" with informed consent; "I will give you informed consent about the medication" if non-drug means fail, and monitor.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What about amphetamines and their ADHD and the fact that, like, every third kid on your street is taking this stuff? Like, what what is ADHD? Are amphetamines an effective way to treat it? What are the long term effects of those drugs?
Speaker 1: I mean, ADHD I mean, I wanna start here. So there was there was an awesome piece in New York Magazine recently that summarized a lot of this research, but it really the thing that most parents care about is usually academic improvement. That's why they want their kids on these medications. When you look at the results long term, they do not improve academics. What they find is that the medications are mostly effective for controlling behavior.
So when you have kids who are fidgety, who are having to pay attention to things that are boring, putting them on medications makes them easier to control.
Speaker 0: So if you're like a bad teacher Yeah. They're good.
Speaker 1: They're good. They're they're great. Now, I mean, there is some I mean, ADHD is interesting because it kinda hits at the it's like societal expectations. Like in The US and in a lot of developed countries, academic success is synonymous with your value as a person. You know, if you have to be successful at school to be worthy, and a lot of parents believe that.
And so they will push their kids into, you know, subjects and, you know, even university courses because they want to help them. They think they're helping them by pushing them into these things. And the kids are really struggling, and they're not interested in it. And you can put someone on a stimulant, it will make something that's boring more interesting. Definitely.
Yeah. And so there's there's also You have the world's
Speaker 0: most boring conversations on cocaine, but you have no idea they're boring.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and so that's that's the same with with with your studies. And then I think another thing that I believe is going on that really doesn't get enough airtime is that actually a lot of lifestyle problems are leading to ADHD, especially in adults.
And the main one being poor diet and insulin resistance. You know, as people become insulin resistant, they end up with more anxiety, more depression, and more brain fog. Essentially, they've broken their body because they've been eating too many refined carbohydrates, added sugars, all of that, and it makes it very hard for neurons to work when the system is disrupted, there's too much insulin, they can't pull energy in. And so I think a lot of people out there have very legitimate, problems focusing and feeling foggy, but they're not really looking at lifestyle issues that are really clear. And oftentimes people, if they do things like, you know, they try ketogenic diets.
This is like a really big thing in the mental health space. And they work for a lot of mental health conditions because they reverse insulin resistance and they improve energy, you know, the way your cells work. And so I think the biggest thing that I worry about
Speaker 0: So it does work. The low carb diet affects your mental health.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. In a major way. Some people even call Alzheimer's type three diabetes because the correlation between the worsening of diabetes type two and your blood sugar levels correlates with cognitive decline. I mean, the insulin resistance diabetes all has very strong links to cognitive decline. And so when it comes to ADHD, think the thing that bothers me the most is that there's actually a lot of reversible things that you can do there.
You can, you know, if you have brain fog, it's not that you're just like, you know, you're weak and you're not trying hard enough or you're lazy or something like that. I mean, if you can look at your diet and there's things you can optimize there, you can get moving, if you can stop smoking cannabis, there's a lot of and, you know, obviously, if you can actually try and do work that you genuinely find energizing and that you enjoy, you probably won't need to be on stimulants.
Speaker 0: Stop smoking cannabis. I thought cannabis was good for you. It's medicine.
Speaker 1: It's a medicine. It's a herb. Cannabis is actually this is this is you're gonna get me on something that I'm really bothered about, is that cannabis is a massive gateway drug into the psychiatric industry. It is a huge trigger for mania and schizophrenia. It is completely downplayed by big cannabis because we've decided to legalize it in so many states now.
And many people, they'll end up, they'll think it's harmless, it's this herb, not realizing that the potency has increased like 40 times since what it used to be, and it triggers mania and psychosis. And then the doctors will see them and the doctors will downplay the role of cannabis and they'll say, oh, you have schizophrenia, or you have bipolar, and then they put them on an antipsychotic, and then this person just ends up on antipsychotics for a really long period of time when really the issue was that they had a psychotic reaction.
Speaker 0: So you believe that cannabis use can lead to schizophrenia?
Speaker 1: I I wouldn't say schizophrenia. I would say I believe that cannabis use can cause psychosis, and that psychosis can endure sometimes for, a year or two after they have the psychotic break. Because to say something schizo it's schizophrenia makes it sound like, you know, they just had a broken brain. Know, their their brain was broken and it was just inevitable to happen. I've worked with patients who have smoked cannabis, they've had psychotic reactions, and even after they've come off the cannabis, for a period of like a year or two, they've still experienced periodic episodes of psychosis before it fizzled out.
The only way I can understand that is that that drug, when they had that psychotic episode, it actually damaged their brain. It was big like hit, and it took them a couple years afterwards to fully recover from that. And I've looked into this with many other people who actually work in this space, and they see that. When you have a psychotic reaction to cannabis, it can sometimes take months or even a year or two to fully go away. I think doctors misdiagnose that and tell someone, this is a sign you have a broken brain, you have schizophrenia, time to put you on the drug.
Speaker 0: So you're saying that the drug companies wouldn't necessarily be opposed to marijuana legalization?
Speaker 1: No. No. It's creating customers.
Speaker 0: Do you really think that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know That's really dark. Well, I don't think they are you know, I don't know if there's, like, a drug company lobbyist out there just being like, hey, you know, we really wanna kind of push this knowingly, but it sure helps them that big cannabis is out there and it is sowing a message that essentially these drugs are safe herbs, these drugs are medicine. When they're I mean, they're Frankenstein drugs now. I mean, they're 40 times more potent than than how they used to be.
Speaker 0: So just to bottom line it, as a practicing licensed psychiatrist, would you ever prescribe cannabis to a patient for mental illness?
Speaker 1: No. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Speaker 0: Would you prescribe SSRIs?
Speaker 1: So this is where there's a bit more nuance here. I think we have to use every tool that we have. And I mean, there are a lot of people out there who will say I mean, the fact is these drugs have saved people's lives. I can say that, you know, even with a lot of the concern that, you know, the drug effect wears off. But imagine someone who, they come in and they're unhappy, and and and this is this is rare.
You talk to them about their life. There's no relationship issues going on. It it looks really good. Work's fine. You've tried to optimize their health.
You've done everything that you could, and they're still unhappy. Something is still going on. You know, maybe they have really severe OCD or something like that. I'm not gonna sit there and just say, I I'm not gonna give you any treatment. If I've tried all of the non drug strategies to help you and you're still suffering, I will give you informed consent about the medication, I will put you on it, and I'll monitor you, and I'll I'll do my best to make sure that you're that you're functioning.
And, you know, if there's side effects that come up, I'll catch them early. My issue with the medications is that they're used first up without anyone trying with with minimal, with with lip service, really, to helping people with non drug means first. But if you've done all of that and it's still not working, I think it makes sense to use a drug to make someone more functional.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
The Biggest Scam In Medical History https://t.co/xaRA5QES5j
Video Transcript AI Summary
Prozac was rolled out on the covers of Time or Newsweek, hailed as a wonder drug that would fix psychiatric problems. It was described as helping regulate, and I'm quoting, 'chemical imbalances in the brain,' not as something that would numb you. The 'chemical imbalance myth' was 'a story that was sold to doctors and patients to make them feel better about taking drugs for their mood.' The message became that 'your brain is defective, there's something wrong with it, and we're gonna give you this chemical to bring things up to normal.' This created a billion-dollar war chest of marketing; Prozac made Eli Lilly a billion-dollar company and shifted psychiatry from Freudian root-cause therapy to dispensing drugs. No biological markers differentiate depressed from undepressed: 'There is no difference.' Yet doctors were encouraged to say this was a medical condition, aided by pharmaceutical propaganda, with 'rednecks' stigmatizing the mentally ill.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I remember when the rollout for Prozac, I think it was on the cover of Time or Newsweek or one of the then popular news weeklies in The United States, and it was hailed as a wonder drug that was going to fix America's psychiatric problems. Mhmm. And it didn't. But it was also described as a drug that helped, as I recall, that helped regulate, and I'm quoting, chemical imbalances in the brain. It was not described as something that would numb you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's essentially just a story that was sold, the chemical imbalance myth was a story that was sold to doctors and patients to make them feel better about taking drugs for their mood. Because I think intuitively, many people, you know, when you say, hey, you know, I'm unhappy, I'm anxious, I'm depressed, if you went to that person and said, hey, do you want to take a drug that's going to mask those symptoms? Intuitively, people would say, no, you know, I'd rather get to the root cause of that sweeping things under the rug usually doesn't work that well. Yes. But when you craft a narrative about these drugs fixing a chemical imbalance, like, say, like a type one diabetic who doesn't have enough insulin, you give them insulin and it kind of sort of like a magic bullet kind of injects itself, like, right into that, you know, pathological process and fixes it, that's kind of a different message.
The message to the person is that your brain is defective, there's something wrong with it, and we're gonna give you this chemical to bring things up to normal. Yes. That's a lot easier for someone to say, well, actually, I need my medicine because I'm broken. But that was essentially a lie. The idea that these drugs fixed a chemical imbalance simply came from observations that when you give people serotonergic drugs, they can become calmer, they can look less depressed.
And so rather than the obvious explanation being, okay, this is a drug effect that we're seeing, you know, they are drugged, and that's what we're looking at, people said, well, maybe they just had low serotonin and now they're looking better because we've fixed this chemical imbalance. And so that message has just been grabbed by pharmaceutical industry and psychiatrists to essentially lull people into this state where they feel more comfortable taking them.
Speaker 0: It changed, among other things, the practice of psychiatry completely. And I remember this just because I grew up in an affluent area where people use psychiatrists, not in my family, but everyone else's family. And the the idea it was Freudian psychiatry, and the idea was we are gonna treat the root causes. Now you would ever think of Freudian psychiatry or Freud or whatever, but, you'd sit on the couch and talk about your childhood. Like, that would By addressing the root cause of your problems, you would make it better.
That was the promise of it, whether it worked or not. And then it felt like in one day, right around the time Prozac came out, Freud was being denounced everywhere as a sexist. And Freudian psychiatry became not just sort of passe, but like affirmatively unpopular. And the role of psychiatrist was to dispense these drugs. From an outsider's perspective, that's what I noticed at the time.
Speaker 1: That is what happened. And I think what was going on was all of a sudden you had a billion dollar war chest of marketing spend that was trying to seize control of the narrative about medications. And so, I mean, Prozac was like a blockbuster. Some people may not remember this, but that was the drug that made Eli Lilly a billion dollar company. I mean, it was a small company before then.
And so at every single level, there was an incentive to change how people thought about distress. You know, no longer was depression and anxiety a complex thing where, there could be relationship issues and problems at work and problems in your childhood. All of that stuff was now it was almost bigoted in a way to talk about depression and anxiety as if it had these intuitive social and societal causes. It was now a medical condition. And if you were going to say that it wasn't a medical condition, you weren't taking it seriously and you were stigmatizing people.
So drug companies, they would platform, I guess through their influence with the universities the media, they were able to push out this narrative. And so they could shoot down Freudian analysis and therapy. And so the message essentially came out that was this is a chemical imbalance, these are medical conditions, and if you say anything otherwise, you're stigmatizing the mentally ill.
Speaker 0: But couldn't I mean, it doesn't that's obviously what happened. I saw it happen. But it doesn't really make internal sense. Like, you could you could say, you know, I think you're depressed because all your relationships are dysfunctional, or your parents are horrible, or whatever, or you're failing at work. Those are all common causes of sadness for sure, without dismissing or stigmatizing the person or his problems.
Like, you are taking it seriously. You're just trying to find the actual cause of the problems, right?
Speaker 1: I mean, absolutely. I mean, I think to logical people that makes sense. But the way that played out in public spaces and in medical schools was that that was actually a very backwards and kind of, dismissive thing to You know, people would say things like, you know, depression just isn't normal sadness. You know, it's a serious biological problem. And so to suggest that, you know, this is just some, you know, life issues going on, relationship issues, You were kind of branded as someone who really you just didn't get it.
You didn't understand, you know, the medical underpinnings of this new disease that was gripping the country and kind of evolving and making people suffer.
Speaker 0: Did the people making these claims understand the medical basis of this illness they were describing?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, it's
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, that's the irony. Right? So so, for example, they say it's a chemical imbalance. Did anyone ever describe what balance is?
Speaker 1: So, I mean, the thing this is like a white lie that people sort of rationalize to themselves. They because, you know, people have looked at the chemical imbalance, and there is a clear way to do it. You can you can look at the brains of depressed people on autopsy, and you can actually, you know, look at receptor levels and say, you know, is there any changes in the receptors? You can stick needles into people's spine, and you can draw out fluid, and you can look at the metabolites of things like serotonin, and you can get depressed people and undepressed people and say, is there any difference in the actual amount of serotonin floating around in the brain? Every time they've done this, they have not found that there is any difference between depressed and undepressed people.
But
Speaker 0: There's no difference?
Speaker 1: There is no difference. Because that's why we don't use any biological markers in the diagnosis of any psychiatric conditions. No brain scans, no blood tests. We can do all of those things. They're not useful because there are no ways, you know, like actual biological ways to differentiate depressed people from underpressed people.
Speaker 0: Are you serious? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. So, well, that's not a white lie then.
That's like a massive whopper. If you're telling me there's a biological basis for anything, but you can't show it, then you're lying. Yeah. Or guessing at best.
Speaker 1: And the way they justify it was, well, okay. So we haven't found it yet, but it must be a medical problem, and we're eventually gonna find it. And rather than admitting that, in the meantime, we'll just tell people it's a chemical imbalance because it's an easy it's it's an easy kind of like metaphor for them to understand, and it helps us dish out the drugs without people asking too many questions.
Speaker 0: It's untrue.
Speaker 1: It's untrue.
Speaker 0: Therefore, physicians should not say that or they should lose their medical license.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't they shouldn't have been saying it.
Speaker 0: But I thought I mean, like, strict adherence to reality, honesty, thought that was a prerequisite for practicing medicine, getting a license.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, what's happened in the space of psychiatry is almost like our field has become so overrun with pharmaceutical propaganda that it's not really an issue of truth in a lot of places, it's like a moral issue. Doctors feel the need to almost encourage people to take these medications and cheerlead them onto it. It has been sort of cast as an issue where it's like, you know, these medications are heavily stigmatized, you know, there's a bunch of rednecks running around telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you know? You know, that's like the boogeyman that's cast out there.
