reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"Why is it wrong to want to preserve our heritage, the country that our ancestors founded European?" I don't believe that our unifying principle was ever race, skin color, ethnicity. Our unifying principle was a essentially a doctrine. It was a the the doctrine of human rights. I think it's un American is what I would say. But why would it be immoral? It would really depend on what motivates that. And, and if you're saying that it's not motivated by bigotry, all I could do is trust you on that. I can't look inside your soul. I mean, it sounds like it, but, I don't know why you want me to to do that.

The speaker discusses human behavior and dismisses the need for conspiracy theories. They mention the Jewish diaspora and their efforts to resettle in Palestine. The speaker believes that Jews have a tribal and religious reason for their actions and are disproportionately represented in various sectors. They argue that understanding the motivations of influential Jewish individuals is crucial for comprehending American society.

An investor is questioning if the concept of American exceptionalism is valid. They ask if investors are being overly pessimistic about the U.S. economy, or if the country is entering a period of fundamental change requiring reassessment. Speaker 1 responds that America has been significantly and revolutionarily changing since its inception. They mention the U.S. started as an agricultural society with high promises it didn't deliver on, citing the Constitution counting Black people as three-fifths of a person and using only male pronouns. They note it took until the 19th amendment in February 1920 to pass.

Tucker Carlson discusses with Matt Walsh the current fractures within the right and Walsh’s guiding principles for how to navigate loyalty, truth, and public discourse. Key points and exchanges - Leadership vacuum after Charlie’s death and its consequences - Walsh says Charlie’s death created a leadership vacuum in the right; the immediate post‑death unity faded as realities set in. - The attempt to turn Charlie’s killing into a catalyst for more Charlies backfired; Walsh notes that assassination “works” as a strategy, and the result is the loss of the glue that held the coalition together. - The organization Walsh admires—TPUSA—remains intact, but the leadership that bound people together is gone, leading to heightened internal friction. - Loyalty as a principle - Walsh asserts he will not denounce friends or disavow colleagues, arguing loyalty is a fundamental principle and a duty to those who have consistently backed him. - He defines loyalty as having a personal relationship with someone who has had his back and whom he would defend; betrayal, not disagreement, is what he rejects. - He uses examples (e.g., if a close family member committed a serious crime) to illustrate that loyalty does not require endorsing wrongful acts publicly, but it does require private accountability and support. - Leftism vs. conservatism; the core “enemy” - Walsh defines leftism as moral relativism (the idea of “my truth” and rejection of objective truth) and as an ideology that opposes civilization, Western identity, and foundational institutions like the family and marriage. - He argues leftism rejects the intrinsic value of human life, portraying life’s worth as contingent on circumstances (e.g., whether a mother wants a child), which he calls a fundamental leftist position. - He contends the fight on the right is against that leftism, and aligns with Walsh’s interpretation that preserving Western civilization, American identity, the sanctity of life, and the family are core conservative aims. - Israel, Gaza, and internal right disagreements - On Israel, Walsh says his stance is “I don’t care” (a position he reiterates as his personal view) and stresses that the debate should not be about Israel per se, but about whether right-wing conservatives share foundational values. - Walsh argues that some conservatives defend mass killing in Gaza, which he brands as a leftist argument, and he distinguishes it from more traditional right-wing concerns about strategy and casualties. - Walsh acknowledges there are conservatives who defend Israel’s actions but reject the premise that civilians are mass-killed intentionally; they may minimize or challenge casualty claims without endorsing mass murder. - He emphasizes the need to distinguish between true disagreements over policy and deeper disagreements about whether certain universal values (truth, life, and Western civilization) prevail. - The moral status of violence and justice - The conversation touches on the justification of violence for justice. Walsh acknowledges that violence can be a necessary tool for justice in some contexts but warns against endorsing violence indiscriminately. - He invokes Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ actions in the temple to discuss the moral complexity of violence: turning the other cheek is not a universal solution, especially when innocent people are involved. - The exchange explores whether state authority should compel action or whether individuals should intervene when the state fails to protect the innocent, using examples like Daniel Penny’s subway incident as a test case. - The state, justice, and governance - The two guests discuss the legitimacy of the state and what happens when the state fails to enforce justice or protect the vulnerable. - Walsh argues that if the state does not act, it can lead to mass action by citizens—though he concedes this is a dangerous path that should be avoided if possible. - They reflect on how the state’s authority is God-ordained, but acknowledge moments when civil disobedience or private action might be morally justifiable if the state abdicates its duties. - Cultural realism and media dynamics - Walsh and Carlson discuss how political labels (left/right) obscure shared concerns and how many conservatives actually share core aims with others outside the traditional conservative coalition. - They critique the media and pundit ecosystem for being out of touch with everyday life, citing deteriorating quality of goods, services, and infrastructure as real-life issues that affect families directly. - They argue that many pundits live in insulated environments—whether expensive urban enclaves or rural enclaves—without appreciating the middle-class experience and the practical hardships faced by ordinary Americans. - Demographics and national identity - A recurring thread is the argument that modern politics has become entangled in demographic change and questions of national identity. - Walsh contends that Western civilization and American identity rest on belief in objective truth, the sanctity of life, and the family; failing to defend these leads to a broader cultural and civilizational crisis. - The discussion includes a provocative point about indigenous identity in America and the claim that “native Americans” are not native to the country as formed; Walsh argues for reclaiming the term “native American” to describe the founders’ European-descended population. - Economics and social policy - Walsh describes himself as libertarian on many economic questions, opposing the welfare state and taxes, while acknowledging that conservatives can disagree on policy tools if the underlying motivations remain aligned with preserving family, culture, and national identity. - He suggests that a welfare state is not incompatible with conservative aims if its purpose is to strengthen family formation and national viability, though he believes it ultimately undermines family stability. - Internal dynamics and personal impact - Walsh discusses the personal toll of being at the center of intra-party debates: frequent public attacks, misattributed motives, and the challenge of remaining loyal without becoming embittered. - He emphasizes prayer and structured routines as practical means to maintain perspective and resilience in the face of sustained public scrutiny. - Toward a path forward - Both speakers stress the importance of clarifying the conservative catechism: defining what conservatives want to conserve and aligning around a shared set of non-negotiables. - They suggest that if people share core commitments to objective truth, the family, and American identity, disagreements about methods can exist, but collaboration remains possible. - If, however, people reject those core commitments, they argue, conservatives may be on different sides of a fundamental civilizational divide. Notes on the interaction - The dialogue weaves personal anecdotes, philosophical stances, and political diagnostics, with both participants acknowledging complexity and evolution of views. - The emphasis repeatedly returns to loyalty, truth, and civilizational foundations as the ultimate frame for understanding intra-right tensions and for guiding future alignment. (Throughout, promotional segments and product endorsements were present in the original transcript but have been omitted here to preserve focus on substantive points and to align with the request to exclude promotional content.)

