reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Ms. Green from Georgia states: "the man the 22 year old man, Tyler Robinson, that that murdered Charlie Kirk is not MAGA. His family may be Republican but all of the evidence that is being presented proves that he is a far leftist, very much integrated in online groups that are linked to Antifa. He was in a relationship with a biological male, so called furry, whatever that is, that is transitioning to be a fake woman. That is he was not MAGA, not one bit." She calls it "a complete lie, and it's an insult to every single Republican and person that identifies with those type of politics." She says, "We will not tolerate it," and claims that this language is getting many of us death threats day after day, and led to shootings on the baseball field where Steve Scalise was shot. "This is what led to President Trump nearly being assassinated this past summer. This is what has led to Charlie Kirk being assassinated." And so I just I just wanna give a warning there. "We're not going to tolerate that anymore. Mister chairman You know something else we're not going to tolerate is crime."

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.)

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.”

24% of people who identify as very liberal think that political violence is acceptable. That number is only 3% for conservatives. That's not an American problem. That's a left wing problem. Yes, everybody should be able to condemn political violence. On the left and the right, I certainly do. But this is a problem that we're seeing predominantly from the left.

The speaker opens by saying "the tolerant left strikes again" and reports "Charlie Kirk was shot today at a campus talking to young people, the future of this country." Declaring "be done with this both side stuff," he argues "both sides don't do this" and complains that "the left can't have anyone who disagrees with them over there." He adds "January 6, that was still even a setup. I know because I was there" and praises Charlie for supporting "J Sixers" and taking their stories to the president at AmericaFest to celebrate conservatism and republican values. He condemns the left for doxxing, ransacking stores, and beating people for opinions, and proclaims "There's only one side, the godless, the death cult known as the Democratic Party." He ends with prayers for Charlie and his family and a call to trust in God and move forward.

One month ago today, I witnessed my friend of ten years, someone who I considered a brother, a loving husband, a devoted father, a generational leader, get assassinated on a livestream by a left wing radical. Approximately one year ago, I witnessed the president of The United States get shot in the head by a left wing radical who also took the life of a transporter in front of his daughters and wife. Two months ago, Christian children kneeling and praying in a church Were slaughtered. By a left wing extremist. If it's happening every single week, is it that extreme, or has the Democrat party mainstreamed violence as a political tool? Violence has been mainstreamed by the Democrat Party. It is not extremist. Is any Democrat courageous enough to disavow violence? The Trump administration making America safe again. God bless them.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

Discussion centers on Charlie's views and reactions: "He was pro pro second amendment and so on." Speakers expect backlash: "People are gonna talk shit and say, see, is why." They reference a video "right before he gets hit," noting: "As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, when I'm watching the video right before he gets hit, was." The talk shifts to mass shootings: "Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years? Counting or not counting gang violence. Great." One participant adds, "I didn't watch it except for So" while another says, "he's literally they're literally asking him about mass shootings. I don't find that to be a coincidence either." The closing claim: "If I had my guess, this is a deep state hit. 100%. Our country's on the brink."

Speaker 0 notes they’ve faced attacks followed by calls to unite, asking, 'Is it is it still time to come together, Jack? Are are these people capable of coming together with?' Speaker 1 recounts a friend who tried to talk to them and was killed 'in cold blood.' Charlie tried sitting down and having conversations, and many people came; thousands came. But there is 'a social cancer, a cancerous ideology that is spread throughout this country.' It's gone mainstream, acting as if 'they are completely dissociated with humanity.' Shunning family members, canceling, and censorship are linked, and it 'ended with my friend shot on campus.' Speaker 0: 'We should have put our foot down a long time ago,' perhaps when they glorified Luigi for sticking a bullet in the back of the guy's head at 6AM. 'Thanks for coming on, and thanks for carrying Charlie's torch for all of us.'

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

Speaker 1 expresses concern about calls framing Trump as a martyr and about retaliatory violence online, fearing escalation as the left is vilified and Democrats blamed by Trump. A video message Trump recorded in the Oval Office moves from condolences to politics: "It's a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible." The reaction notes this rhetoric aligns with Trump's politics of vengeance and calls out hypocrisy in vilification, citing Charlie Kirk's line: "standing for everything that God hates, claiming that, you know, queer people are defective and dangerous and and should be executed." The discussion concludes that polarizing rhetoric fuels loss of civility and may encourage violence from both sides.

"First of all, you know, I'd heard different things about his ideology." "He wasn't a registered democrat or republican." "He may have been a groyker, which is a follower of Nick Fuentes, who's on the right." "But I'll say this, it shouldn't matter." "This has happened to democrats." "This has happened to republicans." "The shooters were on both sides of the extreme." "And so what should matter is that we should all come together to, one, tone down the rhetoric, and two, keep our events safe, and and three, make sure that this doesn't happen again." "And so playing the blame game is not toning down the rhetoric." "Playing the blame game only makes the rhetoric and the problem worse."