Seriously? Yeah. Yeah. And so, yeah, that that people are, like, you know, there's But
Speaker 0: there are rednecks out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are rednecks out there stigmatizing the mentally ill saying, you know, your suffering isn't real. And so we need to kind of pedal this narrative about there being a chemical imbalance and encourage people to take these medications because mean society out there is telling people to just sit there and suffer in silence and to not take the drugs. And so doctors see it as almost a this is what medical school was like for me in residency. It's like, don't question the drugs, don't question the side effects, you to encourage people to take them. So it's hinged away from truth, and it has become more of this moral issue.
Least that's how Sounds like a religion. Yeah, mean, that's what decades of drug company propaganda has done to kind of shape the narrative about how doctors and patients and the media view this issue.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“This Guy Was Possessed” - Tucker’s Thoughts on the Minneapolis Shooter https://t.co/OsNZIYUZAW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two speakers discuss the Minneapolis shooting and a Cyrillic manifesto. They note translations show the attack targets a Catholic church, with magazines that are anti-Christian, anti-Muslim ('remove kebab'), anti-Jewish ('6,000,000 wasn't enough'), and anti-gay, plus a drawing of the shooter facing a demon in a mirror. The first page reportedly asks 'who am I?' and later 'I am.' They see demonic influence and connect 'I am' with God’s identity. They contrast two errors—new atheism/materialism and the view that the body doesn’t define the self (trans ideology)—and discuss digital life as a 'portal to hell' fueling self-perception. They also speak of a Catholic revival via sacramental theology, noting 'this is my body, which will be given up for you' and 'hawkastinum corpus meum,' and argue the body matters in truth against modernity intensified by COVID isolation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you make of the shooting in Minneapolis? Like, how should we think of there's so many different threads there. I I I don't really understand.
Speaker 1: Did you read the manifesto
Speaker 0: I did not.
Speaker 1: The diary. So I I took a look.
Speaker 0: I saw they were in Cyrillic script.
Speaker 1: Yes. Cyrillic. My Cyrillic's not great, but I I we had some translations done, and you could read the writing on the magazines. And the first thing that struck me, I mean, after the the horror of it, you know, you just think the most vulnerable people of the of the church being attacked by this by this maniac. The first thing that struck me was how apparently incoherent it all was, because it's an attack on a Catholic church, on these, like, innocent little kids in a Catholic church.
And then if you look on the guns and on the magazines, it's not just anti Christian. It's anti Muslim. It says remove kebab. It's anti Jewish. 6,000,000 wasn't enough.
It's nihilistic. It's it's anti gay. The guy was a tranny. And then there's the the scariest part of it is on this page, there's a picture he drew of himself, and it's him looking in a mirror. And he's got the gun behind him, and in the mirror is a picture of a demon.
And that's scary enough. Like a goat headed demon. Like a goat headed Baphomet looking demon. When you read, when you translate the Cyrillic, the first thing that's written, top left of the page, is who am I? And this is really jarring because you recognize that Moses at the burning bush, he asks God, who are you?
You know, who will I tell them that you are? And God says, I am who I am. I am. You know, Christ says before Abraham was I am. This is his declaration that he's God.
I am. And a a great priest friend of mine, father Rutler, once observed that when you know when you're with God, you know who you are. You know your identity. You're you're modernity thinks that you have to leave God and just totally go and make yourself a God, and then you'll be truly yourself. You'll find yourself.
That's not true. You become much more yourself, much more perfectly yourself
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: If you do what you're supposed to do and and align yourself with god. And when you when you don't identify yourself with I am, then you're left with this pathetic question, who am I? So you see this obvious demonic influence there. And what struck me too with all of these apparent contradictions, it's anti Christian and also anti Muslim and Jew. It's radically LGBT, but also kind of anti gay.
It's anti Trump, kill Trump right now, but it's also got got has all these kind of far right wing slogans. And it reminded me, which is very important to remember, especially in our in our line of work because you're constantly reading all this radical stuff.
Speaker 0: Right. Twitter easy explanation. Like, this is a representative of this group or this idea that I already dislike, and now you've confirmed that I have every reason to dislike this group.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the effect
Speaker 0: of social media. But this guy, it's like obviously, I'm opposed to the trainee thing passionately, but you realize that demons, which are real they're not under every rock,
Speaker 1: but they're real. There there is such a thing as spirits, and they'll they'll try to get you from any angle. They'll try to get if they think they're gonna bang you from the right, they'll get you from the right. If they're gonna get you from the left, they'll get you
Speaker 0: from they'll get you from
Speaker 1: up or down.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: All they wanna do is devour you. It's like Lewis and the Screwtape letters. All that just any tactic that will let them get ahold of you. And it's so clear with this guy because you realize this guy was being obsessed from every angle.
Speaker 0: Wow. The fact that he drew a picture, and and that is one of the few things I saw from the manifesto, pretty clear rendition too. I mean, he was a decent artist Yeah. Of himself looking in the mirror and a demon staring back at him. I mean, that's like that seems like a page one story.
Yes. This guy was possessed or at least influenced by in him with some supernatural force causing him to murder kids.
Speaker 1: And think about the the two opposing errors that have led to this just in the last quarter century. In the two thousands, I I remember it vividly because I fell away from faith during this time, there was the new atheism. Materialism, you know, what God's a spaghetti monster. Come on. There's nothing but flesh and blood.
We're just, you know, synapses firing. It's a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. That was one error. Think I that's fallen away. Yeah.
And we fell in I
Speaker 0: don't think anyone believes that anymore.
Speaker 1: No. But now we've fallen into the opposing error, which is to say, actually, the material world has nothing to do with who you really are. Your body your body has nothing to do with who you really are. Your true self is this purely immaterial thing. So if you're a man, you can really be a woman or what have you.
And those are those are opposing errors that that oppose the real dignity of the human person who is both spirit, soul, and body.
Speaker 0: Once again, something I haven't I hadn't thought of. So we've interesting. Do you think that the fact that people live their lives digitally has allowed them to imagine that the body has no significance?
Speaker 1: Precisely. And this is the point that I think a lot of people have not made, which is that, of core the trans ideology is in many ways deader than disco at this point. The Democrats are running away from it. It's it's
Speaker 0: Are are they?
Speaker 1: I think so. They're downplaying it. It really hurt them in 2024. I think they realized we we we reached peak sexual madness in 2023. You got they at least have to publicly back off.
However, how did we get to that place? You could say, well, it begins with feminism. You know, the idea that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Men and women are the same. Goes into the LGBT movement, which says men and women are the same.
Goes into gay marriage, so called, which says men and women are the same. So two men and two women are the same as a man and woman. Leads into transgenderism. A man can be a woman. Okay.
I I see that through line. But just think about the technological aspect. If I live my life on this little portal to hell that's in my pocket It is it is
Speaker 0: portal to hell.
Speaker 1: Day long, I'm sitting
Speaker 0: exactly where it goes. If that's where
Speaker 1: I live in my own perception, then my body really doesn't matter that much, does it? I don't you know, I'm not like the biggest, you know, Achilles in the world. Right? I'm not some hulking Adonis. I'm not an athlete, but doesn't really matter.
I just live in this virtual world. So is it so crazy to think that your body doesn't matter at that point? I think that's my instinct has
Speaker 0: been for the last few years that physical reality does really matter even as I feel like I've had a heightened spiritual awareness and the dead certain knowledge that there is a spiritual an unseen realm that is acting on us all the time, and that that's as real as anything. I sincerely believe that. But on the other hand, I do see a lot of, like, ignoring of the physical reality around us.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is why, by the way you you know how like everyone's becoming Catholic now? Have you noticed this strange phenomenon? Yes. I think this is a big reason why.
It's peep the decline in religion has tapered off. Other denominations and traditions are growing, but Catholicism in particular is exploding. Why? I think it's because it's a sacramental theology.
Speaker 0: Well, I never would have called that.
Speaker 1: Isn't it? Yeah. Twenty years ago, could you imagine? At all.
Speaker 0: Certainly No. The spotlight series had just come out, and you're just like, this church is too corrupt to continue. Yeah. And I'm not I just wanna say again, I'm not Catholic, but I strongly agree that there's a revival, and I just see it all around me.
Speaker 1: And I think this is why, you know, I mean, the the words at the sacrifice of the mass are, this is my body, which will be given up for you, you know, and which is which is mocked. You know, the phrase hocus pocus, like in magic, is a mockery of hawkastinum corpus meum. This is this is my body. You know? This yeah.
It's a kind of a hawk hawkest corpus, hocus hope hocus pocus is a at least that's a popular etymology, and I'm persuaded by it. So there's this there's always this mockery in all of the kind of false religions. There's always this mockery of of the real sacrifice. But in a lot of religious traditions, and I don't cast as Persians, I had a Baptist grandpa. You know, the Knowles has come from Maine, actually.
This is the ancestral homeland of the Knowleses. Amazing. Yes. Yeah. I haven't made it up very often, but a lot of Puritan in the line.
But I A lot a lot of
Speaker 0: us had ancestors in Maine, and it's you know, they left.
Speaker 1: It's it's kinda cold. Cold and barren and It
Speaker 0: is cold.
Speaker 1: Yes. But I think the reason why the sacramental theology is kicking up again is because we say, You know, it's I've been living in a computer for twenty years, and I don't even remember if I'm a man or a woman anymore. But maybe my body really has something to do with who I am. And, actually, maybe this whole religion is about God becoming man and taking on flesh and dwelling among us and broiling fish. I mean, the first the first thing you see our lord doing when he when he comes back, you know, he's resurrecting on the shores of the lake.
He's cooking fish for his friends and eating fish. Breakfast. For breakfast, which is a hardcore. Do they do that? It's hardcore.
It's only in Japan do they do that. In Maine, it's lobster. But but there's brook
Speaker 0: trout, actually. People eat them from
Speaker 1: with big beans. I think that's why. I think there's just and and COVID ties into this too. Because during COVID, you were told your grandma has to die alone, and you can't see her. You can't go to Christmas.
She has to die alone in a hospital bed. If you're lucky, you can say goodbye on Zoom. And people recoil recoil against that because it's just contrary to human nature. You know? Human beings are we're like the the the angels in one way because we have reason.
We have intellect and will, and spirits are, you know, that don't have bodies. But we're like the animals in another way. The animals don't have intellect and will. They have instinct and appetite, but their their bodies. You know?
And and we're we're kind of in the middle of those two things. And you can't ignore the you can only ignore the body for so long before people say, no. You know, I'm a man, actually. Believe it or not, even in even in modernity, I'm a man. I wanna I wanna do stuff.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Michael Knowles on His Relationship With Candace Owens Since She Left the Daily Wire https://t.co/ADJpCYfllc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Viewer questions lead to a Candace Owens discussion: 'I'm the godfather to Candace's daughter.' They note Candace converted to Catholicism and they still see her at church. A stranger asked, 'Tucker Carlson? Yes. You know Candace Owens? I was like, yes. He goes, tell her that I love her.' They discuss converts, especially young people, and say 'everything' changes about their views. They argue history for Western civilization matters—'cult and culture come from the same root word'—and quote Belloc: 'one proof of its divine institution is that no other group conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.' They touch on Pope Francis, fallibility, and 'Don't be defensive' in conversations. They connect politics to culture, noting 'the rise of Trump.' They argue 'greed, avarice, is the beginning of evils in the city' and 'money is the root of all evil,' finishing that 'we get the government we deserve.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So we have a couple viewer questions. We've never done this before, but, you know, it's
Speaker 1: the Internet. I'm in. Okay. Lots of
Speaker 0: people ask this one, my producer said. Michael Knowles, do you miss working with Candace Owens?
Speaker 1: Well, know, I I still see Candace all the time. You know, I'm the godfather to Candace's daughter. Did she Actually? Yeah. Yeah.
I'm I'm the godfather to Candace's daughter. I'm very good friends with her husband, and I know, it's kinda weird for a to kinda hang out with. Yeah, We're have many Mayflower cigars Yeah. You know, over over the time. And and I still I don't see Candace at work obviously anymore, but I do see her at church.
She actually goes to the earlier mass than I do because she she converted. You know, she came into the church like a year or something ago. And in fact, I was the godfather to her daughter before she came into the church. And then all those smells and bells just kept pulling her in. And there was there was one time I was invited to the baptism of their next kid, and I just couldn't make it.
It was I was visiting my grandma or something. And people kept telling me, like, no. You should really come. I was like, no. Look.
I mean, I love love the former family, but I'm gotta go see my granny, whatever. You know? And they kept I said, what's this about? I don't know. They have, like, a kid every six months, so, like, they'll have another one soon.
And but but then I thought it was because she was being baptized, and she wasn't telling anybody. So, anyway, she came in, and now at least now at least I get to see her at at mass. So People love her. It is wild. She has actual star quality.
I she has this thing. It she could tell me something. She could tell me something not only that I don't agree with, she could tell me something about myself that like, she told me I have blonde hair, and I would I would just the whole time, I'd just be like, go on. Tell me everything. Wild.
I mean,
Speaker 0: I I was telling this off here, but I was gonna say it. I was in Oslo, Norway last week salmon fishing with my kids, and I'm coming walking back from dinner with one of my kids in Downtown Oslo, and this guy goes, Tucker Carlson? Yes. You know Candace Owens? I was like, yes.
He goes, tell her that I love her. And I was like, how famous do you have to be where people will come up to you in the street just because you know somebody else?
Speaker 1: Where people will come up to another very famous guy. No. Nothing to do
Speaker 0: with me at all.
Speaker 1: Bear you say, oh, hey. You know, hi. I'm Tucker, by the way.
Speaker 0: Do you I No. I was so impressed by it that I it didn't hurt my feelings at all. I you know? That is unbelievable. Yes.
The main thing that he liked about me was that I knew Candace Owens. I was like, wow. That that's devotion. So I was impressed. Fair I I called her.
I said, wow, man. You're really at another level.
Speaker 1: Gotta start trying that at restaurants. Can I hey? Can I get a free dessert or something?
Speaker 0: I know. I know Candace. No. Come on. Not my birthday, but all these young people are becoming Catholic of all unfashionable things.
