Ep. 1814 - The Media Are Lying About Charlie Kirk’s Killer — Here Are the Facts

A mountain of new information has come out about Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin.

The new information paints a clear picture of what the suspect is and what he believes.

Based on the current evidence and everything that keeps coming in, the suspect's ideology could not possibly be clearer.

And yet, this is where things get really weird.

Polling shows that people are currently more inclined to believe the opposite.

I'm Michael Knowles.

This is the Michael Knowles Show.

Welcome back to the show.

A lot, a lot to get to.

A ton of information has come out over the weekend, and it doesn't seem to have made it to the public.

And I think that might be intentional because the media are clearly trying to hide what he believed and who he was.

We'll get to all of that in a moment.

First, though, I want to tell you about Armra.

Right now, go to armra.com slash Knolls.

We are living in a world that our bodies were not built for.

EMFs, artificial lights, seed oils, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, chronic stress.

all modern threats that are disrupting our cellular signaling, damaging our gut health, and accelerating aging from the inside out.

What if there were a way to revive your body's natural defenses?

Armra colostrum is nature's first whole food, packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to reactivate your body's innate capacity to regenerate and thrive.

Unlike probiotics that only address one part of your gut wall, Armra colostrum fortifies your entire gut wall system, strengthens immune barriers throughout your mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut, and reproductive tract, while optimizing your microbiome and combating bloating.

Right now, we've worked out a special offer for our audience.

Receive 30% off your first subscription order.

The way you get that is you go to armra.com slash Knowles, KNAW LES, or enter Knowles, Canada W-L-E-S, to get 30% off your first subscription order, A-R-M-R-A.com slash K-N-O-W-L-E-S.

I'm walking with my kids in the park on Saturday, I think it was, and I've been getting a ton of text messages.

Thank you to many, many of you who have texted me and reached out about this, how you're feeling, how I'm feeling.

Obviously,

this is a national trauma

far beyond someone losing his friend, far beyond someone losing a political figure that they admire.

This is really next level for a whole host of reasons, because of what he meant, because he didn't hold political office, because he just wanted to talk it out, because his assassination was captured in 4K, because of the reaction, on and on and on.

We're going to get to all of it.

But

it's obviously a major, major national trauma.

So amid all of these texts, I get a text from a liberal family member of mine, who I'm very close to, saying, Michael, why are you blaming this on the left when the shooter was a MAGA Republican?

Totally sincere.

Totally

scolding me.

for blaming the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the left when, in his words, it was a MAGA Republican.

And he reads the news.

He's a low-information voter, you would have to say, but he consumes plenty of popular liberal media.

And he was convinced that the shooter was a MAGA Republican.

What are the facts?

What do we know now?

What is not even contested by the liberal media before they put their spin on it?

The shooter was not a student at the school.

Charlie was assassinated at this university in Utah.

He was not a student.

He drove about three hours to get there.

He was, however, apparently pretty good at school.

He did relatively well in high school.

He got a scholarship to Utah State.

He dropped out after one semester and was in a tech apprenticeship program.

The bullets that he fired and that he had chambered and in his magazine included multiple engravings.

One was Hey Fascist, exclamation point,

catch, all caps, exclamation point.

Hey fascist, catch.

Seems pretty clear what his ideological motivation is.

Next bullet, oh, bella chow, bella chow, bella chow, chow chow, which is an Italian Antifa song.

Antifa, the far-left terror organization, ostensibly anti-fascist, but goes way, way back and apparently has been popular online and in video game culture.

But

determinedly, without question, a song from the radical left.

Third engraving, notices bulges, OWO, what's this?

This is apparently a reference to

furry subculture.

Furry,

people have probably heard about it at some point over the years.

It's this weird sex.

thing.

It's this freaky sex thing where people dress up as anthropomorphic animals and do sex stuff.

And this also, I guess, comes from an internet meme.

This also relates to the trans ideology because furries are, according to furscience.com, a furry institute, I guess, furries are 25 times more likely than the ordinary population to identify as trans.