I wanna address this idea that both sides just need to lower the temperature. If you've been watching the news or scrolling on social media, you've probably heard this. Both sides just need to lower the temperature. It's bullshit, and I wanna point out exactly why it's bullshit. First, let's take a look at what these Democrat politicians are saying now that their side has committed many acts of domestic terrorism. They say: “Everybody, right, left, center, I don't care what your politics are, has to speak out strongly against it. But look, I think, and I don't know what's happened here, and I don't know about the guns, but we need better laws on guns.” Then: “I I I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be.” And: “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. Enemies of the state.” They add: “Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.” They state: “There is no both sides in this. Okay? That is what the left has done over about the last week.” They list alleged incidents: “A leftist murdered Charlie Kirk. A leftist shot an ABC affiliate for not airing Jimmy Kimmel. Imagine shooting up a TV studio because Jimmy Kimmel was not being aired. Somebody on the left shot a wedding while yelling free Palestine. Leftists had mass celebrations and celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder in the streets of New York. And today, a leftist shot an ICE facility.” They conclude: “There is no both sides.” “The right is not the one doing this. The far left, the leftist organizers, activists, the people at the root of the Democratic Party are the ones behind this. They have an insane ideology, and they are making people pay for it in blood.”

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

The communists have to change how they talk. They have to. The elite communists continue to use the most apocalyptic rhetoric. You're giving them orders. These people hear these words and they take them as orders. They hear orders, marching orders. And it's not going to change. Democrats are more inclined to political violence anyway because they're godless scum. It is their religion, and historically evil religions have killed people who are of the opposite religion. Democrat rhetoric combined with a mentally ill base, combined with the fact that Democrats believe political violence is justified. They do. 55% of Democrats come out and say it would be justified if Donald Trump gets killed. Add in some antidepressants. Add in some tranny ideology which shatters your mind.

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."

"the person who shot and killed right wing political commentator Charlie Kirk was like the majority of shooters in America, a young white male from a conservative pro gun religious background." "After being told for two straight days that the left had declared war on America, that the shooter was most likely trans, or in congresswoman Nancy Mace's words, pro tranny." "We still don't know the motivation for the killing, but we will find out more in the coming days." "We have a gun problem in America." "the two children who were shot in school the same day Kirk died were shot by a 16 year old who had been radicalized online by white supremacist groups and had easy access to a handgun." "The day Charlie Kirk died, the Republicans in the Senate voted not to release the Epstein files, something Kirk himself had called for them to do."

"You know, I told myself I wasn't gonna make this video, but I'm gonna make it." "When Joe Biden was falling upstairs and falling downstairs and falling off of his bike and crapping his pants in public in front of the pope, no less." "And then when he was diagnosed with cancer, I don't remember seeing a single conservative Republican wishing him to be unalived." "But yet you fucking liberals try to assassinate our president when he was running for office again, not once, not twice, but three times." "And in the last twenty minutes, I have seen nothing but hate and spew vomit come out of liberals' mouths all over social media, elated and happy that Charlie was assassinated simply because of his beliefs." "Sick of this shit."

"Do you accept, Carrie, that this is a it's not just a one-sided problem? The political violence and violent rhetoric is a problem on both sides of the divide, and it's incumbent on everybody in a position of authority and influence to take the lead here in trying to to just tone things down." "There's been a few cases where it goes from from the right to the left, but there's been an exorbitant number where it's coming from the left to the right. And you can't deny that. If you add it all up, it's just more violence. I mean, president Trump was nearly assassinated. There's another attempt on his life." "The media has to take credit for what they have caused, the chaos they've caused in our country, and they haven't done it. And until they do, they need to be turned off, canceled, muted. They're absolutely abhorrent."

He will create a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota last three months ago, gunned down by an anti abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no? Wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump or being pro life. He blamed Tim Walls. Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so, showing children a snuff? spitting at their vigil. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction. From the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it. All of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold blooded terroristic assassination... And maybe if I would have picked up the phone, maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance.

These people that are now selling t shirts with Charlie Kirk and a bullet wound in his neck, they cannot be negotiated with. You cannot debate with them. You cannot persuade them to vote Republican. You cannot appeal to them. You will never convince them that you're a good person, that you just want the best for everybody. You will never get them to stop hating you. 'These craven losers'—they have to be defeated. You must be destroyed. You must be identified, you must be isolated, and you must be eradicated from our society. Not Democrats, not leftists, not liberals, those people that would celebrate in that moment. That is pure evil, pure malice. There is no charity in a person's heart. We are on the verge of full on political violence and civil war. When they show up to your front door, when they take shots

The panel debates motive, with "we don't have a motive yet. We don't know yet" and "Law enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive. They've laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages." They cite "they said that he was a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk." "Look. I believe anyone engaged in acts of violence should be prosecuted and go to jail." They claim "There has been an enormous amount, and CNN has been guilty of this, of both sides ism." They argue "It is the left that overwhelmingly celebrates this" and "look at Blue Sky and it is a cesspool of leftist celebrating the murder of of Charlie Kirk." The discussion touches polling: "the polls the vast majority of Democrats believe a Republican and a Trump supporter." "Senator Ted Cruz, thanks for your time tonight."