Looks like that's probably the most unfashionable. You know? But by the standards of thirty years ago, becoming a Catholic Crazy. It's crazy. It's insane.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is why I think, you know, the the vice president is probably the most famous convert in recent years. And and people his political enemies are always saying, oh, he's cynical. He's just changing his views with the times or whatever. I think hold on.
You're telling me a guy who had a tough upbringing, who graduates Yale Law School, wants to is in Silicon Valley, then goes back. He wants to launch a political career in Ohio. The way he thinks he's gonna do that is by becoming Catholic? You think that's gonna help you? Or no.
It'd be that's like the craziest thing to do if if you were thinking cynically or opportunistically. Well, it's a radical move,
Speaker 0: I guess. And, again, I'm not promoting it. I'm not doing it. But I just as an observer, I'm like, wow. That's pretty wild.
So I guess here's my question. It's a primal question. If people if young people are converting to Catholicism, like, what else about their views is changing?
Speaker 1: Everything.
Speaker 0: Okay. Everything. So that's my sense.
Speaker 1: Well, on the political level, and I think this also touches on part of the conversions, we're beginning to realize that history didn't start in 1965. History didn't start in 1865. History didn't start in 1776 or even 1620. We're part of something that's much bigger and much broader and much more beautiful. You know?
And even just in our political order, we used to call it Christendom. Now we call it the West, and there has has been an attack on that. Going back many decades now, I think of Jesse Jackson marching down Stanford, hey. Hey. Ho ho.
Western Civ has got to go. And and people are beginning to realize, you know, it's not that I just wanna preserve my town or my nineties liberalism or my what? I wanna preserve this great cultural patrimony that I've I've been given. And that cultural patrimony has to go deeper than than just aesthetics. And it has to go deeper than just abstract ideology.
Know, cult and culture come from the same root word. So what what you worship is going to define your culture. And so what's the what's the bottom? What's the foundation? What's the ballast for all of that?
I think people, you know, even beyond questions of conviction of the holy spirit and rational arguments and all that, they're just saying, well, you know, this thing's pretty sturdy. It's been around a long time. Belock, again, Belock keeps coming to mind. He had this line. He says, I am he said it more eloquently.
He said, I'm required as a matter of faith to hold that the church is divinely instituted. But for those who doubt it, one proof of its divine institution is that no other group conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight. I know that. Obviously true. Yeah.
The best thing
Speaker 0: I ever heard from a practicing Catholic in the last five years, was there was no one around. Was a very close friend of mine, I and he was going on about Catholicism. I was like, okay. But that pope is just I just can't I won't even tell you what I said, but it was hostile because that's how I felt. And he goes
Speaker 1: Are you sure you're not Catholic? Yeah. Yeah. No. That's it was the greatest
Speaker 0: thing ever. He goes, yeah. I totally agree. But he's not the worst pope we've had. Yes.
Was it completely nondefensive? This happens?
Speaker 1: It's like the let me tell you about the ninth century.
Speaker 0: Well, it's something we've talking I think that's right. If you wanna win people over, don't be defensive. Yes. Totally. Don't tell me that there's no that what I'm seeing isn't real.
Yeah. Yeah. Be honest.
Speaker 1: Of course. Of course. I mean, it
Speaker 0: is Okay. But I I don't know that I've talked to too many Catholics about Catholicism. Maybe they all feel that way, but I thought that was just a wonderful response.
Speaker 1: Totally. You know, the we we have to remember that the pope is fallible except when he's infallible. And sometimes, sometimes God gives us bad popes to make us really grateful for good popes. And the other point I'll mention on Francis because, you know, obviously, had some questions about the Francis pontificate. Yeah.
I reverted during the Francis pontificate. This trend started during Francis. Yes. It might have been in in reaction against many of the things that Pope Francis was said to stand for. I don't know exactly how it worked.
That's above my pay grade. But that's you think of, like, the progress of the church and our whole civilization, and we think of it as just like a straight line. But it's I think it's a little bit more kinda like this, you know, and the papacy goes to Avignon for a little bit, and there's some king is, like, arresting the pope. And, you know, it's, like, kind of a little bit more circuitous, but it's always pointed in the same direction.
Speaker 0: So there's not it just reminds me of God using pharaoh, blinding pharaoh to the truth in order to save the Jews from slavery
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Which is what's described. And I always imagine that there's a direct line between the quality of the leadership and the and the quality of the people.
Speaker 1: Of course. This is why I
Speaker 0: can't that's get not always true. So as America becomes more prosperous, the people become weaker and sillier. Yes. I mean, that's how I grew up. I grew up in the, you know, richest country in history, and but there was a steady decline in the quality of of thinking, certainly, and of behavior.
Speaker 1: And of leadership. And of leadership. Yeah. I mean, was it a is it h g Wells who said democracy is the theory that was it? No.
I don't know. Who was it? Forget who it was. Who said democracy is the theory that the common people know what do you what they want and deserve to get it good and hard? This is why I can't get into I have many I I love the populist movement.
I was so into the rise of Trump. I remain into the rise of Trump. I think this has been the the healthiest political awakening in my lifetime.
Speaker 0: I think I'm all about it.
Speaker 1: But I can't I can't throw too many stones merely at the leadership class because, one, the civil authority is there for our own good. It's it's, in that way, appointed by God in a certain sense. And, also, we kind of get the government that we deserve. And if you don't know anything about your country and you don't care about your civic life and you're just gonna be greedy, you're either gonna, on the left side of things, just indulge in weird social stuff that's purely selfish. And on the right side of things, get engaged in economic selfishness, and no one cares about the common good, and no one cares about the body politic,
Speaker 0: then That's kind of where
Speaker 1: we are right there. Yes. And you're gonna get crappy leadership a lot of the time. And sometimes you get a you sometimes you get a second chance.
Speaker 0: So it's just like greed and greed and lust those your choices?
Speaker 1: Yes. And this look. This is this is classic political philosophy going all the way back, which is that greed, avarice, is the beginning of evils in the city. And it's natural,
Speaker 0: and you you have to Dorsheb with money is the root of all evil.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's right.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker Addresses the Viral Rumors About Donald Trump Being Dead https://t.co/ZqvjsdFDqF
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump is not an ideologue; he ascribes to "Trumpism" or "Americanism" and has "brought together a disparate coalition" and "won the popular vote for the first time in twenty years as a Republican" with a "vision" and "force of nature." The dialogue notes anxiety about a reprieve from "crazy" politics and questions succession, with "JD Vance" and, "Rubio's done a great job in the 15 jobs that he's doing in the admin. At least 15," and "I frankly hope you never run for another office because I want you to do this for the rest of your life." Trump drops provocative lines: "Israel lobbies totally control congress like nobody else," and in Netanyahu’s presence, "The United States is gonna take over Gaza"—"a big Trump casino there" and "the Riviera Of The Middle East."
In a cabinet exchange, he cites a "'definitive conclusion' to the war," then says, "we're taking it" and seeks "some modicum of political order" and preservation of holy sites. The Gaza options include "'Israel take over Gaza,' 'Arab League take over,' or 'ship all of the residents to South Sudan'"—to achieve "some semblance of peace" rather than a permanent solution. He argues that "the purpose of empire is to just have peace and order" and that "we're not suited for this at all" due to lacking "self confidence" and an "evangelical spirit," a critique of neocons who would "turn Baghdad into Belgium."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is what I love about Trump. Is Trump is Trump an ideologue? No. Do you what what kind of ism does Trump ascribe to? Trumpism.
Trump Trump that's what he ascribes to. Americanism, I guess. I don't know. This is a man who has brought together a disparate coalition of, like, weirdo crunchy hippies and bow tie wearing traditionalists and libertarians and Silicon Valley tech futurists. And, like, it's the craziest coalition ever.
Yes. And he has brought them together and won the popular vote for the first time in twenty years as a Republican. And it's it's an amazing thing to see in action because he's got a vision, and he's just a force of nature. And so the question, I think, on a lot of our minds now I think this is what all this Trump is dead discourse is about. There's this viral meme that Trump died because he got a bruise on his hand or something.
He went to play golf one day. They said he was dead.
Speaker 1: No. He's still around.
Speaker 0: He's around.
Speaker 1: He's not verified there. Yes. You know, he's still around.
Speaker 0: And I think a lot of that is an anxiety of, wow. We got this reprieve from all the craziness and all the decay and all the division, and we were actually we won the popular vote. You know? Things are on track. And what happens next?
When the patriarch's gone? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, what happens in families when the Yeah. It can be really hard. Yes. It can be really hard. I I have a lot of confidence in JD Vance.
Speaker 0: Yes. I think he's quite clearly at this point set up the vice president as the successor.
Speaker 1: I hope that's right.
Speaker 0: It seems like in the cabinet meeting the other day, he said, look. Rubio's done a a great job in the 15 jobs that he's doing in the admin. At least. At least 15. And but he said in the cabinet meeting the other day, and I noticed it, and I no one no one around me seemed to have heard this line.
He goes, everyone's talking about what a great job Rubio was doing. And he said, wow, Marco, you've you've just been amazing. I frankly hope you never run for another office because I want you to do this for the rest of your life. And I said, well, that that seems like a way if those are the two most not pop abulae. They're most like presidential abulae, you know, of the for 2028.
So that seems like he's saying no. He's the vice president is my natural successor.
Speaker 1: Trump drops these bombs in every conversation you have with him. I I don't I don't inter I haven't interviewed him that many times because it's so difficult. Dizzying? Dizzying because he does the weave famously. But every time I've interviewed him, like, three days later, I'll think, what did he just say that right in the middle of the right?
Yes. Yesterday, he was doing an interview with The Daily Caller. Right in the of the interview, was talking about Israel, and I love Israel, and I've no one's done more for Israel than I've done. And, you know, rooting for Israel. He's very pro Israel, of course.
And then he goes
Speaker 0: They used to own congress or whatever.
Speaker 1: He said that. And he goes, you know, the Israel lobbies totally control congress like nobody else. That's not
Speaker 0: true anymore. I'm like,
Speaker 1: did you just say that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was you I mean, I remember in the
Speaker 1: Wait. What?
Speaker 0: The interview or the press conference with Netanyahu. This was months ago. And I I don't think I was taken in by theatricality. I think this was real when he said, and look. What we're gonna do is The United States is gonna take over Gaza.
And you look at Netanyahu, and he sort of he looks at Trump. He kind of looks nervously at the audience. He's kind of laughing, but kind of not laughing. And he's like, what is it? He goes, we're gonna take over Gaza.
We're gonna build a big Trump casino there or whatever. I don't know what he's gonna do. You know? Hey. We're gonna build it.
It's gonna be beautiful. It's gonna be the Riviera Of The Middle East. And it was it was it was so apparently out of left field. And I'm not even convinced he's totally sincere on that. I think he's a great negotiator, and he's working other ranks.
Speaker 1: It was weird. I was actually in The Middle East that day when that happened, and I was eating with a bunch of, you know, local residents who run the government in the country I was in. And I'm like, did what? You know? And I was actually sitting at the table and they played that.
Everyone's staring at this. And I thought, I don't know what the hell is that? Yes.
Speaker 0: What what do we have to
Speaker 1: do with Gaza? Like, my instinct is always like, we had nothing to do with this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm out. I'm good.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like when girls fight. Like, I don't wanna get involved.
Speaker 0: I'll take Monica. I'll take the French Riviera. I don't need the Gaza Riviera. That's exactly right. But
Speaker 1: their reaction was is I have no idea if this is true or not, but it was so interesting. They're sophisticated, very sophisticated. And they're like, oh, no. That's an attack on Netanyahu. Yes.
That was their gut reaction. He's basically tweaking that niani. It wasn't it wasn't a a,
Speaker 0: you know, a haymaker.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a niani.
Speaker 0: He wasn't clobbering on that. It was a little poke. And I think So you think that too? Yes. I think it was a little poke.
Speaker 1: In what way?
Speaker 0: In the sense that it's in the cabinet meeting the other day, Trump was asked. He said, you promised that this war would be over permanently in five seconds after you were inaugurated. And so when are we gonna get a definitive conclusion to the war? And he laughs. Definitive.
A definitive conclusion. He turns to Steve Wickoff. He says, hey, Steve. How long this this this conflict, this has been going on thousands of years, is it? Yeah.
There's no definitive conclusion. We're just trying to stop the bloodshed. We're trying to establish some kind of peace. And it's this brilliant move because in what other way are you going to get the Israelis and the Arab League and the and the Iranian regime all united in not liking this one plan is by suggesting we're gonna go in and take it. And and so, you know, it's it's a it's a basically an intractable situation.
There will not be any permanent resolution probably until the second coming. So what you wanna do is just establish some modicum of political order. What I would especially like to see happen is a preservation of the holy sites and, you know, pilgrimage access and all that. But you
Speaker 1: just demand that. I mean, that's not even it's like no one owns Jerusalem. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course. But there's easier said than done in a messy neck of the woods.
Speaker 1: When you're paying for it, you can just be like, look. Our first demand is Christians seem to be able to visit the church holy sepulchre.
Speaker 0: So Of course.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, I don't know. I don't know. It it seems to me that the the holy sites still seem to be okay. In Gaza, there was unfortunately the attack on Saint Porphyrias, which I I grant was accidental. I don't think it was I I don't I don't see why from a strategic perspective it would be beneficial to the Israelis to, like, particularly stick a finger in the eye of the Christians when America is your last political protector.
Speaker 1: A lot of it. I don't know. I don't understand it. I think it's self destructive behavior, but but what I care about is the effect on Christians, and it's just not not good at all.
Speaker 0: Well and you you have to ask yourself too. Okay. What's the conclusion? You could either have the state of Israel take over Gaza again. Had Gaza from what?
'67 until o five, then just gave it away in o five. Hamas gets elected. Hamas runs it for a little bit. And then there's the October. Israel's gonna say now, okay.
This is an unacceptable security risk. We're not dealing with this anymore. So you could have Israel take it over. That's going to be probably an unsatisfactory resolution. You could have the Arab League take it over, some of Egypt take it over.
I don't I don't know that they really wanna do it. No one wants to touch that hot potato. You could have and then Trump just drops out of the air. And he says, yeah. We're taking it.
