reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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 speaker welcomes the audience and discusses the importance of their interest in the subject. They explain that the communist program for revolution in America is divided into two phases: violent and nonviolent. The strategy for violent revolution involves chaos, anarchy, and the sudden seizure of power by communist-led guerrilla bands. The strategy for nonviolent revolution involves gradually transitioning the government into a communist regime under the banner of socialism. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding these strategies and taking action to counter them, including supporting local police, promoting the free enterprise system, and educating others about the true nature of communism.

Revolution necessitates killing; it's a revolutionary act. We haven't called for the killing of white people—at least not yet. I can't predict the future, but with things escalating as they are, a revolution in this country is inevitable. The statement that we are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now, implies that we might in the future. We're not ruling out that possibility. Whether or not we will, at some point, call for the slaughter of white people, remains to be seen. It's a question for a future date.

Tomorrow, the speaker expresses the need to go into the capital, but is cautious about saying it out loud due to potential arrest. They emphasize the importance of a peaceful approach. Another speaker wonders if they will get arrested or shot, to which the first speaker responds that they don't need to get shot and questions if everyone can be arrested.

The speaker is asked if their organization will engage in peace talks with the Israelis. They respond by saying that they don't view it as peace talks, but rather as capitulation or surrender. They question who they would even talk to, suggesting that it would be a conversation between the oppressor and the oppressed. They argue that talking without the presence of weapons is still not enough because they have never seen a successful conversation between a colonizer and a national liberation movement. They emphasize the importance of their struggle for dignity, respect, and human rights.

Speaker 0 notes that land strikes to stop drug trafficking specifically will start soon, and questions whether Speaker 1 has been promised anything. Speaker 1 responds that he does not know and, even if he did, he wouldn’t say it, adding, “we are not involved, and we will not get involved into another nation's policy, for their own national security.” Speaker 0 then asks whether Speaker 1 would welcome U.S. military action. Speaker 1 says, “I will welcome more and more pressure so that Maduro understands that he has to go, that his time is over.” He emphasizes that this is “not conventional regime change” and that it “cannot be compared to other cases like countries in The Middle East.” He states, “We had an election,” and asserts that “Regime change was already mandated by over 70% of the population,” arguing that the goal is “support to enforce that decision.” Speaker 0 asks how to square military action with receiving a peace prize and whether the moment has become necessary. Speaker 1 answers that what they are fighting for is “precisely freedom in order to have democracy and democracy in order to have peace.” He argues that “to maintain freedom and to achieve freedom, you do need strength,” contrasting this with the idea of a peace that would come from oppression or mere concession. He contends that it is “absolutely absurd” that Maduro’s regime gets support from Russia or from Iran, while democratic countries and democratic leaders are not being asked for support. He rejects the notion of appealing solely to peaceful means without addressing the regime’s international backers. Speaker 1 concludes by saying they do not have arms, but they have “our will. We have the power of organization and the power of love,” and adds, “peace is ultimately an act of love.”

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 mentions that they have not called for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 expresses concern about the message being shared on Twitter, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as crybabies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that if things continue as they are, there will be a revolution. Speaker 2 questions whether Speaker 1 is ruling out calling for the slaughter of white people in the future, and Speaker 1 responds that they don't know what will happen. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 repeating the phrase "kill the poor, the farmer."

Speaker 0: First of all, it's important to be consistent with my principles, values, and ideas. Secondly, as a socialist, communist, Marxist, I follow Lenin's recommendations. Speaker 1: Lenin's decalogue: corrupt the youth and promote sexual freedom. Infiltrate and control all mass media outlets. Divide the population into opposing groups, inciting discussions on social issues. Destroy people's trust in their leaders. Talk about democracy and the rule of law, but seize power without hesitation. Contribute to the misuse of public funds and discredit the country's image abroad. Create panic and unrest among the population. Promote illegal strikes in vital industries. Instigate disturbances and prevent authorities from addressing them. Undermine moral values, honesty, and belief in government promises. Our infiltrated parliamentarians in democratic parties must accuse non-communists, forcing them to vote only in the interest of our cause. Identify gun owners to confiscate their weapons when the time is right, ensuring no resistance to our cause. Speaker 0: I follow Lenin's recommendations.

To effectively create change in the world we desire. And side prop will argue that at times there's simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with. This view the view that some institutions are too broken, too regressive, too oppressive to be reformed like cancers of our society. They must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.

We stand on the brink of bloodshed in this nation, a desperate attempt to return to a bygone era. Conflict is inevitable, but I pray for peace to overcome the madness. No one desires violence, but it can become necessary. Imagine Elon Musk seizing the Treasury, threatening our data and social security – violence might be the only response. Critics might say this isn't Christian, but I counter that Jesus himself spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven being taken by force, a battlefield won through violence. The Kingdom of God is a war zone.

To effectively create change in the world we desire. And side prop will argue that at times there's simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with. This view the view that some institutions are too broken, too regressive, too oppressive to be reformed like cancers of our society. They must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.

We stand on the brink of bloodshed in this nation, a desperate attempt to return to a bygone era. Conflict is inevitable, but I pray for peace to prevail over the encroaching madness. No one desires violence, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Consider a scenario where our personal security is threatened – are we to stand idly by? Some might criticize this stance, but Jesus himself spoke of the kingdom of heaven being taken by force. The kingdom of God is a battlefield; we must understand this.