America will cease to be America if it does not have a Christian foundation. If America is Christian, it will still be America, regardless of the ethnic makeup of the population.

The speaker highlights that the United States is unique due to its continuous influx of immigrants. They mention that Caucasian individuals of European descent will become a minority in 2017, which they believe is a positive aspect and a strength for the country. The speaker acknowledges that mistakes have been made in the past but does not elaborate further.

The speaker states the book "Racial Understanding" is about the foundations of America being European, and that the country is losing the roots and values it was built upon. He claims that the European Christian foundations of America are under relentless attack, and that Europeans must defend their rights and heritage. He defines European civilization as the way "we" live, the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Shakespeare, the philosophies of Goethe, Solzhenitsyn, Dotezsky, and the music of Wagner and Beethoven. When asked about the similarity between the title of the book, "My Awakening," and "Mein Kampf," the speaker says "My Awakening" is a very generic title.

The speaker challenges the idea of a unified white or European identity, noting that Europeans fought each other in two world wars and that there is no clear boundary of who is 'white' (examples: Italians vs Swedes; Turks in Europe). They warn that any imagined unity would create an Us-versus-them dynamic and inevitable division. They question the existence of a European identity and of whiteness itself, suggesting race is an American concept tied to post-slavery. They point out that Europeans have long histories of war and nationalist ambitions—fascist tendencies, Franco-like rule, a Catholic monarchy, and exclusion of Muslims or evangelicals. They argue those ideas were never American; Europe has been an immigrant country, but some now seek to overturn the constitution and create a fascist dictatorship with a Catholic government, which would be the most anti-American idea they've heard.

Speaker 0 believes America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and Israel on Father Abraham. It's important to educate future generations about this foundation, preaching, teaching, and researching it. Speaker 1 notes that people assume current trends will continue, questioning if the younger generation in Israel will fight for their country. However, they fought like lions, as the Bible says. Similarly, some worry about waning Christian support for Israel and commitment to traditional American values. Speaker 1 believes a change is happening with people seeking spiritual content and returning to religion. When they seek the wellsprings of civilization, they'll return to their roots in the land at the edge of Asia and the Mediterranean.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most other countries are unified by ethnicity or religion. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage, but acknowledges that the motivation behind such a desire is key. They state that if the motivation is not bigotry, they can only trust that to be the case, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most countries are unified by ethnicity or religion, but America was different. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage. Whether that desire is moral depends on the motivation behind it. The speaker can only trust that it is not motivated by bigotry, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

Speaker 0 expresses support for Israel and the right of Israel to defend itself, but says they have to do this because they simply have no option if they are to survive as a country, and frankly, in many ways, as a race in that part of the world. Speaker 1 asks whether immigration represents a major threat to Britain from a demographic perspective, noting that in the last twenty years the white British population has declined from 87% to 74%, and asks if that is a concern. Speaker 0回答: No. No. Speaker 1 reiterates the claim of rapid demographic change, stating that the fastest and most rapid decline of the white British population ever experienced in British history has occurred in a tiny short period of time, and that majority cities that were once 90% white British are now majority ethnic minorities, citing London, Leicester, and Birmingham, and asks why this isn’t a concern of Speaker 0. Speaker 0 responds: But they're not unrecognizable as being English because of skin color. They're unrecognizable because of culture. He adds that he genuinely thinks the British are the most open minded, most accepting people.