And we're gonna develop condominiums, and we're gonna ship all of the residents to South Sudan that was floated, I think, in the Israeli government. South Sudan, the one place on earth that's less pleasant than Gaza. And I don't think that's gonna work out well at all. And and what what is I think Trump is totally sincere in what he says. He goes, my solution here is not some permanent answer that will totally make the Israelis happy and totally irritate all the Arabs and the Persians.
My answer is not gonna totally make the Israelis unhappy and totally satisfy Egypt or whatever, the Arab League. It's I just want some semblance of peace, which is where I I feel totally vindicated on this. I've said for years, when everyone is calling Trump the n word you know, always call him the n word? A nationalist? Oh, yeah.
Always. They call him the n word. And I said, I don't really think he's a nationalist. He loves the nation. He's a great patriot.
He supports strong borders. I said, I don't think he's really a nationalist. I think he's kind of an imperialist. He wants to acquire Greenland and invade Canada. I I don't think that's not generally what, like, yeoman farmers do in some no.
Speaker 1: No. That's a Teddy Roosevelt move.
Speaker 0: Yes. I think his vision of America first is that America will take due care to prioritize her national interests, part of which is accepting the political reality that we're the global hegemon, and we need to maintain some modicum of world order. And this goes back to the really a really ancient conception of the political order, which is that the purpose of empire is to just have peace and order. This is, you know, this is in the Aeneid, in book six of the Aeneid. Aeneas goes down to his dad in the underworld, and and the dad gives him this whole view of what's gonna happen to Rome.
And he says, you know, look. Different peoples are given different arts. The I don't know. The Greeks are good at making soufflaki. The the Chinese are good at making bad soup.
And the Romans awful soup. Awful. I I've not you know, I've I've never even tried the pangolin is good, I've never tried the And he says the Romans, their art is to govern. And it's it's not governing is not, like, fun. It's not the most glorious necessarily thing.
You know? In some ways, it'd be more fun to be a writer, be more fun to be a poet, be more fun to go. But that's what the Romans are given is to govern. And it's just a job in the world, and someone's gotta do it. And you just need to establish relative peace and protect the rights of nations and just keep on keeping on.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're suited for that?
Speaker 0: I think I think Trump is quite suited for it as a as an individual, as a national leader. Is America suited for it? That's not how we started. We weren't we weren't looking for it when the country began,
Speaker 1: but we we got it. I mean, I I totally agree. Someone's gotta be dad. I mean, that is absolutely just the nature of man, and there's no getting around it. In shirking, it doesn't make it go away.
So I completely agree with that. That's where I do agree with the neocons, I guess. Kind of. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But but in a different way. Like because the neocons, at at their most extreme, would say we have an obligation because of the demands of history with a capital h to spread liberal democracy around the world. It's fine
Speaker 1: for stupid.
Speaker 0: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: But, like, the smart like, I remember David Brooks, who was impressive. I know it's hard to believe, but at one point, when I knew him thirty years ago, he was smart. And he he would say, look. You know, someone's gotta take control because there has to be order at the center. And I that's not stupid.
Where I began to really hate the neocons, where my whole politics began to revolve around opposing them as an ideology, not as not as individuals, but just the idea is bad. Some of
Speaker 0: the individuals. Some of them. Yeah. Well, yeah. John Padaras.
Speaker 1: But no. It's when I went
Speaker 0: to Iraq. And the
Speaker 1: main takeaway for me is we're not good at it. Yeah. We're just, like, leaving aside the dumb spread democracy and all that nonsense, turn Baghdad into Belgium. It's stupid. But what's not stupid is the idea that you can't have disorder because it metastasizes.
And I'm getting there. My assessment, and has not changed in twenty five years, is we're just not we're not suited for this at all because we don't have the self confidence required to do it because our society at its core is really thin. There's nothing really there, actually, other than some distorted version of capitalism, which is kind of disgusting actually.
Speaker 0: Do you do you think that was true, say, in the fifties and sixties, and it's changed? Or I think the fight you know, the Cold War,
Speaker 1: the battle against the Soviets gave a kind of clarity and purpose. Yeah. But even then, you know, The US sided with the Viet Minh, actually Yeah. In 1954 at Dian Bien Phu against the French. Like, there was never really a kind of consistent that's Yeah.
Little But not even grand strategy, but, like, a consistent worldview or instinct. Like, the English, for all their many faults at the height of empire, the height of the Victorian period, like, they really believed they were superior. Now we derive that as racist, but you have to have that. You have to believe my way is the better way, or why are we doing this in the first place? To extract minerals?
Like, that's not over time, people can't sustain that. You really have to have an evangelical spirit, and we don't have that.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“That Would Be F*ckin Crazy” - The One Foreign Policy Shift That Could Change Everything https://t.co/DvI85X6BNK
Video Transcript AI Summary
On a press guidance Tuesday, the team addressed Speaker Johnson visiting the settlements in the West Bank and prepared a line: "we support stability in the West Bank." The conversation noted that sounding "stability" could be read as critique of Israel. The transcript also cites "the US government is against extending condolences to the families of noncombatants killed" and that the US is "also now in favor of the forced movement of large populations outside." It then discusses "equities" with Embassy Jerusalem; David Milstein—senior adviser to Ambassador Huckabee, reportedly Ted Cruz staffer and Mark Levin's stepson—would pop into docs and push edits. Milstein allegedly changed the line to "we commend speaker Johnson for visiting Judea And Samaria," a phrase tied to "Israel's land grab of the West Bank" and erasing Palestinian legitimacy. He would "call around the building" to push drafts; policy comes from DC.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It was a Tuesday, so that's a press guidance day of all the sample questions. It was actually arguably We said OBE, which meant overcome by events, which means that we're beyond its But it still could have come up, so I left it in there, was a reaction to Speaker Johnson visiting the settlements in the West
Speaker 1: Bank. And
Speaker 0: I had a line, pretty standard and kind of not very specific, but it said, we support stability in the West Bank. Stability? Yeah. We support stability. That's all.
Last piece was comma, which helps secure Israel, right? But I think the stable comment was, I don't know, too much? Because if we say we want a stable West Bank, are we accidentally being critical of something Speaker Johnson or Israel is doing, right?
Speaker 1: What is that? Flesh that out if you don't mind. Sure. I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure Yeah. Everyone
Speaker 0: It's a good question.
Speaker 1: So So why would the US government So the US government is against extending condolences to the families of noncombatants killed.
Speaker 0: Correct. Okay. Correct.
Speaker 1: And the US government is also now in favor of the forced movement of large populations
Speaker 0: outside Right?
Speaker 1: And now you're saying the US government is against stability? Right. How are we against stability? Why is stability a bad thing?
Speaker 0: Now, stability is a word that's used a lot, and we are on paper saying we support stability in the region all the time. But in this specific context, when discussing settlements, it will sound like we're critiquing Israel indirectly by saying we support stability in reaction to a question about settlements. Right? So that was how I interpreted the issue.
Speaker 1: So in other words, that would you might be suggesting that the US government opposes radical demographic change in the West Right.
Speaker 0: Now I have this line, again, just like the forced displacement. It had it cleared previously. But this is where what was discussed when this first broke of my firing in the Washington Post was that senior officials from Embassy Jerusalem, David Milstein specifically, would occasionally pop into my docs. Now, didn't happen every single day. Pop into your docs.
Like at a Google doc, right? Or it wasn't a Google doc, it was, I don't know, the brand doesn't matter. But some internal system. An internal system. I would share it with, in the morning, the equities I was mentioning, one of the equities is Embassy Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: Okay. So an equity just for state department speak. People haven't heard it. Tell us what an equity is.
Speaker 0: It's like Someone has some stake in those lines. Okay. And embassy Jerusalem does, obviously, because they're the
Speaker 1: ones that are US Embassy in Jerusalem.
Speaker 0: The US Embassy in Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: American diplomats posted to Israel.
Speaker 0: On those press briefing days, I would share it with them for them to review the document and be like, okay, these are our press lines for these sample questions. Are you okay with them? Now, it was interesting because they often did not clear they didn't reject it, and they just with a non response, because the press officers there would defer up the chain to David Milstein and Ambassador Huckabee, because they didn't want to put their name on it. Because if it's something they didn't like, no one wants their name on a press guidance that wasn't approved by these influential people.
Speaker 1: Who is David Milstein?
Speaker 0: He is the senior adviser to Ambassador Huckabee.
Speaker 1: And what's his how old is he? What's his background? Is he a career diplomat?
Speaker 0: From my understanding, he's a political. I believe he worked on the Hill.
Speaker 1: Oh, did he work for Ted Cruz? Yes. Yes, he worked for Ted Cruz.
Speaker 0: Okay. And he is the stepson of your best friend, Mark Levin.
Speaker 1: He's Mark Levin's stepson? Yeah. He's working at the State Department? Correct. Interesting.
So David Milstein is a political guy working now for Mike Huckabee in Jerusalem, and he was going through your lines. Correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: Now, on paper, he could be, but the way that he would edit my docs as aggressively as he would, and we can get into this, but the other statements and pieces that were reported in the Washington Post, he would push a certain agenda that was very aligned with Israel that I found very problematic. Now, in this specific example, because we're discussing the third example of why I was fired, was that he changed the stability line to we commend speaker Johnson for visiting Judea And Samaria. We, as a government What's Judea And Samaria? It's a term that religious. It's about Israel's land grab of the West Bank.
Speaker 1: Are Judea And Samaria administrative districts? No. It's not Is there a mayor of Samaria?
Speaker 0: Nope. Doesn't exist. Okay.
Speaker 1: So there's no actual place called Judea And Samaria? The civil authorities don't recognize Judea or Samaria.
Speaker 0: Nope. Okay. Nope. It's the more extreme wing of the elements of the Israeli government, and David Milstein was in line with that language. And it's designed to erase any Palestinian legitimacy that this is supposed to
Speaker 1: be So the point is Israeli by using those terms, they're biblical terms, they refer to regions described in what Christians call the Old Testament. And the point is to remind everybody that this land was promised by God to the Jewish peoples, Hebrew people, and that, you know, anyone who's lived there subsequently for the last three thousand years has no right to it. Right. That's the that's that's the point. But I but from a sort of government perspective, Judea and Samaria are not real places, in that they're not Not recognized.
Not nation states, they're not provinces, they're And not
Speaker 0: Do they have clearly defined borders? Not for my understanding. I mean, they do not. And that would would give you that opens the door.
Speaker 1: Oh, fuck.
Speaker 0: It opens the door to more land grabs. You know? It's
Speaker 1: it's Okay. But if a place doesn't have a clearly defined border, then how can the US government refer to it in any kind of official capacity?
Speaker 0: They can. They can. It's scary too because we look at the airstrikes that Israel is doing in Syria, and they're building settlements even outside the Golan Heights, it's all part of this, I don't know what it is, this idea of a greater Israel that people are discussing that was beyond these borders. So it's scary, and against the stability of the region that we've been calling for as a government for decades. So certainly in
Speaker 1: the modern era, definitely since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, you know, you've had clear borders between countries. In fact, we're fighting a war against Russia right now on on the the premise that they violated those borders by moving into Eastern Ukraine. So, like, the US government takes borders very seriously, obviously, not including our own. But as a matter of, like, statecraft and diplomacy, that really, really matters. So you would never use a phrase in an official communication that referred to a place whose territory you couldn't define.
That would be 100%. Crazy to do something like that.
Speaker 0: A 100%.
Speaker 1: Okay. You think this Milstein guy who is Mark Levin's stepson, you say it's almost like you're making this up, it's like a joke, who worked for Ted Cruz in the Senate, he added this to the statement. Correct. And then did it
Speaker 0: go out? So from that point, I cut it because I had accepted most of his edits in the document because going to battle with him was a whole headache because he'll call, he'll push certain things. He was known for doing that. David Miltstein phone call was not a favorite thing for folks.
Speaker 1: What was it like? Tell us, those of us who don't work, with Mark Liven's stepson at the station.
Speaker 0: Sure. So he would call and he would just push, like, why was that removed? Or why was XYZ done? Very often, and if you said no, there was a tendency to go up the chain in order for him to push the agenda of any given day. And this is something that I dealt with since very early.
Speaker 1: Where is his okay. So is he the DCM,
Speaker 0: or Nope. What's He's just a senior adviser to ambassador Huckabee.
Speaker 1: He's like an assistant to the US ambassador to Israel.
Speaker 0: Correct. He sticking with the public reporting from Washington Post, he would push in one in one Caucasian statements that were in the voice of secretary Rubio, not even a spokesperson. And he drafted them. He would push them through and be like, I
Speaker 1: want this statement out. I want this statement out?
Speaker 0: Yeah. He would go through and be like, I drafted this. This is the statement I want. I would go through the process of clearing it, but he would fight for it. He'd be in the document getting in arguments with people one by one in order to kind of overwhelm the process and get certain his agenda out there the way he wanted.
And it's very difficult.
Speaker 1: You didn't stop On what authority? I mean, that's pretty cheeky behavior for a guy who's an aide to Mike Huckabee, a former cable news host.
Speaker 0: Calling around the building, and and and it it it was very consistent. What? And persistent.
Speaker 1: But he lives in Jerusalem.
Speaker 0: He does.
Speaker 1: What do you mean
Speaker 0: call around? And policy comes from DC. Like, this is obviously of influence and they have discussions, but the policy comes from DC. So if you What do
Speaker 1: mean call around? How do He
Speaker 0: would go up he would go either laterally or up the chain and call various people and say, hey, ambassador Huckabee, you'll cite Huckabee usually, and say, wants this done, or in for x y z reason, and if that person didn't pick up, it would go to the next person. Even if I we're discussing equities earlier. If one particular equity said, we can't do this, then he would go up, well, I don't care, because this guy above you may clear it.
Speaker 1: What? And how does he have everyone's number?
Speaker 0: That was that's what I was wondering. I don't know.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker Calls Out Mark Cuban to His Face, Leaves Him Speechless https://t.co/VHSCTKoQoJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Debate on sending money to Ukraine centers on perceived need: "Man, they need it." and "None." One speaker adds, "Forcing other people to help is not charity." The panel notes a shift in military aid: "All the weapons were on loan lease. We're getting it back," and claim that "our dear president Trump has negotiated that we own half the minerals." Federal spending is questioned: deficits at "six and a half percent of GDP," concerns about "printing money," and that "The Federal Reserve has to buy all the treasuries" as well as the idea that "laws that were written in the sixties that are still in place don't apply now." On finance and technology, one person says, "I own a shit ton of Bitcoin," and discusses "AI as a service" and reducing human roles. They ask, "What kind of society do you want?" advocating property rights: "I want to live in a society where people live in single family homes with little lawns that they own."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's your take on whether we should be sending money to Ukraine or not? Were you in favor of that?