The speaker was asked about winning the union vote despite gun enthusiasts in the union. They denied taking away guns but were interrupted. The speaker clarified they did not say that, and the conversation became heated.

At the core of the left, at the core of a liberal, is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have it. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to try to murder this movement because they can't beat us. So they're gonna try to take weapons. And now we're very aware of that. I'm aware of it. We have to have full time security. This is not a joke. This is who these people are.

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are not currently calling for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 questions if they may call for it in the future, to which Speaker 1 responds that they don't know. Speaker 0 adds a statement about shooting and killing.

Speaker 0 warns this could turn into a maximum nonviolent warfare moment if gerrymandering remains legal, saying, “if this is the law of the land that you can go around gerrymandering like this, we're going to try to get us ourselves the most advantageous position.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well, at least that I mean, I will take that over you guys shooting Republicans. So go ahead.” Speaker 0 adds that he was thrilled they were not on the same day earlier this week, and addresses the violent rhetoric issue, stating, “Do not kill people. Also, we know where the violence comes from. Gerrymandering's bad. Democrats don't want it. Republicans do. Vote for our ban.” Kaylee is asked for a reply. Speaker 1 asserts he will take the constitutional side, stating Jessica made a political argument about gerrymandering; he then jokingly references the Fox News printer, saying, “I print more primary documents from that printer than anyone that's the 97 page. No. I don't do double sided. I'm sorry. Double sided to losers. Sorry to the trees. Sorry to Fox. Sorry to blow up the budget.” Speaker 0 then shifts to the climate change agenda, but the conversation continues without a direct continuation of that point. Speaker 1 quotes Justice Roberts on race issues, declaring, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That should be the guiding philosophy on any single matter.” He argues that in this country, “We don't discriminate against anyone in this country because of their skin color.” He asserts that the best take was not the majority take, but the concurrence by Justice Thomas. Speaker 1 emphasizes that Justice Thomas is exactly right: “The court led legislatures and courts to systematically divide the country into electoral districts based racial lines.” He continues, quoting Thomas: blacks drawn into black districts with black representatives, Hispanics drawn into Hispanic districts with Hispanic representatives, and states that this is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind constitution,” urging opposition to “the balkanization of society, putting black people here and white people here and Hispanic people here.” He adds that the “absolutely nonsensical hyperbolic Democrats” advocating that position are naively supporting the very thing they oppose, citing Justice Thomas as a source, the second ever black justice on the Supreme Court.

We stand on the brink of bloodshed in this nation, a desperate attempt to drag us back to a dark past we refuse to revisit. Conflict is inevitable, but I pray for peace to triumph over the encroaching madness. No one desires violence, but sometimes it becomes necessary. Imagine Elon Musk seizing the US Treasury, threatening our data and social security – violence might be our only recourse. Some might criticize this stance, but Jesus himself spoke of the kingdom of heaven being taken by force, a battlefield where violence is a reality. The kingdom of God is a war zone.

During a protest, there were acts of violence against police officers. The speaker, who has custody of thousands of hours of videos, witnessed these acts. The officers responded with necessary force. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation wouldn't have escalated. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and that the officers initiated the violence without provocation.

We stand on the brink of bloodshed in this nation, a fight against a return to a dark past. Conflict is inevitable, but I pray for peace to prevail. No one wants violence, but sometimes it's necessary. Imagine Elon Musk seizing the US Treasury, threatening our data and Social Security—that warrants a response. Some might criticize this stance, questioning its Christian nature. But Jesus himself spoke of the kingdom of heaven suffering violence, and the violent taking it by force. The kingdom of God is a battlefield. We must acknowledge this reality.

The speaker urges people to stand up for themselves and not resort to violence. They believe that the most violence comes from the other side, which they see as white subjugators working for capitalism and billionaires. They mention the upcoming presidential race and express their belief that voting is useless. They advocate for starting a movement by igniting a fire and encouraging others to join. They emphasize the importance of being fearless and standing up for oneself. The speaker then asks Christopher what he is currently doing.

The speaker discusses the strategy of the proletarian revolution, which aims to gradually and legally move the government towards communism under the guise of socialism. Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of property and commerce. The communists believe they will eventually run the government and have control over who gets what. The building of socialism is seen as the communist revolution in America, as it moves the country towards communism without people realizing it. The communists advocate for more government as the solution to all problems, ultimately leading to total government, which is communism.

The speakers discuss the idea of killing as part of a revolution. Speaker 1 clarifies that they are not currently calling for the killing of white people, but cannot guarantee the future. Speaker 2 questions if they may call for it in the future, to which Speaker 1 responds that it is a possibility. Speaker 0 interrupts and the transcript ends abruptly.

The speaker discusses a plan to create a crisis in order to force men to stay at home and protect their families. They believe that the middle class, due to their affluence, is not prepared for violence and deprivation. The goal is to have violent uprisings that will weaken America, leading to a communist revolution. The speaker warns that the organization behind these plans is well-funded and experienced. They emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing these plans to avoid national suicide. The communists aim to condition the public to accept a nonviolent revolution that gradually moves the country towards communism under the guise of socialism. Socialism is defined as government ownership and control of property and commerce.