reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker recalls that Charlie once said, "guns save lives after school shooting" and was willing to debate and downplay the death of George Floyd in the hands of Minneapolis police, "you called him a scumbag." They note that Charlie also "downplay slavery and what black people have gone through in this country, by saying Juneteenth should never exist." The speaker counters that many claim he only wanted a civil debate, a complete rewriting of history. "Yeah, there is nothing more effed up than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so."

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.)

- Animals. I fucking hate them. I hate them. They're celebrating. If you support this, you are evil. - We will fight for Charlie. We will not shut up for Charlie. - We will continue his fight, and we will fight harder, and we will win. - And we will no longer bend the knee to these deranged lunatics that are holding our society hostage. - If this hasn't radicalized you that the law enforcement would then key in on taking a look at that other thing in this instance For Charlie.

Speaker 0: 'it's it's like somebody put the constitution up on a wall and and shot the First Amendment,' noting portentous signs and mentioning Mary, his partner. Speaker 1 recalls 'the health care CEO get shot. The two people in Minnesota,' calling them assassinations and saying, 'the First Amendment got shot today.' They reference Butler as 'a game of inches' and that 'the country dodged a bullet' before. The slain was 'a friend' and 'a supporter of Microworks' who 'called me a couple of times' and who was 'pushing a boulder up a hill.' Online backlash is acknowledged; condolences to 'his wife Erica and their kids' are offered, with belief that 'he'll be remembered for a long time.' 'He had a future ahead of him. He was only 31 years old.' 'Four years from now, he could have run for president.' He faced 'lion's den'; fearless; he did it anyway.

Pro gun advocate Charlie Kirk just got shot in the neck at his debate rally. The speaker laments political violence: “I try to avoid American politics... but I've opened X to a bunch of little bitches crying and whinging about how political violence is never the answer.” They claim, “These people are gunning for politics that are inherently violent to its people, to to marginalize people, to people who need access to health care.” The message: this is “the same across the West”—“This isn't just The US. This is England too.” The speaker adds, “I'm sick of this idea that you can't meet violence with violence. If somebody was smacking you... you're going to hit them back. You have to.” They conclude, “These people do not care if you live or die... They want you to die.” “Why is anyone anyone condemning that fucking kill them all kill them all”

Speaker 1: Of course, as you all know, in the wake of Charlie's murder, there was an incredible amount of angry discourse from the right. Blaming the Democrats, blaming liberals saying, you're the reason this happened. Only to find out, surprise, 22 year old white dude, loved guns, raised by two parents, lived in a good home, dad as a minister, also a sheriff, didn't check it in boxes. Y'all thought he would check, did he? Speaker 0: Okay. First of all, a coat of mascara would be your friend. Speaker 0: That is disgusting. That was absolutely disgusting. Fuck her. Speaker 0: It's it's weird how she lost the points about him being a furry loving trans dating.

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.

Why are we cheering for someone getting shot? He's dead. Like, no matter what political beliefs are, should not be cheering that someone got shot. He has a family. We do. We I value everyone's beliefs, but we should not be cheering as a class that someone got shot. He has a family. Yes. And who shot them? A transgender person. Oh. Oh. Oh. So that's what it is. Yes. Five males. It doesn't matter. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yes. You should not be cheering that someone got shot. Yeah. He's still, like, attacking you guys don't care what other people got.

Speaker 0 says, "If you're celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, you're a bad person. You're going to hell." Speaker 1 adds, "May. Fuck Charlie Kirk," and declares, "The off ramp to the high road is closed," insisting they won't feel guilty about a "bullshit hero" who spread harm. They stress, "This has nothing to do with conservative versus liberal" or with Democrats versus Republicans, and point out the alleged suspect is "an old white guy." They predict media will misframe the event as "an isolated incident by a lone shooter" and that "it's gonna end up being a white guy." They acknowledge sadness with "Abso fucking lutely," but conclude, "However, fuck that guy. God’s timing is always right." "Good day, goofies."