Speaker 1: Man, they need it.
Speaker 2: I mean, honestly Don't audit. I don't have a good answer. You know, I can make an argument both ways, and half my family is Ukrainian on my from my grandparents. And so, you know, personally, I think we should help, but I don't have a study to answer for you.
Speaker 1: Have you how much money have you sent to Ukraine?
Speaker 2: None.
Speaker 1: Oh, so what do you mean by we? You're the one whose family's from Ukraine. Like, why don't you send them a billion dollars?
Speaker 2: Because I'm trying to fix health care.
Speaker 1: Why don't you fix their health care if you're like so deep? If you think we need to help, why don't you start? How about you first? Yeah. I noticed that's never like even an option for anybody.
It's like, we need to help. That's not what charity is. Forcing other people to help is not charity.
Speaker 3: Here's the good news. The good news is all the weapons were on loan lease. We're getting it back. And Right. Our dear president Trump has negotiated that we own half the minerals.
So, he turned this horrible
Speaker 1: Into a
Speaker 3: profit war center. Into a profit center, which is one of his unique gifts. I think we can all agree.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. Can can I can I just follow-up on the like the another alternative root cause and I've harped on this a lot, federal spending? Ultimately, if the federal deficit remains as it is, six and a half percent of GDP, we're printing money. The Federal Reserve has to buy all the treasuries to fund the the That money printing and all of those inefficient programs for lending, for housing, lending for student loans, spending on stuff that has no ROI etcetera etcetera ultimately leads to inflation and leads to everything becoming unaffordable. Is it not an option?
How much do you both care about or think about reining in the federal spending and having those kind of pointed conversations about the importance of this and
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Tucker.
Speaker 4: You look
Speaker 1: back I mean, I think about it a lot. I think about the devaluation of the dollar. I think about just not worth as much. And I know that in my own I'm not an investor. I don't invest in anything.
But in the things that I buy with an eye to retaining value, they're physical things. I just don't believe in any
Speaker 4: of this Yeah.
Speaker 1: At all. And so I I caught myself the other day, and I I'm at such a low sort of level compared to everyone else here. I'm not especially rich, but, like, I had a little bit of extra money. And I'm like, it really was like the Weimar impulse. Like, shit.
Gotta buy something soon before
Speaker 4: it looks Before the dollar's worth less. Yeah. I mean, everyone Don't knock.
Speaker 1: Everyone I know, and I live in a very rural area, and I most of my friends are crazy, but people I know are thinking in terms of, like, land, gold, ammo. Like, I don't think that water I don't think that's no. I mean, are you really laughing? Yeah. Are you tittering nervously?
Because you know that's not insane.
Speaker 4: That's right. Right.
Speaker 2: I own a shit ton of Bitcoin, first and foremost. Right? A kind of a kind of a hedge and have probably five years now. Yep. But we do need to cut costs, and I'm hoping AI is a a path there.
You know, government as a service, AI as a service, reducing the number of people it takes to get things done, understanding that laws that were written in the six and this is kind of the abundance thing. Right? Laws that were written in the sixties that are still in place don't apply now. It's kinda like the government version of the innovator's dilemma. We have to modify things that are in place already so we can start to optimize.
And I think we haven't done that in a long, long time, and I don't think it's we're in the process of changing that right now.
Speaker 1: But may I ask and I'm not against anything you said. I mean Okay. I'm for technocratic solutions to moral problems too, but I wonder just kidding. I'm wondering what the aim is. It seems project, like, begin by articulating your goal Right.
Which is like one thing America is super bad at. So if you wanna get to the moon, say so. And then if you don't get there, just fake it or whatever like we did. But but it begins with, again, kidding. But it begins with saying what the goal is.
Like, what kind of society do you want? No. But you never I'm not attacking you at all. I do think you should money to Ukraine, but I I think it's we're all at fault. It's all like, well, how can we do this more efficiently?
Well, do what? Like, in the end, I wanna live in a society where people live in single family homes with little lawns that they own that are not gonna be taken away from them like actual property rights, not theoretical properties. It's like my house. Okay? I want married people, and I want them to have children and grandchildren with the rough assurance, the future of course being fundamentally unknown, but rough assurance that like, it'll kind of be the same.
Radical change all the time drives people insane. Yeah. But it's not radical change to do It's not radical change, dude.
Speaker 2: I grew
Speaker 1: up in this city. I don't recognize it. I'm only 56. That's radical change.
Speaker 2: What? You're talking about Los Angeles?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, what is this?
Speaker 2: Look. You can go in any any decade, any generation.
Speaker 3: Don't Rick Cruz says No.
Speaker 1: There's never been right. There has never been population okay. Then I'll I dare you then, because I know you're a historian. Give me another example other than the mass rape by the Mongols of population change like what we've seen in the West over the past fifty years. You can't because there isn't one in all recorded history.
So you can be for it or against it, but you can't say there's a question.
Speaker 2: Their own questions.
Speaker 1: I don't get what talking answer. I just answer my own questions.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: This is a monologue posing as a colloquy. Let me Okay. Let let me
Speaker 3: bring us to AI job displacement. It's been a big debate we've been having on the pod. We all know that AI is going to replace a large number of jobs.
Speaker 1: Do we know that?
Speaker 3: I don't self driving car replaces four or five drivers, full time positions. That's industry different jobs. Well, okay. We're gonna get to that. But for our guests, do you think we're gonna have a job displacement that could be acute and how should we handle that?
Because we're we're seeing people make Optimus robots. The idea that any human's gonna be in a factory sorting things and all the factories we're making today are designed explicitly to not have humans in it. We may be talking about bringing back and on shoring factory jobs. That's not happening. All the new factories are gonna be run by robots.
We all know that. They're lights out facilities. So what's the best worst case scenario here in terms of managing
Speaker 1: Can I give you the upside? Please. And and everyone knows this, but like, you know, the IBEW is fine. Like, your electrician will still exist. We've got 1,000,000 lawyers and a little fewer than 1,000,000 lawyers in The United States, and a lot of them are SOL.
And I think it's just so great to think of unemployed No. No. I'm serious. So it's going to I do think, to some extent, it's gonna affect the worst, most entitled, most annoying classes of people. Okay?
So that's an upside. I don't wanna see any other So so first of class people so can see there's one thing. You can you can displace farm workers. What are they gonna do about it? You can displace factory workers.
They'll just kill themselves with drugs and fast food, which they have done. You'll And feel sort of guilty, but then ignore it. If you do that to lawyers and nonprofit sector employees who I lived around in DC, you will get a revolution. And I mean that. I'm dead where did Paul Pott come from?
Where I mean, there's never been a revolution that wasn't fomented by frustrated members of Of the sort of been class. Exactly. It's totally true. Subaristocrat, but the striving class, the most repulsive people there are, I think it would be fair to say, but also the most intent on getting what they want. And if you put them out of business, I mean, I'm not joking at all.
I think We're
Speaker 4: we're seeing this
Speaker 1: could get unstated.
Speaker 4: We're seeing this already and one could argue that the Mamdani election surge Yes. May be the result of young people coming out of colleges that were in that exact same situation. Exactly. Driving elite and they don't have and and they were told that if they take on $400,000 of debt, they'll end up making a good living and progressing in life
Speaker 1: Exactly.
Speaker 4: Buying a home and all of that turned out to not be fucking true.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
State Department Whistleblower Exposes the Real Plan for Gaza, and It's Shameful https://t.co/BQxn9v7kCn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Participants question the plan for Gaza and the West Bank. "On the West Bank, I think we were setting up annexation," they say, warning that "the Israelis want to take over that and call the entire West Bank ... part of Israel." They ask, "What does annexation mean?" and, "Then will the Palestinians live or get voting rights?" They critique U.S. policy as outsourcing action to others, noting "we’re paying for them" and that "this is America last in every possible way" amid "the endless war front." The discussion highlights casualty estimates in Gaza—"60 k" versus "100,000 up to 200,000"—and concerns about displacement of 2,000,000 residents, with rumors of resettlement by other countries. They ask, "Do you think it's possible that US government officials have talked to foreign governments about accepting the population of Gaza as refugees?" Concluding, "America is for forced displacement."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is as as nonemotional and clinical as you can be, what is the plan here with Gaza in the West Bank? What do you think I keep wondering, like, okay. Every day it's a no, we killed them, but it was a mistake or we thought they were Hamas. Okay. Got it.
But like, what what is the plan? Are they really going to move 2,000,000 people out of Gaza? Do you think that's actually going to happen?
Speaker 1: This is what I'm afraid about. On the West Bank, I think we were setting up annexation, and I think the news for the past couple days shows that that's true. What does annexation mean? There's going to be an Israeli takeover of the West Bank, and basically area c was supposed to be where the Palestinians had full control. The Israelis want to take over that and call the entire West Bank and call it say it's part of Israel.
Speaker 0: Then will the Palestinians live or get voting rights?
Speaker 1: These are all questions that they have not answered, and I don't believe anyone wants to answer. Why? It's such an obvious question.
Speaker 0: I know. What's your plan? Why does no one ask that question?
Speaker 1: Or people even even the IDF in some occasions asks like, hey, this is a military takeover. What are we going to do? And the ministers don't care.
Speaker 0: For whatever it's worth, it's not my country and I'm not that interested, but I just notice that the IDF, for all the grief that it takes, has actually been a voice of restraint in Gaza and the West Bank, at least publicly. They're like, wait a second, you're asking they're just a military.
Speaker 1: Flag going into Gaza City. They're like, hey, this is gonna be Exactly. The same thing.
Speaker 0: They're just a military with a bunch of reservists. You know? Some professionals, lots of reservists. And like every military, they kind of want to know why they're putting their lives at risk. At least that's my read on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's true. And that's a whole another discussion, but I am worried about the political direction of Israel. It's going to be more and more extreme, and those guardrails are gone. But they're taking over the West Bank. We don't know what that looks like, and it's extremely dangerous.
Speaker 0: But what's the pretext? Because the residents of the West Bank had nothing to do with the attacks on Southern Israel, right?
Speaker 1: But it opens the door because you're so focused on Gaza, and this is But
Speaker 0: is there justification for it? Is it like they don't have any hostages in the West Bank, do they?
Speaker 1: No. No, there is no justification. What's awful is that instead of focusing on securing the release of the hostages, or just securing their own country, they've used this entire war, it's nearly two years now, to pursue opportunities. We're gonna bomb Beirut and kill all these civilians. We're gonna bomb Syria, kill civilians on too many occasions there.
The bombing raids on Yemen, a start of a potential war with Iran that if president Trump had ended it, could have gotten to a spiraled. And so it's very dangerous that we're letting Israel take the front seat of our US foreign policy when we have the power to end these wars. Well, paying
Speaker 0: for them. We're paying for them. And we paid for the, you know, the Israeli strikes on Iran. And I've said this to, you know, anyone who will listen. I think this will end the Republican Party.
I don't think they're gonna get elected anything anytime soon after this if they don't pull back and establish independence from this Israel or any other foreign power. It's not about Israel. It's about any letting any other foreign country run your country. That's you can't have that. Everyone hates it.
It's super unpopular, and it's very obvious. And if you want more Republicans in office, you can't act like this. Like, I think they're blowing up the party over this. That's my feeling. I'm saying this with love.
I'm a unlike you, I'm I've been a pretty I don't vote that much, but when
Speaker 1: I vote, it's Republican, you know? It's true. They voted for America first. I wouldn't vote for this. No Yeah.
Absolutely. And think about there's a first on one end, it's the America first aspect that's very disappointing because this is America last in every possible way. And on the on the endless war front, every campaign, every winning presidential candidate said, we're not gonna get we're trying to avoid these wars, and they don't follow through. And yet, we're now funding this disaster
Speaker 0: in Gaza. But do think that those so there I mean, estimates vary, we don't know how many people have been killed in Gaza. No one's allowed to find out.
Speaker 1: Yeah. 60 k is definitely a bit
Speaker 0: What do you far think the real number is in Gaza?
Speaker 1: I've read other folks who give their estimates, and it's always 100,000 up to 200,000, even more. So the numbers that I've seen on the estimate scale are perfect. Do
Speaker 0: our intel agencies have good estimates on this?
Speaker 1: I would imagine.
Speaker 0: But those haven't percolated down to the State Department at your level anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, absolutely not. And I wish we could be discussing this. And I'm also horrified not just from the sheer numbers of killed, it's the lingering psychological effect of these poor civilians. Like children who've lost limbs, children who've lost parents, who damage is going to be decades and decades long.
Speaker 0: For sure. And there will be radicalism, you know, and probably including violence. And I just pray it's not directed against The United States, but I fear that it will be. But that leaves, what, 2,000,000 people still in Gaza, Palestinians, mostly Muslim, but also Christians. What happens to them?
I just keep wondering what happens to them.
Speaker 1: The policy, the comments, the policies have always shown a certain disdain. Like, oh, we'll pay them off for them to move out. They're not actually starving. Not only are they getting bombed lose their homes and their family members, they're being thrown around like this annoyance, and it's horrible. But just based on the reporting, it looks like we are trying to push them out to a different country.
Every two months, there's a new rumor. Seems like we're talking to these other countries in Africa.
Speaker 0: We the US government is?
Speaker 1: Well, it depends on each specific case. There has been reporting that Israel's trying to do this on their own, and if we're involved, and there's also been some reporting on whether our own government officials have spoken with, like, the Libyan government as well.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's possible that US government officials have talked to foreign governments about accepting the population of Gaza as refugees? Do you
Speaker 1: think that's possible? Yes. Do you think it's that happened? I I it's probable.
Speaker 0: That's disgusting. I mean, that's just like shocking to me. I don't want to believe that could be true. Yeah. Why are we doing that?
What do we have to do with this?
Speaker 1: Right. And it's always about our diplomatic power. Like, Israel's diplomatic power is limited, but who can get these objectives done? We can. So that's why In our last act as a superpower.
Yeah. That's why these officials from M. C. Jerusalem are dangerous, because that connection's being made.
