reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 criticizes left-wing individuals, calling them "pieces of shit" and warns against giving them any leeway as they will use it to destroy you. Speaker 1 questions why they refer to them as such. Speaker 0 explains that it's because they believe leftists will annihilate anyone who thinks differently. They mention how leftists hide their own wrongdoings but attack those who oppose them. Speaker 0 concludes that despite leftists resorting to repression, they are losing the cultural battle. They express satisfaction in being morally and aesthetically superior and claim that leftists are desperate and cornered. The transcript abruptly ends.

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.)

Speaker 0 stated they will ensure their security due to past attempts on their life, citing the importance of their work and the many people who need help. They advocate defunding the police and reallocating those funds to social safety nets. Speaker 1 questioned what percentage constitutes a fair share for the wealthy to pay in taxes. Speaker 0 suggested that if a third of their income goes to taxes, a similar proportion should apply to the wealthy. Speaker 1 noted that the effective tax rate on the middle class is lower than on the rich and pressed Speaker 0 for a specific percentage for the wealthiest Americans. Speaker 0 proposed that the wealthiest 1% could pay 45%.

The speaker questions why liberals should be trusted to determine the future of the country. The speaker claims that many liberals have depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, and some are uncertain about their gender. The speaker asserts that most liberals have never worked or were unsuccessful in their jobs. They allegedly spend most of their money on food and hair dye and do not care about their health, glamorizing obesity. The speaker describes protesters as fitting this description and questions why they should be seen as capable of making better choices for the country.

Speaker 0 claims his life is awesome, while Speaker 1 is going to work. Speaker 0 mocks Speaker 1 for going to community college and working with his hands. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shitting on blue-collar workers while trying to appeal to them. Speaker 0 clarifies he is trying to appeal to rich people and identifies as an elitist, "kind of" like Richard Spencer. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 has never worked with his hands and lives a terrible life. Speaker 0 says he likes being poor and that it's manly. Speaker 1 says he's not poor, it's just cheaper to live the way he does. Speaker 1 asserts that every functional member of society works, except Speaker 0. Speaker 1 says he'd rather be a functional member of society than be unique. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 wants to be a cog.

Speaker 0 asks why one would rebel against the philosophy of feeling responsible for the welfare of others, suggesting it aligns with religious principles of being interconnected and responsible for one another. Speaker 1 argues that this philosophy makes man a "sacrificial animal," obligated to work for and concern himself with others. Speaker 1 asserts that man is entitled to his own happiness, which he must achieve himself, and that no one can demand others sacrifice their lives to make them happy.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss why Speaker 1 dislikes leftists and progressives. Speaker 1 bluntly says they are psychopaths who are going to destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. When pressed to distinguish leftists from progressives, Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute, and that, at a granular level, it all comes down to ethics, which he believes they lack, equating it with degrees of psychopathy. They touch on people who favor a bit more wealth redistribution but love America. Speaker 0 notes these people exist on the left, though they are a smaller share. Speaker 1 probes why such people want redistribution, and Speaker 0 explains they see human nature differently from the right, arguing luck and structural factors influence outcomes. The right allegedly overestimates agency, with a caricature that people get what they deserve through hard work and merit. The sensible left, according to Speaker 0, acknowledges luck and misfortune, suggesting that not everyone’s struggles stem from personal failures, and therefore society should support those in need more than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument for more robust social safety nets. They move to why such redistribution isn’t voluntary. Speaker 0 asserts that achieving the desired level of redistribution requires some level of force. Speaker 1 notes that progressive liberalism is supposed to be about volunteerism, with a left-wing government not compelling individuals to do anything. Speaker 0 dismisses this as bullshit, while claiming the promise is that secular government will act fairly and not impose coercion, allowing people to do as they please as long as they do not hurt others. The contrast is drawn with Christian nationalism, which is framed as promoting forcing people to act in certain ways. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 suggesting that the left’s promise of secular government leads to compelling people to do various things against their will, illustrating a tension between voluntary principles and government coercion.