So weird sex stuff, tracks, entirely left-wing.

And then last little bit of information.

At a recent family dinner, the shooter reportedly spoke to a family member about why he hated Charlie Kirk, and the conversation referenced that, quote, Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate.

Ben made a very good point when he went on Bill Maher.

He said, well, there were people who hated Charlie on the fringe right as well.

It wasn't just people on the left.

And that is true.

There were people on the fringe right who made their entire career out of harassing Charlie Kirk in particular.

A lot of us, but in particular, Charlie Kirk.

And so it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that the shooter could have been

on the fringe right until you get all of this evidence.

Because, and Ben made this point on Bill Maher's show, if it were someone on the fringe right attacking Charlie Kirk, he would not have been attacking him because he was, quote, full of hate and spreading hate.

It would be the opposite.

They'd say it's because he's milquetoast.

It's because he's too moderate.

It's because he doesn't go far enough.

So the kind of attack

that was being lobbed at Charlie Kirk by these family members, by the shooter and his family members, was one from the left.

You take one or two of these things in isolation, much less all of this evidence together.

It is not ambiguous.

The shooter was very clearly, all of the evidence says very, very clearly on the left.

And we have not yet talked about the shooter's tranny live-in boyfriend.

The governor of Utah, this is not just some internet rumor, this is not just from some sleuth independent journalist, the governor of Utah went on CNN to confirm that the shooter has a trans-identifying live-in boyfriend.

Some outlets are reporting that the suspect lived with a transgender partner.

Is that accurate?

And are investigators looking at this part of his life as a possible motivation?

Yes, definitely.

And yes, I can confirm that.

I know that has been reported and that the FBI has confirmed that as well, that the roommate was a romantic partner,

a male transitioning to female.

I can say that he has been very cooperative.

This partner has been incredibly cooperative, had no idea that this was happening, and is working with investigators right now.

And how is that relevant to the investigation when it comes to the motive?

Are you learning that?

Sure.

Well,

Yeah,

that's what we're trying to figure out right now.

Again, I mean, it's easy to draw conclusions from that.

And so, you know, we've got the shell casings,

other forensic evidence that is coming in and trying to piece all of those things together.

The CNN lady goes on.

She says, well, we don't want to come to conclusions.

We need to be very, very careful.

We need to, you know, as if to, what relevance does that have to the conclusions?

I don't know.

We're trying to figure out if the guy who killed one of the most prominent political figures in America had a political motivation and he wrote these far-left slogans all over the bullets.

And he was a homosexual dating a man who thinks that he's a woman.

So, gee, I don't know.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes.

Pretty sure he wasn't a Berkeyan conservative.

Pretty sure he wasn't a trad cat.

If I had a hunch, if I had to take a guess, I would say he was on the political left.

By the way, the governor of Utah is not even some right-wing, rock-ribbed, conservative Republican.

He's a very, very moderate Republican.

He has, in fact, indulged the transgender ideology and the pronoun disputes in the past.

He is centrist, quite, quite centrist.

He's actually quite liberal by Republican standards.

And he goes out there and he says, look, this is not ambiguous at all.

The shooter had a boyfriend.

He had a boyfriend.

And the boyfriend thought that he was a woman.

These are people that were steeped in all of the most left-wing ideologies.

Don't just take the governor's word for it.

Here is what a neighbor had to say about the shooter and his boyfriend.

Yeah, he was walking with him.

Were they holding hands?

Yeah, they were.

So, yeah,

they drove off in his car, the

Dodge Challenger.

The time you saw them or this week?

It was about the time I saw them.

How long ago was that?

I would say about two weeks ago.

And did they, so they look a couple.

couples.

Yeah.

Reports out there that this individual, the roommate, may have been transitioning.

Did that correlate with what you saw?

Yeah, definitely.

It was about

two weeks ago, I would say.

And they were kissing?

Yeah.

Where did you see them kissing?

Just coming out.

I was riding with my bike, so I didn't see the whole thing, but yeah.

I saw them.