Speaker 0: So you don't know, bottom line, what the plan is for the population of Gaza or the West Bank.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I do know they cut my line on forced displacement, and now there's new reporting on them moving them out of Gaza, so it's not headed into the right direction.
Speaker 0: So America is for forced displacement. Think this country was found out so bonkers.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“There Was Foreknowledge” - Tucker Exposes the Lies About 9/11 and Building 7 https://t.co/9MHhDnYmDb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 argues that "the core lie, is the nine eleven commission itself, which was an instrument, a political instrument of the Bush administration" run by "Philip Zellico," who "stage managed the explanation for nine eleven" so Americans would be convinced to invade Iraq; "he wrote the commission report with that in mind" and "before the investigation took place." He says "Chairman Tom Cain ... stage managed the entire thing and prevented investigators from looking into, like, core questions." He claims the CIA "was fully aware that many of the hijackers who committed nine eleven were in The United States," citing that "11 out of the 19 hijackers had visas for travel to The United States issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia" at "the moment that John Brennan was the station chief for the CIA in Saudi Arabia," and that "this is all documented" though the information was not shared with the FBI or the public, "and three thousand people died as a result." He states "Huge parts of the nine eleven story were left out of the commission report" and questions Building 7, urging accountability. The piece promises weekly episodes starting 09/11 at tuckercarlson.com.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What to you though, Tucker, are the big biggest lies perpetrated on the American people from nine eleven?
Speaker 1: Well, the core lie, is the nine eleven commission itself, which was an instrument, a political instrument of the Bush administration run by a guy called Philip Zellico. And from beginning to end, he stage managed the explanation for nine eleven in a way that benefited the neoconservative factions within the Bush administration. The point was to leverage the pain and outrage of that day and use it to convince Americans that we ought to invade Iraq, which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with nine eleven. And he wrote the commission report with that in mind. And by the way, he wrote it before the investigation took place.
He literally sketched it out before they knew what the facts were. And then during the course of the investigation, he systematically I'm not guessing, by the way, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is the testimony of people who are directly involved in the commissioning. Chairman Tom Cain, the former governor of New Jersey, Republican governor, he stage managed the entire thing and prevented investigators from looking into, like, core questions. For example, the CIA was fully aware that many of the hijackers who committed nine eleven were in The United States.
They had followed them, as the trailer suggests, around the world. 11 out of the 19 hijackers had visas for travel to The United States issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia at exactly the moment that John Brennan was the station chief for the CIA in Saudi Arabia. They knew that they were here. They didn't hide the fact that they were here. I mean, Khalid Almir Har, who was a 26 year old Saudi with the just the plane that hit the Pentagon was in the San Diego phone book, and he was being followed by the CIA.
I mean, this is all documented, and not just by the CIA, by foreign intel services, probably the British, possibly the French, definitely the Israelis, they knew. Now, I'm not alleging that they committed nine eleven, but I am stating, because it's a fact, that they were aware the hijackers were in The US and were planning a terror attack against The United States, and they never passed that information to the FBI, to local police, much less to the American public, and three thousand people died as a result. So what is that? Huge parts of the nine eleven story were left out of the commission report. For example, what happened to Building 7, which was not only not next to the Twin Towers, which are hit by airplanes, but had a building in between itself and those buildings collapsed that afternoon for reasons that no one has been able to explain since.
You're not a lunatic for asking. There is no real act there's no plausible explanation for how that building
Speaker 0: collapsed. Let's talk about that.
Speaker 1: Even mentioned.
Speaker 0: Well, let's talk about that for a moment. Yeah. Because it because it's it's one of the many, you know, things that have raged since. If you look into the investigation into Tower 7, the findings of the investigation into it were that the North Tower, when it came down, had set off a load of fires in Building 7. The and it was a steel structure and shouldn't have gone down, but it did.
These fires burned all afternoon, and I think it was about 05:00 in the afternoon or something that the the tower eventually gave way to the welter of fires raging inside it. And it was the only time that had happened to a structure that was built in that way. However, there has been another tower very similar to that structure, which has since gone down in Tehran. So it's no longer the only one. In other words, there is a another example of a tower like that collapsing.
So when it comes to the the specific theory about that, what is what is the alternative explanation? I mean, if you're examining another theory other than the one that the investigation concluded was simply that the North Tower came down, fires were set off in Tower 7, and then it eventually collapsed. What is the other theory which we should give more credence
Speaker 1: to? I I I don't know I don't know that the onus is on me or anyone who seeks the truth about what happened to come up with an alternative theory. The onus is on federal authorities to explain why, for example, they never investigated it. Why, for example, the rubble and the steel from that building was carted off within hours and sent out of the country to Asia. Why, for example, an analysis done not by kooks but by chemists found traces of explosive material in the dust from that day.
Why structural engineers who have kind of no skin in this game came to the conclusion that that just couldn't happen based on all available evidence. And that none of that is addressed at all or even mentioned in the 09:11 report. So and there are all kinds of anomalies as I know that you're fully aware and there are possible explanations to explain all of them. For example, the BBC report on air saying the building had fallen when it hadn't fallen yet. There are all sorts of reasons to wonder, like, what the hell is this?
But it's not incumbent on us to provide explanation. It's incumbent on the people running the government and running the the supposed investigation into this to tell us, like, what was that?
Speaker 0: And then you mean, look. I I have a very open mind. The reason I'm the reason I'm interested to watch your documentary series, I have a genuinely open mind. And, actually, it's been, I would say, it's been more opened generally about this kind of thing since the COVID pandemic that I I was too, I think, credulous For sure. What the authorities were saying through the pandemic to my detriment.
You and I have had this conversation. So I'm actually I have a very open mind about this. I mean, on the specifics, for example, the BBC report you mentioned was based on a false Reuters report that they retracted soon afterwards and said it shouldn't have gone out. And the building you could see the building behind the BBC journal. So it was obviously ludicrous CNN did the same thing.
But I you know, having been in the news game as you do as you have, on big breaking news stories, fog of war stuff happens. And if it was a genuine error by Reuters, okay. I remember, for example, to just as a comparison, I remember being on air at CNN when the hurricane came through hurricane Sandy burst through Manhattan. I don't if you you want you're probably a Fox then, I think. But if you remember, half the lights went out without Manhattan.
Yep. And remember a report coming from CNN that the stock exchange was underwater, and that had an immediate impact on global markets. And it turned out that was a false report. So these things can happen. In terms of your overview from everything you've unearthed in a documentary, though, have you unearthed any evidence that there was any suggestion anywhere of an inside job?
Or is the stuff that you're talking about relation to CIA and and the fascinating details of these two people in particular they were following, is that more cock up than conspiracy? In other words, was it a gigantic cock up that after Bin Laden had already had one go at the World Trade Center, that there there was just not a collective effort by the CI, by FBI, by other intelligence agents around the world to stop him succeeding with a second attempt. So is it cock up, or do you think there is merit to suggestion that some people somewhere must have known more than we've been told?
Speaker 1: Well, we know that people did know more than we've been told. I mean, somebody shorted the airlines and a bunch of the banks that were affected. Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. It's not a guess. This is publicly available information.
Now, the FBI found out the identity of the person or institution that shorted these events on 09/11 and made a huge amount of money by doing that, but never released that information. So why can't we know who clearly had foreknowledge? I mean, if you're shorting American Airlines a week before nine eleven when no one knows it's coming, I think you should have to explain why you did that. And if you're shorting Barclays and and banks that were affected by nine eleven, why can't we know who you are? These are public markets, by the way.
This is not private equity. This is publicly traded equities. So I I I wonder about that. So clearly, yes, there was foreknowledge. By the way, there was a team this is according to the FBI, by the way.
This is the FBI saying there was a team of clearly Intel connected foreigners who were arrested after nine eleven, as you well know, videotaping the terror attacks. This is I'm almost verbatim quoting from the FBI assessment of this. And the FBI determined that they apparently had foreknowledge of the attacks. So why can't we know more about that? Exactly.
Shut up. That's bigoted. No. This is my country, actually. I know people who died on 09/11.
Everything was changed because of it. I promptly went off to The Middle East just like everyone else in our business. I'm sure you did as well. And and then we lost our civil liberties at home. We immediately started torturing people and locking up people for years.
They are still locked up in Guantanamo Bay with no charges at all. And the rest of us, very much me included, nodded our heads and like, yeah. They're bad. They're Muslim terrorists. Now, I think a lot of them were bad and they were Muslim terrorists.
On the other hand, if your government is allowed to torture people and lock them up indefinitely without charging them, how long before they do that to you? We don't do that here. I know it's very common in The UK now, which is an authoritarian country. We don't want that here, and nine eleven dramatically changed our assumptions about what the government is allowed to do. So and and by way, I should say, the main beneficiary in The United States of those attacks was the CIA, which allowed them to happen.
So the CIA budget became, you know, more than doubled. Of course, we're not allowed to know what the CIA budget is even in government. The official story on nine eleven is a complete lie. The nine eleven report is a joke.
Speaker 2: You have the CIA following two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America. Right? And you don't tell the FBI. Nine eleven commission cover.
Speaker 1: So what did happen? What did the government know? What did foreign governments know? There was a cover up. Why?
It's been nearly twenty five years. It is time Americans learned what actually happened. We're gonna tell you. We're releasing one episode per week. You're not gonna wanna wait.
If you're a member, you don't have to. You get all five episodes the day it drops right then, ad free. Our first episode airs Thursday, 09/11, September 11. You will not wanna miss it. Join us now at tuckercarlson.com.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Are Your Favorite TV Shows Dragging You Closer to the Demonic? https://t.co/Ym3PMbB7WW
Video Transcript AI Summary
“the biggest problem in our culture is to deny that there is a demonic realm, pretend like there isn't.” They list hallmarks: “Disorder, distraction, chaos, violence, hate, division.” They argue Satan would go after Hollywood to “influence … producers to create films … with an underlying message … normalization of immoral activity.” They point to Friends as an example with “an ugly sexual ethic” that could lead to casual sex, and say Hollywood products open us up to the occult. They argue subversion targets leaders and children: pastors’ scandals, teachers, “libraries doing children's readings of and drag shows to little kids” to capture minds young. They discuss why evil persists; “If you believe in Jesus, you gotta believe in angels. You gotta believe in demons. You gotta believe in heaven. You gotta believe in hell.” They cite: “forty percent of Americans have had an experience that they can only attribute to a miracle of God,” and the rest may know someone who has. They propose to notice distractions; “you will experience the supernatural” in “forty eight hours.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think the biggest problem in our culture is to deny that there is a demonic realm, pretend like there isn't.
Speaker 1: So what are the hallmarks of it then?
Speaker 0: Well, I think some things you mentioned, we see manifestations of it in ways that defy natural explanations. And I think that's probably the best way of
Speaker 1: Disorder, distraction, chaos, violence, hate, division.
Speaker 0: And you think if Satan were smart, which he is, would he go around the country and around the world trying to possess or bother average everyday people? Well, you know what? Much more efficient to go to Hollywood and to influence a bunch of people there who are very influential in, let's say, the entertainment industry. And let's say he encourages them to create films and television shows that are funny and that are creative and are fun, but there's an underlying message to them that there's a normalization of immoral activity that makes it normal. Because, you know, when we laugh, it opens us up to to various possibilities.
When we laugh, our defenses come down. So I'm thinking of a wonderful, funny TV show like Friends. Remember Friends, the TV show? It was on TV for years. Very popular show.
Speaker 1: Only American who never saw it, but yeah.
Speaker 0: But underlying that is a very ugly sexual ethic that that normalizes multiple sexual partners and that sort of thing. The kind of thing that Satan would love to inculcate into American culture. And you know what? I think it's much more efficient for Satan to influence movie makers and TV makers in Hollywood to create products that feed us stuff that, without us even realizing it, open us up to the occult, open us up to immoral activity, normalize it in ways that, well, if Monica can do that on Friends, I can certainly have sex on the first date with this guy So I
Speaker 1: the way I, as a non theological, ignorant person, try and figure out whether something's good or bad, because it is an open question very often, is that good or bad? I'm not sure. Yeah. Are the people doing it at peace and joyful, happy? Yeah.
Are they tormented? Yeah. And I know a lot of people in Hollywood, a lot of people I like actually, not too many happy people. Yeah. So really tormented people It's true.
For real. Yeah. String of wrecked relationships, kids who hate them, trans kids, drug problems. Like, there's so much of that. Yeah.
Do you think that's a fair way to assess?
Speaker 0: I think because it is logical that if Satan were to try to influence a culture in a mass way, that that is a logical way that he would do it. And, guess what? By the way, look at all the dysfunction we see in that community. It does seem to match up.
Speaker 1: So if evil is acting through you, you are harmed too?
Speaker 0: Generally, would say yes. You're gonna be someone who's trying to influence others. You may not realize the
Speaker 1: full But it reason destroys you. Yeah. It does destroy you. It certainly seems to.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think so. Who would God created us so we could have a relationship with him, so he he taught us how we can live in a way that maximizes who we are. And when we stray from that in in egregious ways, as many people have and do, there are implications for us.
Speaker 1: If I were trying to subvert and destroy, I would go after religious leaders. Yeah. I'd have them, like, molest kids or take freaky sex lives or steal money from the church. Yes. And you do I've always noticed that the leadership of Christian churches in just, like, numerically Yeah.
Way more likely to be screwed up than the people in the pews. Interesting. Do know what I mean? You see these sex scandals with pastors, and you're like, how many people who are going to church every Sunday have sex lives like that? Probably not very many, but a pretty high percentage of pastors, and I feel like that is outside influence.
Speaker 0: Like a teacher's too. Teachers who young kids look up to, you know, you can imagine when you were kindergarten, first grade, second grade, you looked up to your teacher.
Speaker 1: Not one time. There's not one teacher I liked.
Speaker 0: Oh, really? Oh, I sure did.
Speaker 1: I never know. I felt it was a
Speaker 0: No kidding.
Speaker 1: An authoritarian situation. I was I was totally opposed from kindergarten on till I left college. There was not one day where I respected or liked any of them, not a single one.
Speaker 0: Is so I'm
Speaker 1: serious, dude.
Speaker 0: That is so funny. I happened to go to public school growing up and yet back then in the fifties and sixties, most of the teachers are Christians. Yeah. And so, no, I had some wonderful teachers that taught me great lessons about life.