The speaker discusses the difference between capitalism, socialism, and communism, as well as right-wing and left-wing ideologies. They explain that the far right advocates for minimal government control, while the far left believes in total government control. They also mention that the United States is a republic, not a democracy, and highlight the dangers of democracies and their potential to oppress minorities. The speaker argues that communism fails because of human greed, while socialism often leads to dictatorial governments. They criticize socialists as dependent individuals who rely on the government for their needs. The conversation concludes with a mention of the push for national healthcare in the United States.

Speaker 0 asks if the belief that the person is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something they support. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't heard that before, but if it means helping to save the world, they are willing to do it. They believe they are saving the world from a radical left philosophy that would destroy the country, and emphasize the importance of the country as a leader for the rest of the world.

Speaker 0 asks if the theory about saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something Speaker 1 supports. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't heard of it, but questions whether it is a bad or good thing. They express their willingness to help save the world from problems and put themselves out there. Speaker 1 believes they are currently saving the world from a radical left philosophy that could destroy the country, and if the country falls, the rest of the world will follow suit.

Speaker 0 criticizes leftists, calling them "pieces of shit" and saying they cannot be given any leeway. Speaker 1 asks for a definition of "piece of shit." Speaker 0 explains that it refers to collectivists who he believes are terrible. Speaker 1 questions why they are terrible. Speaker 0 responds that they are terrible because they will destroy anyone who thinks differently. He emphasizes that leftists cannot be negotiated with and should not be given any space. He claims that conservatives are morally and aesthetically superior and are winning the cultural battle against leftists. He also accuses leftists of using the state's repressive apparatus to harm conservatives, but claims they are failing. He concludes that leftists are feeling cornered and losing the cultural battle.

Left wing and woke ideology is framed as noble—compassion, justice, equality, and progress—but the question remains: progress toward what? To understand modern leftism, especially in its woke form, the speaker traces its development back nearly two hundred years. Ideas evolve like viruses: as society builds immunity to one bad idea, academics tinker with it until it mutates into something more contagious, more destructive, and harder to detect. The journey begins with Hegel, who proposed the dialectic—thesis and antithesis colliding to form a new synthesis, the engine of supposed progress. Marx applied this framework to economics, developing dialectical materialism, arguing society is a class struggle between haves and have-nots, and that revolution is inevitable, with workers rising up to destroy capitalism and create a communist utopia. To the left, progress means the oppressed overthrowing the oppressors. But Marx’s vision flopped, leading Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, to retool it: the have-nots wouldn’t rise up on their own; they needed elites to lead and radicalize them. Perpetual revolution followed, where once one oppressor is toppled, the new ruling class becomes the next enemy, and the struggle never ends. When this approach failed in the West, the Frankfurt School updated Marxism. They observed that capitalism’s material success inoculated workers against revolution, so they targeted culture, education, media, churches, the arts. They called it the long march through the institutions: if they couldn’t radicalize people economically, they would do so socially and spiritually, slowly, generation by generation. Then came the postmodernists, who claimed power exists not only between rich and poor but everywhere—between man and woman, white and black, straight and gay, fit and fat, colonizer and colonized. All relationships become power struggles, and the personal becomes political. Finally, intersectionality emerged, declaring oppression is not one-dimensional but a matrix; every identity adds a new layer of victimhood, giving more moral authority the more layers there are. This, the speaker argues, has produced a modern ideological caste system. For example, the ultimate proletariat is described as a fat, old, disabled, single, black, Muslim, trans woman who is a lesbian from a third world country with no education, low income, and residing in a rural area. The final bourgeoisie boss is described as a middle-aged, married, able-bodied, straight, white, cisgendered, heteronormative, Christian westerner with a degree, high income, living in a city. The conclusion offered is that modern progressives are really just neo-Marxism in drag.