Okay, it goes on and on and on this interview, but here you have it from the neighbor.

Yes, I saw them.

Yes, they were dating.

Yes, they were holding hands.

Yes, they were kissing.

Yes, the guy was a transvestite.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

All of this being confirmed on every single front.

Furthermore, the Daily Mail confirms that the transgender partner of the suspect here

shared a post online to show support for Joe Biden.

Apparently, he has an account on a website called furaffinity.net because they were furries, another weird deviant sexual subculture.

And

he

apparently posted on an online forum and said that he supported Joe Biden.

Furthermore, even beyond the trans-identifying partner,

we have even clearer evidence.

We'll get to that momentarily first.

I know a lot of people have a lot of questions, a lot of thoughts about this national trauma.

And some people don't know how to submit to the mailbag.

It's very simple.

Go to dailywire.com, go to the watch page, go to the Michael Knowles show, click submit a mailbag question, write your question, submit the email, or record your voice message.

Keep it to 30 seconds, please.

Send it in.

We can talk about it on Friday.

Here, once again, once again, is Governor Cox, NBC News, meet the press, asked about the ideology.

See, is there any ambiguity in this answer?

Well, look, I've talked to President Trump.

President Trump is angry, and he has every right to be angry.

A lot of Americans are very angry right now, and there clearly was a leftist ideology with

this assassin.

And so I totally understand that anger.

Furthermore, he goes on to tell the Wall Street Journal, it's very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.

Okay, I could go on and on.

We don't have time.

I want to get to the bigger point.

How is it the case?

that

my relative could write to me and say, Michael, stop blaming the left.

This shooter shooter was a MAGA Republican.

Because I know he's not the only one because I've seen the data on this.

We'll get to that momentarily.

I've heard from you.

I've seen the posts on social media.

How is it, given all of that evidence, all of the evidence points to the clear?

If he had held a giant billboard saying, I am an ideologically consistent leftist

while he committed his crime, It could not be clearer.

How is it that people could be confused?

Because the liberal media are lying about it.

Here's what CNN had to say.

CNN.

The messages on the bullet casings also included a mix of memes and allusions to video games, suggesting a deep immersion in an irony-soaked online world where meanings can be difficult to precisely decipher.

Catch this fascist.

Is that difficult to decipher?

You sing an Antifa song, Antifa, the most prominent left-wing terror organization in the country.

Is that difficult to decipher?

He's dating a tranny.

Is that difficult to decipher?

Is any of this difficult to decipher?

The person that he's dating posts that he supports the left-wing presidential candidate.

Is that difficult to decipher?

He had a conversation with his family shortly before the shooting in which he talked about how much he hated Charlie Kirk from a left-wing perspective.

Is that difficult?

I don't find any of that difficult to decipher.

It's not just CNN, The Guardian.

The Guardian interviews the shooter's grandmother and uses this as evidence that the shooter not only was not on the left, but might, in fact, even be on the right.

The grandmother's name, Debbie.

My son, his dad, is a Republican for Trump, Debbie told the outlet.

Most of my family members are Republican.

I don't know any single one who's a Democrat.

I'm just so confused.

Still, The Guardian goes on.

She firmly rejects the idea that her grandson could be involved, claiming she has never seen him handle a gun, let alone possess one.

I don't think he ever shot a gun, to tell you the truth, she said.

He doesn't hunt.

He's never liked anything like that.

I know he doesn't own any guns.

There you go.

There's proof positive.

Not only was the shooter not a Democrat, not only was he not on the left, he was a Republican.

Not only was he a Republican, he didn't even commit the crime.

Never mind all of the evidence.

Never mind.

The fact that his father reportedly turned him in after his father discovered that he had committed the crime, allegedly.

Never mind any of that.

No, no, no.

The Guardian says, no, no, no.

He was on the right and he didn't do it anyway.

And what's the evidence?

The evidence, I kid you not, is Granny can't believe her precious little grandson would do something like that.

Nobody's grandmother.

No criminal who's ever lived has a grandmother who thinks that he could have done that.