Speaker 1: You grew up in a better America than I did. In Southern California in the seventies, thought they were all buffoons, freaks. I wasn't taking orders from them. I really disliked them. Sorry, excuse me.
Speaker 0: It's funny.
Speaker 1: But but if you wanna lead people astray, you subvert their leaders, I guess is what.
Speaker 0: Yes. Very much so. I mean, yeah, just put yourself in Satan's place. How are you gonna impact the maximum number of people? You're gonna wanna go after leaders.
You're gonna wanna go after religious leaders. You're gonna wanna go after children. You're gonna you know, and influence them at a young age.
Speaker 1: We see all of that. I often think this is such a wonderful country despite all its problems. I'm totally convinced it's the best country having been to a lot of countries. Yeah. But our leadership is the worst.
Yeah. It's They're they're the worst. They're like the worst people I've ever met. Mhmm. And maybe that's not accidental.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there could it be I'll just raise a question. Could it be that some people have received some assistance from demonic
Speaker 1: Certainly seems that way. In terms
Speaker 0: of achieving what they've achieved.
Speaker 1: How many happy I don't know how many political leaders you know, but how many happy ones have you met?
Speaker 0: Gosh. Not a lot I trust. Put it that way.
Speaker 1: Right. But they're all, like, tormented. Yeah. Sweaty and nervous and afraid. Don't you think those are signs?
Speaker 0: I do. I do. And you look at if if Satan's gonna go after children, what is all this stuff about libraries doing children's readings of and drag shows to to little kids? Why? Why would that happen?
You know what? Because if you can capture the mind of a child very young, it could influence them for the rest of their life.
Speaker 1: What happens because we put up with it? Yeah. We do. A healthy society would not put up with that That's true. For five minutes.
That's true. Yeah. Sorry. They'd drive them out of the temple immediately with a whip. Right.
Yeah. Sorry. Excuse me. But so many of the things you've said are also instantly recognizable Yeah. To everyone listening, whatever their religious faith or lack of religious faith is, things that do happen, actually.
It's real. Yeah. We all know Yeah. That there are things that happen to us and people we know well and love that are outside the ability of science to explain.
Speaker 0: God, they're
Speaker 1: still active. Supernatural. Yeah. So my final question to you, Lee Strobel, and this has been amazing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Is why do we keep ignoring it?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think it goes back to what I said earlier. I think we're embarrassed sometimes by the supernatural that we're gonna think people are gonna think we're nuts.
Speaker 1: But if that's real and it clearly is real, then, like, it puts everything else into perspective.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And when when you take it seriously and when you look at it like you
Speaker 1: not take it seriously if
Speaker 0: you Well,
Speaker 1: I agree. Grew up in a culture that tells you none of it's real, and yet it's super obvious that it is super obvious Yeah. That it's real in some most general sense. Yes. The supernatural is real.
Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Then why don't people talk about it all the time?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I think the fact that I've been a Christian since 11/08/1981, and I've never heard a sermon on the topic of angels in my life tells you something. I think I I think we we shy away because we we we wanna be accepted as normal. I I know why else.
Speaker 1: Get out of bed on Sunday to sit in a church where they're, like, pretending that nothing they say is true.
Speaker 0: It's it's it's a good point. If we believe if we If it's
Speaker 1: not supernatural, like, why are you bothering?
Speaker 0: Exactly. If you believe in Jesus, you gotta believe in angels. You gotta believe in demons. You gotta believe in Satan. You gotta believe in heaven.
You gotta believe in hell. Because if you believe in Jesus, he taught on all those things. Yeah. So my goodness. How could you not?
I agree with you. How could you not?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, go on. Move on to something else. Yeah. Go play tennis or something.
Speaker 0: And if if forty percent of Americans have had an experience that they can only attribute to a miracle of God, that means the other sixty percent probably know one of those forty percent. Right? Yeah. And, oh, my brother had this experience. My cousin had and we kinda say, what do we do with that?
And and I think what we ought to do is look for that which is is corroborated and which is consistent with what we trust to be true, which for me are the Christian scriptures.
Speaker 1: If you just fight against distraction Yeah. Consistently for just a day or two, like, I'm not gonna be distracted. I'm just gonna notice. That's it. That's all you do is just notice.
I'm just gonna notice stuff. Yeah. If you do that as an exercise literally for forty eight hours, you will experience the supernatural. I think you're right. It's hard to do that.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
“A Turning Point” - Tucker’s Thoughts on the Charlotte Stabbing https://t.co/usr9coh8W8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Discussion begins with Tucker Carlson reacting to the Charlotte train stabbing, calling it a turning point and warning about ethnic conflict in a multiethnic society: "One was just stabbed to death on a train for being white." "ethnic conflict because it's enduring. It doesn't go away." He argues fear of saying hard truths fuels the problem: "not being able to say anything about it because you fear you're gonna be called names doesn't make the problem go away." He notes rising antisemitism: "There's definitely rising antisemitism for sure" and, "I hate it." He criticizes conflating a nation state with an ethnic group: "conflating a nation state with an ethnic group is not a long term strategy." "Don't punish the innocent." "We punish the guilty." David Sacks: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Every government should be subject to criticism."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tucker, just react to what happened this weekend in Charlotte on the train with the woman who was stabbed by
Speaker 1: I think it's gotta be a turning point. I mean, I I think that the number one thing you don't want
Speaker 0: How can there be just a coordinated suppression? How does that happen?
Speaker 1: Well, that's you know, this is how people wind up with really dark theories about what's happening. Because why would you suppress that? If a young woman by the way, Ukrainian, I I wish I wish cost+drugs.com was here so I could ask him. Like if you really Mark here. Sorry.
Cost+drugs.com. I wish I could ask if you care about the Ukrainian people. One was just stabbed to death on a train for being white. Why doesn't anybody say it? Where all The U where's Bill Crystal on this?
Like, we love the Ukrainians. One just got stabbed in the neck on public transportation and no one cares. Like, what I don't I don't have an answer to your question. I will say that the one thing you have to worry about in a multiethnic society is ethnic conflict because it's enduring. It doesn't go away.
It's generational, and we are moving toward that. She was stabbed because she was white, and everyone knows that actually. And knowing that and not being able to say anything about it because you fear you're gonna be called names doesn't make the problem go away. It makes you move to Bozeman, and it makes the problem worse. Right.
And that's what you're seeing. Everyone I know who can afford it is moving to Bozeman or Jackson or, you know, Sun Valley or whatever, but they all have one thing in common. Okay. Let's just stop lying. And I don't like that.
Okay. Because that suggests a future of ethnic conflict, is like, ask anybody from a country that has ask a Belgian. Belgium has ethnic conflict. Yeah. So this is inherent to the human condition, and you wanna be very thoughtful in trying to avoid it.
And things like that exacerbate it like to a crazy crazy animal level that
Speaker 2: Tucker Tucker, let me just ask, do you Three three parts to this, but short. Do you believe that there is rising antisemitism in the West? And why do people say that you are contributing to it? Why has that become
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's rising antisemitism on the left and right. There's definitely rising antisemitism for sure and I hate it. You don't have to believe me.
Speaker 2: You hate it on the record. Right?
Speaker 1: Of course, hate
Speaker 2: it. Yeah. Because there's a lot of social media, a lot of this coordinated effort from large industry groups saying Tucker Carlson is an anti Semite. Why is that the Yeah.
Speaker 1: Attacking my children over it. Yeah. I I I'm aware. Yeah. Right.
And I actually called an Israeli official who I know. I know a bunch of them, including the prime minister, and said, why are you doing this to me? If you think I'm your enemy, man, you're you're really out to lunch, and they're totally out to lunch. And they I've never seen anybody mismanage anything the way the government of Israel is mismanaging their response to what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank. And the way to the way to and it's not my country, but I'm just noticing that this is really bad for everybody.
Two things. One, you have to be will if I stand up and say, you know, I'm an American. My family's been here for three hundred year, four hundred years, and I love this country, but my government's done a lot of horrible things. No one's like, you hate America. If you're like, I love Israel and I like Israel.
I'm a visitor to Israel frequent visitor to Israel. And but this is not good. Shut up. That's not helpful at all. Like, you turn your allies into enemies by acting that way, a.
B, conflating a nation state with an ethnic group is not a long term strategy. It's not wise because you are tied to the to the temporal politics, the politics of the moment. Like, Bibi's political I don't hate Bibi, but his political fortunes, individual political fortunes play a a role in his calculation in everything that he does. True with all politicians. You wanna tie an entire group to that?
I don't think that's very smart. You can say, I really like Israel. I love Israel. I have family in Israel. Whatever you think about Israel, but, like, I don't think this is a good idea or I'm offended by it or whatever.
Mhmm. If you eliminate the distinction between a political organization, which is a synonym for government, and an ethnic group, boy, you're gonna hurt that ethnic group, and that's exactly what's happened. It's it's so bad, and it freaks me out. And I I will say once again that my views on Israel apply to The United States. They apply to Senegal.
They apply to Malaysia. They apply to people.
Speaker 2: But not to the Jewish people.
Speaker 1: Come on, dude. Right. No. Right. And and I'm not even I don't even fight back against it because I'm like, that's so low.
Right. I'm not playing your fucking game. Okay? What my view is really simple. I don't think that it is allowable.
It is the most immoral thing to punish the innocent. The United States government has punished the innocent a lot. They did during COVID. I yelled about it every night on Fox News. All governments do this because all leaders get carried away with hubris, and they treat people like numbers or enemies or nonhuman beings, and they kill them.
I'm opposed to that. You should be we're all opposed to that, by the way. I'm opposed when it happens in Gaza. I'm opposed when it happens in Texas. I'm opposed I'm just opposed.
And all of a sudden, we've reached this place where people are so overwrought and defensive. Like, he meant it said something about, you know, I don't know. I'm glad we beat Imperial Japan. I'm kinda sad that we incinerated all those people at the atom bomb. Ben Shapiro did a whole segment about how I was like a quiseling or something.
You hate America. No. I love America. That's why I don't ever want anybody to kill people who didn't do anything wrong. That is the basis of justice.
We punish the guilty. We can argue about to what degree they should be punished. Should it be Norway where they get high speed internet and massages? Or should it be, you know what I mean, Malawi where they rot
Speaker 3: in a cave? But Why are we not allowed
Speaker 1: We don't punish the innocent. And that includes children. All children.
Speaker 3: Tucker, why are we not allowed to say we are absolutely saddened at the tragedy that happened on October 7, and we're absolutely appalled at watching people starve and innocents being killed in Gaza and not being able to get them made? Why can't you say both things and not be criticized?
Speaker 1: You should be. And I've decided that I'm old enough, and I know god. Now I sound like such a fraud. I know my heart. But, like, I you can feel the hate coming off people or whatever.
I would hear Obama talks, I always really liked Obama before he became a senator. But I would hear him talk and he'd be like, wow. That's animated by hate. And it would be in this this is your captain speaking voice, but it didn't matter. I was like my dogs.
Like, I could feel what was in him. And I feel very confident in my views. I like people, I just feel that way. And I'm not gonna play the game where I have to be like, oh, actually, my wife is part Jewish or whatever. Final question.
I'm not gonna do that. I think we should stand on principle. Don't punish the innocent. I don't care who you are. No one has a special dispensation that allows him or his country to punish the innocent.
And if you do, I'm gonna call you on it. Okay.
Speaker 4: And and let me just back up. It's in lieu of a final question. I just wanna back up Tucker on this that the base of conservatism is not believing that any government is sacred.
Speaker 2: Thank you, David Sacks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Every government should be subject to criticism because we know that they will always abuse their authority. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All governments must be subject to criticism. And governments shouldn't seek to make themselves immune by essentially calling people names.
And, you know, I've known Tucker for thirty years. He doesn't have an anti Semitic bone in his body. And it really pisses me off the way that he gets attacked for criticizing the conduct of a government.
Speaker 1: I'm not even that critical, by the way. That's the hilarious thing. I'm not even that critical. Like, I have been David, as
Speaker 3: we wrap here
Speaker 1: people do shitty things and I'm not like
Speaker 0: I think I think for what it's worth, you're an American treasure. And I appreciate that
Speaker 1: you're Thanks.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And, Sax, as we wrap here, tell us about the meet cute moment when you met Tucker, and you fell in love with Oh, meet cute. You love Tucker. Yeah. Meet cute.
Tell us. The meet cute. You come around a cubicle, what happens? You see He's got the bow tie. You guys lock eyes.
How did it Yeah. What happens?
Speaker 1: It was at lunch in Union Station in Washington DC. I'll never forget.
Speaker 3: Tell us, Sax, your earliest memory of Tucker.
Speaker 4: Just a camaraderie born of of some common views.
Speaker 1: So Yeah. And can I say one thing about David? David was saying I don't even get into it, but he was saying things that now would be considered well, of course, but at the time were, like, pretty brave, I thought. He had written a book and I was and we had a mutual childhood friend and I was like super impressed because he was saying things that the people around him would be like, you don't need to say that. Why are you doing that?
And he was just totally principled, completely principled. And you just don't meet that many people like that.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
"I'm Sickened By It" - Tucker Slams Mike Huckabee's Heartless Statement https://t.co/9fSKjmBWP4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The issue is a lot of the personnel problems are still there, but at a more subtle. "An ambassador Huckabee, to me, is still part of that same grouping in terms of the damage it can do in our foreign policy." "There were tweets from several weeks ago where he was attacking The UK prime minister, ambassador was." "we're burning diplomatic capital left and right. Australia, The UK, Canada, with all these US allies considering recognizing the Palestinian state, and we're going out there attacking them one by one on behalf of Israel." "I’m for moving in a bunch of different radical directions, like banning high interest loans." "But what I'm not in favor of is moving in radical directions on behalf of a foreign country whose interests are not the same as ours."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You came in not as a former Trump staffer, but as someone who, as you've said, agreed with his basic impulse on foreign policy, which is like, hey. Let's let's have more peace, less war. There must have been other people there who were like full blown America First people, I would think, would hope. Did any of them ever say to you, this isn't really America First?