The speakers discuss the ideological differences between the United States and Russia, as well as the historical context of their relationship. They mention the individualistic nature of American society compared to the collectivist nature of Russian society. The conversation touches on the colonization of the American continent and the ethnic cleansing that occurred, as well as the history of slavery in the United States. The speakers highlight the importance of understanding and finding ways to cooperate despite these differences, as there have been periods of unity between the two countries in the past. They emphasize the need to focus on common interests and positive aspects to foster collaboration.

The speaker states that if in thirty years the United States is 80% brown, it will not matter as long as the population is pro-gun, pro-family, wants to go to the stars, wants freedom, and does not want to be slaves. The speaker believes it is necessary to move beyond focusing on skin color and instead adopt a system of ideas.

The speaker believes America's unifying principle was never race, skin color, or ethnicity, but rather a doctrine of human rights. They state that most countries are unified by ethnicity or religion, while America is different. The speaker thinks it is un-American to want to preserve European heritage, but acknowledges that the motivation behind such a desire is key. They state that if the motivation is not bigotry, they can only trust that to be the case, as they cannot look inside another person's soul.

The speaker asserts the dominant narrative in America is that white people are evil and should be ashamed. The other speaker believes people should take responsibility for the system they've created. The first speaker calls it the best system in the world, but the second speaker disagrees, citing many European countries are better off. The first speaker asks if they mean European countries with a higher density of whites, like Northern Europe, which the second speaker seems to confirm. The first speaker points out the better systems aren't in Turkey or communist Eastern Europe, implying the only systems considered better than America are more white than America.

America is not just an idea; it is a nation formed by people with a shared history and future. While it was founded on principles like the rule of law and religious liberty, welcoming newcomers is part of our tradition. However, this inclusion must be on our terms to ensure the continuity of our nation from its origins 250 years ago to its future.

The United States is described as a semi-democratic, white-dominated, hierarchical, racist society that aims to preserve privilege for the elites, which is how it was formed in 1787. It's claimed the US was a slave-owning, genocidal country killing Native Americans for a white culture, and amazingly, it still looks that way. It's noted that while the US is now more diverse, deep cultural distinctions remain important, and the details matter.

America will cease to be America if it does not have a Christian foundation. If America is Christian, it will still be America, regardless of the ethnic makeup of the population.

The speakers discuss a perceived rapid demographic shift in Middle America, noting a conspicuous decline in white people at familiar places like rest areas, Walmart, and the DMV, and describe this as part of a broader demographic change across the country. They argue that visiting places where “everybody goes” reveals that the country looks very different now, with fewer white people than in the past, and that this change feels intentional rather than accidental. They describe it as an emblematic problem and suggest that those who have never experienced such places are out of touch with what is actually happening in America. They debate whether it is appropriate to notice these changes, with one saying there is overwhelming pressure not to notice obvious things, and the other acknowledging the change as fast and profound. They question why acknowledging the shift should be considered good if it involves reducing the white population, and they compare it to how people would react if a similar change happened to other races in their native countries. The conversation then broadens to a comparison across demographics: if Nigerians were disappearing from Nigeria, or if Amazonian horned owls were disappearing, most people would deem that bad and question why those populations should vanish. They point out that, unlike other races or species, white people are told they are not native anywhere, and thus there is no recognized indigenous white population. They argue that this leads to the suggestion that white people should not be present in the United States or elsewhere, and they question where whites should be if not in the country that was formed by people of European descent. A central claim is that the people who formed America—“almost exclusively white people of European descent”—were the natives of this country, while the current Native Americans are described as not native to America in a historical sense because America existed as a nation only after it was formed. They contend that the true natives of the country are those who established the nation, implying that those of European descent are the true natives of America. They emphasize that the concept of “native” is tied to the formation of the country, and argue that the natives of America are defined by the nation’s origins rather than by preexisting populations.

The speaker states that the racial makeup of the United States is irrelevant as long as the population is pro-gun, pro-family, interested in space exploration, desires freedom, and rejects slavery. The speaker believes it is necessary to move beyond race and embrace a system of ideas.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the perceived dispossession of white people in various aspects of society. Speaker 1 argues that this is not dispossession but rather an expansion of equality and civil rights. Speaker 0 counters by referencing the first citizenship law, which aimed to reserve naturalization for free white persons. Speaker 1 acknowledges the flaws of America's founding fathers but emphasizes the ideal of equality for all. Speaker 0 disagrees, suggesting that the arrival of diverse populations will change the country his ancestors built. Speaker 1 concludes the conversation, acknowledging the time taken.

Europe is the cradle of Western civilization, and the cultural and religious bonds between it and the U.S. will last beyond political disagreements. However, Europe is at risk of civilizational suicide. Many European countries are unable or unwilling to control their borders, but they are starting to push back, which is good. They are also starting to limit the free speech of their own citizens, even as those citizens protest against border issues. Europe needs to respect its own people and sovereignty, something America can't do for them. If a country like Germany takes in millions of immigrants who are culturally incompatible, Germany will have killed itself. The speaker loves Germany and wants it to thrive.