The evidence is Granny really loves her grandson.

But

that's the sort of thing people are reading.

Finally, New York Times.

This one to me is the Pièce de Résistance.

The police found messages after Kirk's killing.

What they mean is unclear.

The messages relied on an enigmatic coded communication style used by the habitually online.

It's just so unclear.

Catch this fascist, Italian antifa song.

weird sex stuff.

It's totally unclear.

It's totally unclear.

Is it unclear?

Three professional writers contributed to this article.

Not one of them apparently is literate.

I think it would be a good idea for the New York Times, the Gray Lady, the Paper of Record, to consider hiring writers who are literate.

Because, listen, I don't know.

I'm not some expert.

I don't regularly write for fancy prestige publications, but I can read Catch This Fascist.

I can read the online postings of this guy or of his transgender identifying partner.

I can, are you confused?

Is this unclear to you?

And here's the evidence, by the way.

Here's the evidence from the New York Times.

This is the best they could come up with.

He was registered to vote, but was not affiliated with a political party and appeared to have never voted in an election.

His parents are both registered Republicans.

And I think that's where it comes from.

That's the closest thing.

that these guys can can arrive at is they'll say, well, his family was Republican.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Radical leftists have never come from Republican families, right?

They basically always come from Republican families because leftism is just another way to say, screw you, dad.

I'm not even just making that as a joke.

That is a fact.

Think about the most radical left-wing people you've ever met.

I bet more times than not, those people come from relatively conservative families.

At least in my experience, they do.

Because that kind of politics in itself is an act of rebellion.

But even put that aside for a second, just read what the suspect wrote in his own words on the bullets everywhere else.

Can the New York Times be this stupid?

I refuse to believe that.

I refuse to believe that.

The purpose here is to obscure.

And this is ironic because the ostensible purpose of, excuse me, I don't know why I'm losing my voice.

I don't know.

It's been a long week, folks.

I think maybe other people are losing their voices too.

But the ostensible purpose of the news media is to inform people.

It's to tell people the truth, to make clear what is happening in our world.

And the irony is the obvious purpose of the New York Times in this article and of CNN and of The Guardian and of all the rest of these outlets is to obscure.

What they are obviously trying to do is exactly the opposite of what journalism is for.

They are trying to make sure you don't get to the truth, to make sure you don't have a clear picture of what's happened.

They're trying to obscure everything

because all of the evidence shows he was on the extreme left.

And

the misinformation is working.

It's not just my family member.

It's not just some of your family members or some of your friends who think that this person, the shooter, was on the right or was a MAGA Republican or something.

There was a survey just came out from YouGov, just conducted yesterday, I think it was.

2,355 u.s adults

a plurality

when they had to choose one political party or the other the plurality think he's a republican 21 say that the shooter was a democrat 24 say that the shooter was a republican and then further 15 percent say that he was neither which is technically though not really the correct answer but he was he wasn't technically uh affiliated with any political party.

But if we're speaking of the political parties as broad political coalitions, the Democrat being the left coalition, the Republican being the right coalition, even if this guy wasn't actually showing up to vote as half of Americans don't show up to vote, he clearly aligned entirely with the Democrats, not at all with the Republicans.

40% are unsure.

The misinformation works.

People are more likely to believe that the shooter was a Republican than that he was a Democrat.

And what YouGov has also shown is that the left is much more likely to support political violence.

The left is two and a half times as likely to defend political violence as the right is.

So now you've got this bizarre reaction from the left.

And this, I think, is a big reason why Charlie's assassination has become such a national trauma for people.

It's not even just the assassination itself.

Though that was bad enough, that's traumatic enough.

It's the realization that

people seem impervious to the truth.

Many people refuse to see the truth as it is.

And people have this gut reaction.

A lot of the country has this gut reaction to justify it, to say this kind of political violence is justified, that a guy who only ever wanted to talk it out

could be murdered for expressing milquetoast opinions,

centrist opinions, totally normal common sense opinions.

And half the country would defend it.

They would say, no.