Speaker 1: It's true. Look, people were happy after Trump won when, okay, we're getting Trump too, but we don't have John Bolton and Michael Payoh and Nick Haley back again. The issue is a lot of the personnel problems are still there, but at a more it's more subtle. An ambassador Huckabee, to me, is still part of that same grouping in terms of the damage it can do in our foreign policy. Right?
Speaker 0: Well, so give me an example of the damage you think Huckabee has done to American foreign policy since you've paid close attention to his statements, and I really haven't.
Speaker 1: Well, it's the lack of accountability for having Milstein around, adding Judea Samaria, right? These are your trusted senior advisors, right? And so there's that. There's the no follow through on what happened in Taipei in the West Bank, and what happened to the church in Gaza. It's our entire Israel policy.
Goes out there. There were tweets from several weeks ago where he was attacking The UK prime minister, ambassador was. He started calling the prime minister out for questioning Israel's conduct in Gaza, and he said if you something along the lines of if it wasn't for Dresden, you'd all be speaking German. So green lighting the slaughter of Palestinians, etcetera, just thinking it's okay, which was horrific language.
Speaker 0: Endorsed Dresden?
Speaker 1: It's it's on Twitter. It was it was horrific.
Speaker 0: The bombing of Dresden? I the way yeah.
Speaker 1: He was comparing he was comparing Dresden to what was happening in Gaza and saying
Speaker 0: I don't think there's anybody it's it's hardly a pro Hitler. I'm anti Hitler for whatever it's worth, just to be clear. It's it's hardly pro Nazi to say that what the Allies did in the British, really, at Dresden was a war crime. I mean, nobody nobody would So why should say otherwise. He endorsed the Dresden bombing?
Speaker 1: Who gives an ambassador the green light to poke at ally's prime minister, The UK, a true ally, and two, The nonchalant attitude towards the slaughter of people, both in Dresden or in comparing it to what's happening in Gaza,
Speaker 0: it's Yeah, worth not the Christian view. Murdering innocence is always wrong, period. Is dangerous. Does it.
Speaker 1: Foreign policy.
Speaker 0: I despise The UK and its prime minister, and I'm totally happy to urinate on both. But it should be from the perspective of what's good for The United States, not what's good for another country. Like, that's bonkers. That's really Yeah. Does anybody say anything about that, like, internally?
There any effort All to the time.
Speaker 1: People are like, oh, cringe people cringe at it when they see all saw those tweets. But
Speaker 0: Well, so typically in administration, you know, the ambassador serves the president as his diplom you know, the chief diplomat in the country to which he's posted. And, you know, there are a million examples all the time of the ambassador getting called back to Washington or getting a cable from DC. Woah. That's not our policy. You know, pull it in line with what the president's view is because that's who you work for.
Right. So if And did anyone do that
Speaker 1: with Huckabee? Never. You have he's representing secretary Rubio. Secretary Rubio is representing the president, and no one is stopping ambassador Huckabee from going fully unleashed. And that's why my very basic edits and suggestions from that week was such a red flag that we had to get rid of you immediately.
What that means is that if we're not stopping Ambassador Huckabee at that level, that becomes policy. Yes. Yes. That's right. Right?
So that's it. And if I'm going to be fired for lines of what were, or should be, and I think are President Trump's views, then things are moving in a more radical direction, and they will.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, I guess I am for moving in a bunch of different radical directions, like banning high interest loans. I'm strongly for that. What I'm not in favor of is moving in radical directions on behalf of a foreign country whose interests are not the same as ours, that are aligned on some things and diverge at other points, but they're not the same. Why would you wanna be radical on behalf of another country?
Speaker 1: Right. It makes no sense.
Speaker 0: Well, it's unpatriotic. Yes. It's totally wrong, and it's America last. It's also a form of treachery, I think, subverting our foreign policy on behalf of another country that wasn't I not a citizen in that country. Are you doing?
Right?
Speaker 1: Right. And we did all of this. We're burning diplomatic capital left and right. Australia, The UK, Canada, with all these US allies considering recognizing the Palestinian state, and we're going out there attacking them one by one on behalf of Israel. Those are
Speaker 0: our partners. Is it worth But we're also not I mean, they've all those countries have basically eliminated human rights in their own countries, eliminated freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association. They've got political prisoners. It's crazy what those countries are doing to their own citizens. We don't say a word.
But if they criticize a foreign another country, then we attack them?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We have other issues we could discuss with them, but instead we choose to make Israel this odd red line. And it takes a lot of diplomatic capital to attack your allies. We need them for so many things. It doesn't matter if it's trade or war or some resolution of the UN.
This is terrific.
Speaker 0: First of all, Mike Huckabee endorsing Dresden, I just refer you to the New Testament. That is not permitted for Christians to be in favor of that. It's just not even close. So I don't know why I know Huckabee, I've always liked him. I don't know what in the world if he actually said that, I don't know what he was thinking.
I'm gonna look it up the second we get off this interview. But that's really shocking to me that he would say something like that. But in general, there's been a coarsening, I think, of people watching this stuff, celebrating pager attacks and people getting their dicks blown off. Stuff. I mean, like, why would we celebrate that?
Yeah. But Ben Shapiro was on there jumping up and down with glee when that happened.
Speaker 1: So it's an indictment of our soul. Why did we lose this ability to empathize with
Speaker 0: other If you think it's thrilling that a country would indiscriminately detonate explosives in people's pockets, so they don't know who's holding those things, actually. They don't know who's standing next to them. If you think that's great, you know Children died. Oh, I know. Anyway, I'm really sickened by it and I'm infuriated by the requirement to celebrate it.
Speaker 1: Right. Why are we in this era of celebrating these violent attacks and celebrating a new weapon that comes out, but each time there's a diplomatic endeavor to end a war, it's so controversial and so heavy, and it's sold to people in such a negative way. So that dichotomy is a true problem where
Speaker 0: As empires die, people go crazy. This is one of the things that's pretty consistent through history. They lose their sense of reality and they become violence worshipers. And I just hate to see it happening to this country that I love so much and that I'm never leaving, but like, this is really dark. Yeah.
So dark. It is dark.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe everyone experiences sensations that science struggles to quantify, often dismissed by academics as non-existent. These supernatural occurrences are real and deserve exploration. Lee Strobel, with his unique background in religion and journalism, provides insight into these unexplainable phenomena in his latest book. He emphasizes that belief in Jesus inherently includes acceptance of angels, demons, and the afterlife, as these are integral to his teachings. The full conversation with Strobel is now available for those interested in delving deeper.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Everyone is constantly sensing things that science can’t measure. It happens all the time, through sight, touch, taste, hearing, and smell. Your average academic curriculum would have you believe those experiences are impossible. “They’re not really happening,” so-called experts say. But they are. They’re supernatural. What do these phenomena mean? Pastor and former reporter Lee Strobel is the man to ask. As one of the few Americans with expertise in religion and journalism, he was the perfect person to write an in-depth book on the parts of life science can’t explain: mystical dreams, dances with death, miracles, ghosts, and all the rest. Strobel joined The Tucker Carlson Show to tell us all there is to know. Lee Strobel tells Tucker: “If you believe in Jesus, you’ve got to believe in angels, you’ve got to believe in demons, you’ve got to believe in Satan, you’ve got to believe in heaven, you’ve got to believe in hell. Because if you believe in Jesus, he taught on all those things. So my goodness, how could you not?” Full conversation out now.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Did Satan start WW1? https://t.co/gEr1yeCgWl
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: So there's a couple references, at least a couple references in the New Testament to Satan being the ruler of the earth. Yes. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: It means that in this realm, he, in many ways, has his way. In other words, he has access to be able to influence people and point them away from the one true hope that there is, which is God. And so he prowls about, as the Bible says, as a lion hoping to tear people apart spiritually.
Speaker 0: I mean, if that's not true, then explain the first world war.
Speaker 0: there is just no there's no explanation even now over a hundred years later Yeah. For why that war started. Oh, you know, where Stuttgart got shot dead in Sarajevo. Really? Okay.
That's not a real explanation, actually. Why didn't Christian Europe commit suicide? Yeah.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So there's a couple references, at least a couple references in the New Testament to Satan being the ruler of the earth. Yes. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: It means that in this realm, he, in many ways, has his way. In other words, he has access to be able to influence people and point them away from the one true hope that there is, which is God. And so he prowls about, as the Bible says, as a lion hoping to tear people apart spiritually.
Speaker 0: I mean, if that's not true, then explain the first world war.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 0: there is just no there's no explanation even now over a hundred years later Yeah. For why that war started. Oh, you know, where Stuttgart got shot dead in Sarajevo. Really? Okay.
That's not a real explanation, actually. Why didn't Christian Europe commit suicide? Yeah.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
What Science Can’t Explain: @LeeStrobel's New Investigation. https://t.co/uYZkgO3EOQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Lee Strombold introduces the interview after noting, "So you've written a book. I don't do a lot of book interviews, but couldn't resist this one." The discussion centers on "Seeing the supernatural, investigating angels, demons, mystical dreams, near death encounters, and other mysteries of the unseen world." The host says, "I think a lot of us sense or know on some level, in fact, I think everybody knows on some level that there is a world that science can't measure or quantify." They add: "You know, that there's there's stuff that we can't explain." "Yeah. But it's it's no less real for our inability to explain it." The host concludes, "So let's let's go through the list."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Lee Strombold. So you've written a book. I don't do a lot of book interviews, but couldn't resist this one. Seeing the supernatural, investigating angels, demons, mystical dreams, near death encounters, and other mysteries of the unseen world. Right.
I think a lot of us sense or know on some level, in fact, I think everybody knows on some level that there is a world that science can't measure or quantify. Yeah. You know, that there's there's stuff that we can't explain. Yeah. But that it's it's no less real for our inability to explain it.
So let's let's go through the list. Yeah.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker’s Strange Las Vegas Shooting Story https://t.co/rqmKxMrPXt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: So you were the only mainstream guy who I watched steadily on the story, staying with the Vegas shootings, noting that there's something wrong.
Speaker 1: We got very hassled by law enforcement.
Speaker 0: I'm sure
Speaker 1: you did. You know, I worked at Fox News, obviously, at the time, and big supporters of law enforcement. I've always been a big supporter of law enforcement. We've never gotten hassled anywhere. Just the opposite.
Oh, you work for Fox News. Oh my gosh. Of course.
Speaker 0: Slow down. Official law enforcement
Speaker 1: is what got you. Man. I mean, they blocked our camera position. Oh, yeah. They were totally opposed to us doing that.
I've never had that experience.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you were the only mainstream guy who I watched steadily on the story, staying with the Vegas shootings, noting that there's something wrong.
Speaker 1: We got very hassled by law enforcement.
Speaker 0: I'm sure
Speaker 1: you did. You know, I worked at Fox News, obviously, at the time, and big supporters of law enforcement. I've always been a big supporter of law enforcement. We've never gotten hassled anywhere. Just the opposite.
Oh, you work for Fox News. Oh my gosh. Of course.
Speaker 0: Slow down. Official law enforcement
Speaker 1: is what got you. Man. I mean, they blocked our camera position. Oh, yeah. They were totally opposed to us doing that.
I've never had that experience.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
"Some of the predictions of QAnon came true." "I think it's a bunch of ex-spooks." "I have some theories, people I know, actually." https://t.co/zRZaxY5Fvp
Video Transcript AI Summary
Both speakers admit they don't know what QAnon was. They recall material that would switch from useful information to 'the whole, and here's Trump and his generals are gonna save the world.' Friend spent year looking into QAnon; 'What'd he get? I don't fully understand it, but here's what I understand is that, you know, some of the predictions of QAnon came true.' They say it's 'a sophisticated thing. It's not just Oh, I think it's a bunch of ex spooks.' It's not 'a bunch of college kids on No. 4chan or whatever they claim it was.' They note 'these are guys who are probably pissed that the system went bad.' Behind it is unclear; 'What is obvious to me is that it was it's a control mechanism. Trying to siphon off some of that energy and move it in a' 'Siphoning off the energy.' That's Exactly. Less dangerous direction.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What was QAnon? I don't know. I don't either.
Speaker 1: You know, I'd be listening to something, and it would have useful information, and all of a sudden then it would show the whole, and here's Trump and his generals are gonna save the world No. I agree. For Christ's sakes.
Speaker 0: But the interesting I never knew anything about QAnon. I never paid any attention at all. I have a good friend who I really admire, is much smarter than I am, who, because he is smarter than I am, took, like, a year to look into QAnon. What'd he get? I don't fully understand it, but here's what I understand is that, you know, some of the predictions of QAnon came true.
I mean, it it's a sophisticated thing. It's not just
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's a bunch of ex spooks.
Speaker 0: For sure. It's not a, you know, bunch of college kids on No. 4chan or whatever they claim it was.
Speaker 1: These are guys who are probably pissed that the system went bad.
Speaker 0: And it's unclear, you know, who's behind it. I have some theories, people I know actually, but but I don't know if they're true. What is obvious to me is that it was it's a control mechanism. Mhmm. Trying to siphon off some of that energy and move it in a
Speaker 1: Siphoning off the
Speaker 0: energy. That's Exactly. Less dangerous direction. Right.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Were the Quebec wildfires weapon tests? https://t.co/3EeFDGtkcI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker discusses directed energy weapons and the Quebec fires, noting satellite imagery that looks mysterious: 26 fires started simultaneously. They argue that if a fire starts and another starts downwind, it suggests a pattern; the fires were 350 miles in diameter and occurred in a crudely buckshot pattern, in the middle of nowhere with helicopters and no roads. The speaker says, "That probably was them testing out their weapons," suggesting a "determined arsonist or at least 26 of them." They compare the spread to the Hawaiian Islands, implying all at once. The overall claim is that the Quebec fires may reflect testing of directed energy weapons rather than typical arson.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is a directed energy weapon? You look at the satellite imagery of the Quebec fires. Very mysterious. About 26 ish fires started simultaneously. How do you know some well, if a fire starts and then another one starts, it'll be downwind.
So you'll see it'll look like the Hawaiian Islands. Right? Right. Boom. All at once.
26 fires in a crudely buckshot pattern. There was 350 miles diameter. Boy, that's a determined arsonist or at least 26 of them. Yeah. In the middle of nowhere.
Yeah. With helicopter mean, there are no roads. They're in the middle of nowhere and all of a sudden, they all start simultaneously and I'm going, okay. That probably was them testing out their weapons.