Speaker 0 notes there is an ice facility nearby, about 200 feet away, and asks if they are staying overnight. Speaker 1 says they have to, because people from the other side, described as MAGA chuds, have set things on fire with people sleeping inside. Speaker 0 asks what a “chud” is; Speaker 1 says it means MAGA, just another word. Speaker 1 describes their area as a community space that provides snacks, water, and things for folks who are out protesting and “fighting the good fight.” Speaker 0 asks if this is their group or volunteers dropping things off; Speaker 1 says it is a community effort, with nothing funded by anyone but the community trying to support itself. Speaker 0 asks about the sidewalk protest site and whether they have had trouble with Portland police. Speaker 1 confirms police have come by a few times. Speaker 0 mentions they have written permission from the school to be on the sidewalk, asking what kind of school it is. Speaker 1 explains it used to be an elementary school but had to close and move because of chemical munitions that were “poisoning the earth.” Speaker 1 adds that last night, tear gas was deployed four or five blocks away, not because anyone attacked or used force, but “they wanted a photo op,” causing the area to shut down. Speaker 0 asks if tear gas would be deployed if demonstrations weren’t happening. Speaker 1 deflects but reiterates the need to fight the good fight because people are being kidnapped and taken. Speaker 0 asks how long they expect the demonstrations to last and what they do with tear gas. Speaker 1 replies that they are one of the medics on the ground, and that Speaker 1 received training in California when they were there, not with a job but through school. Speaker 1 now provides medical services to those in need, noting many do not receive medical care and that some people on the ground die while others pass by without helping. Speaker 0 observes this as a sad thing in Portland. Speaker 1 questions what people think about liberals, calling it another word for capitalist, and states that people confuse liberals with the left. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss that people deserve to be taken care of, criticizing the system for failing to provide housing despite having more houses than people, with many living on the street because they can’t access it, and noting that the system continues to fail people and they continue to slide through the cracks.

The speaker discusses a cultural shift between right and left authoritarianism. They point out that people often fail to recognize that actions such as war, suppression of free speech, and mandatory pharmacological interventions were previously associated with the authoritarian right, but are now being embraced by the left. The speaker believes this shift is due to ideology and warns against blindly following one's own side without critical thinking.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0: Honestly, nothing scarier to me than a white liberal woman. Speaker 1: Why do you never care about anything that happens in your own country? Why is it always like women in Afghanistan, women in Syria? I'm like, well, what about under the Biden administration with your candidate Harris, the 350,000 children that are trafficked that went missing. Because American issues, you can bring attention to and you can solve. I just find it weird that the social justice warriors that are the white women of America never seem to care about anything that they could do in America, but I think that would actually involve caring, and it would be going against their own side. Speaker 0: There's honestly nothing scarier to me or more destructive to society than a white liberal woman. Speaker 1: I know. Speaker 0: Name something worse. Speaker 1: I saw Jimmy John's was doing a sandwich and the bread was pickles. Speaker 0: That sounds so good. Speaker 1: Okay. So liberal women are Speaker 0: so worse.

The speaker discusses a culture shift where actions formerly associated with the authoritarian right, such as war, suppression of free speech, and mandatory pharmacological interventions, are now being embraced by the left. The speaker believes people are not critically thinking about these issues because they assume that if their side is advocating for something, it must be the right thing to do. The speaker suggests people are getting confused by ideology and failing to recognize authoritarian actions regardless of whether they come from the right or the left.

Speaker 0 asserts there is a mental health crisis in the country and "the left" needs immediate help. Speaker 1 calls "Trump bigots" racist and claims they think they are superior. Speaker 0 suggests people are triggered by a gay man's message that they can leave the Democratic party. Speaker 0 states their message is that people don't have to be Democrats and that their "unhinged devotion to a radicalized party" is resulting in the negative reactions. Speaker 1 says "prove more" and expresses dislike.