They would say, we,

our side would not have committed that political violence, but we would be justified to do so.

That's what you're seeing from the polls.

That's what you're seeing play out on social media.

That's what you're seeing even from not just the fringes, but the elite people on the left.

We'll get to that in one second.

First, though, my favorite comment last week is from Emiliam 7898.

Turning point, never a more prophetic name of an organization by such a fearless leader.

May his memory always be a blessing.

Turning point, absolutely.

There's an expression, nomen est omen.

The name, the name is an omen and a harbinger of things to come.

Turning point very much seems to be that way.

The evidence

that the shooter is on the left is overwhelming and dispositive.

Full stop.

That's done.

So now the left, unable to disprove it,

struggling to obscure it, though having a reasonable degree of success, is going to move on to its next objective, which is to say that it doesn't matter.

The left may have succeeded thus far at confusing people about what the shooter really believed, but the truth is going to come out.

There's going to be a trial.

The evidence will be presented.

They're not going to be able to keep a lid on the truth forever.

So they have to move on to their next strategy, which is to say, well, look, his political ideology does not really matter.

Here you have some left-wing analyst speaking to Reuters.

That the attack on Charlie Kirk is from the left.

I mean, I hear you.

I know,

I'm getting that wrong.

No, I mean,

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.

You know, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, assassination, 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.

And so, you know, I hope this wasn't from the left for all sorts of good reasons, but I'm not sure it'll make that much of a difference.

Can you tell me why you say that?

Is it because you say that not as a, I think I'm hearing you right that you say that not as a person who is, oh, well, I'm from the left and I don't want it to be one of my people.

You're saying it as

it's better to contain it on one side.

Like if it exists on one side, it's easier to contain than if you do actually have now a burgeoning problem on the left where you're getting into a Hatfields versus McCoy.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I mean, it's just, it's just about the momentum of violence, right?

If one side is not...

Okay, I've heard enough.

I've heard enough.

You get the point.

Amazing lies coming from this woman.

She says, well, look, actually, the man who nearly murdered Donald Trump and only did not succeed, only blew off part of his ear because at the very last second, improprietically, he turned his head.

Well,

that guy actually,

he wasn't on the left.

Mind you, his only political donation he ever made was to act blue, was to the left, was to the Biden machine.

Mind you, he tried to blow the head off the president.

No, no, no, that wasn't from the left.

All the political violence comes from the right, she's insinuating.

Sometimes these people say it explicitly.

Oh, no, it all comes from the right.

And this shooter,

I really hope he wasn't from the the left, but he probably wasn't from the left.

And actually, it's all from the right.

And then the Reuters says, well, hold on.

You're saying it'd be better if it's not on the left, not just because you don't want blood on your hands, but no, because you think it's better to contain it to one side and all of the violence is on the right as it is now.

Yes, yes, yes, exactly.

There's no political violence on the left.

Forget about BLM.

Forget about Antifa, the most prominent and active domestic terrorist organization in the country,

which has tried to blow me up too.

And forget about the BLM, which committed political violence against the right for eight months, burned cities down, killed dozens of people.

Never mind, never mind, never mind.

All of the other campus events

where the left has not only shouted down right-wing speakers, but attacked them, not only in America, though largely in America, but even overseas.

Forget all of that.

No, no, no, no.

The violence, it has to come from the left.

Despite all, or rather, the violence has to come from the right.

It can't come from the left, they say.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Then, because the evidence obviously points to the political violence being a left-wing problem, the way that they get out of that is they cook the books.

I made this point during the show on Friday.

Seth Moulton, the Democrat congressman, was saying that the violence comes from the right.

75% of it comes from the right, not from the left.

I said, well, hold on, that can't be true.

And then I just went back through the most prominent examples of left-wing political violence, including one that was against me from Antifa just a couple of years ago.

And I realized that the authorities just didn't classify it as left-wing political violence.

They would downgrade everything.

Oh, it was just obstruction of justice.

Oh, it was not ideologically motivated.

It was motivated by a desire for attention.

Oh, oh, oh.