This is a worldwide problem. The extremes—the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra progressives—often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies, whether it's president Tribe who's been almost assassinated twice or they try to kill me here too. But they got Charlie Kirk, and it's just heartbreaking.

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."

A discussion centers on the claim that 'Charlie Kirk got shot and killed,' with participants reacting. One says 'Happy. Goodbye,' and another adds 'That's good that people are getting shot just off a political view.' The conversation repeats 'Charlie Keurig got shot and killed today,' and someone replies 'Girl, someone had to do it.' Others call the target 'he was a misogynist.' When asked if they'd press a button to prevent it, one says 'Nope. I think things happen for a purpose.' A speaker predicts media framing: 'the left has dispute so much hate and brainwashed so many people into doing stupid shit like this.' They claim 'he deserved it' and call it 'a sign of what liberalism has done to US society. It's just led to a complete moral decay and decay of morals and just any semblance of humanity.'

Participants discuss the news that Charlie Kirk was shot, with uncertainty about whether he is dead: "Murder for having a different opinion from somebody else." They note, "I haven't seen anything that said confirmed." Rumors about who shot him spur debate: "a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration"—"That's a crazy take." They stress we "We don't know any of full details of this yet" and that "it's not a tweet. It's not on their Twitter account" or anything, with clips shared by "Dave Portnoy reposted this." The mood is horror and condemnation: "Nobody deserves that." They condemn the culture of division, call out "paid propagandists masquerading as the news," and warn this event could either spur meaningful dialogue or fuel violence and fear. The speakers fear the impact on political courage and discourse.

Speaker 0 asserts openness to many topics but not to the theory that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie, and questions who else was involved or if there were other voices in the row. They state the evidence in the case is incredibly watertight and express a desire to focus on broader issues rather than debating that point. They call attention to the rise of left-wing violence, mental health illness in the country, and young people on the progressive side turning to Mangioneism and assassination culture, suggesting they can solve political disputes by justifying violence. They accuse the current discussion of veering into rabbit trails and acknowledge good-faith questions, while noting that they’ve been lied to. They emphasize the harm caused to their team, staff, and movement by the issue, describing it as carnage, and express a wish not to see more of that and to move through the situation sooner rather than later.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

"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."

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."

They are false. I will be coming to college campuses, many of them, this year. So will we all, I am sure, because we're Americans, and we're not going to be deterred. Charlie's voice is not silent. We're gonna pick up that bloodstained microphone where Charlie left it. And to those who would intimidate, who would seek to stop us, who would seek to end free discussion, who believe that they have ownership over public spaces and can violently threaten and kill people who speak freely. We are not going to stop, and I have two words. Fuck you. We will not stop telling the truth. We'll never stop telling the truth. We will never stop debating and discussing. We will never stop standing up for what America is and for what you should be, and we will never let Charlie Kirk's voice die. Goodbye to my friend, Charlie Kirk. May your memory be a blessing for your family and for your country and for all of us.

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: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

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

Charlie argues that unity requires climbing the mountain of truth and confronting difficult truths. He cites data: "24% of self described, quote, very liberals believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent, while only 3% of self described very conservatives agree," and "26% of young liberals believe political violence is sometimes justified, and only 7% of young conservatives say the same." He adds, "In a country of 330,000,000 people, you could, of course, find one person of a given political persuasion justifying this or that or almost anything, but the data is clear." He asserts, "That problem has terrible consequences." He recounts violence: "The leader of our party, Donald j Trump, escaped an assassin's bullet by less than an inch." "Our house majority leavers, Stephen Scalise, came within seconds of death by an assassin himself." "And now the most influential conservative activist in generations, our friend Charlie, has been murdered." He describes a "pyramid" with "a foundation of donors, of activists, of journalists, now of social media influencers, and, of course, of politicians." Disneyland anecdote: "You should disown your dad, you little shit" and "Tell the secret service to protect the constitution, not your father." He concludes: "Are these women violent? Probably not. Are they deranged? Certainly." "Most of the lunatics in American politics today are proud members of the far left."