And they just write it out.

So the way that they can even come to those statistics is by just lying and by covering up all of the left-wing violence.

But this woman makes one very important point.

And this is the part that is really weighing heavily on a lot of people right now, which is she says, well, look,

it doesn't matter.

It doesn't really matter what the ideological motivations are.

And that's true, but it's true in a way that she doesn't realize.

Even if it came out that this shooter were on the right,

which at this point, given this evidence, it cannot.

It is proven he is of the left.

in like every way that you can possibly prove it.

But even if it were the case that it were somehow all irony, it were all just a big ruse and he's actually a bowtie tweety Mitt Romney voting Republican or something, even if that were true, it wouldn't matter

because of the reaction from the left, because the left, because the normie left has shrugged its shoulders at or attempted to justify or outright celebrated Charlie Kirk's assassination.

We'll get to all of that in a moment.

First, I want to tell you about Helix.

Go to helixleep.com/slash Knowles.

I love my Helix mattress, mattresses, I should say,

because I'm such a magnanimous father that I've even gotten Helix for my kids.

What makes Helix different is they don't sell you just a random mattress.

They match you with the perfect mattress for your body and sleep style.

Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, somewhere in between, they've got you covered.

All you've got to do is take their sleep quiz and find your ideal match.

When you find the right match, you will wonder how you ever slept on anything else.

For those of you who sleep hot, the temperature regulation is a total game changer.

I love Helix.

I got my Helix mattress, I don't know, five years ago or something like that.

It's really wonderful.

My kids absolutely love theirs and it'll help you sleep.

It'll help you sleep.

Right now is the perfect time to upgrade your sleep.

Helix has a fantastic extended Labor Day sale.

Go to helixleep.com slash Knowles, KNAW LAS to get 25% off site-wide.

HelixSleep.com slash Knowles for 25% off-site wide.

Enter the show name and check out so they know that we sent you helixleep.com slash Knowles.

The New York Times, no less prestigious a platform than the New York Times, just ran a column by Hassan Piker.

Hassan Piker is a left-wing streamer, pretty popular.

Hassan Piker on Charlie Kirk.

The two men had very different politics, but as a fellow star of a new political media class, the left-wing streamer had a personal reaction to Mr.

Kirk's assassination.

I'm not even going to read it.

I don't see any reason to read the New York Times these days.

To put the fact that the New York Times would interview Hassan Piker at this moment into perspective, here's Hassan Piker talking about political violence.

Kill them.

Kill those and murder those mics in the street.

Let the streets, let the streets soak in their red capitalist bloods, dude.

So it's easy enough to listen to that guy and say, man, he's a retrobrate.

He's a Neanderthal.

He's not fit for polite society.

He should be exiled.

He's what a joke.

First of all, he's relatively popular.

Second of all, he's being lifted up in the New York Times as one of the voices to listen to in the wake of this assassination.

I could have said a couple of years ago that this guy was fringe.

Play it again, just for the people in the back seats.

Kill them.

Kill those.

Murder those mother in the street.

Let the streets let the streets soak in their red capitalist bloods, dude.

The red capitalist blood.

He's not talking about Al-Qaeda here.

He wouldn't speak that way about Al-Qaeda.

He's not talking about geopolitical adversaries.

He's not talking about murderers.

He's not talking about rapists.

He's talking about capitalists.

He's talking about you.

He's saying that the streets should be soaked red in your blood,

in the blood of people who

support

relatively open markets and private property.

And that guy, I would have called him fringe, of course, but I've noticed he's gotten more popular.

But now you can't really call him fringe left because he's being exalted by the New York Times, which is the most prestigious outlet on the entire left.

So

that's the elite.

Let's turn to another long-standing left-wing publication, The Nation, published this two days ago, three days ago.

Charlie Kirk's legacy deserves no mourning.

The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn't a promoter of civil discourse.

He preached hate, bigotry, and division, just dancing on Charlie's grave.

A man who was murdered for politely advancing centrist, moderate Republican ideas.

and speaking in a genteel and generous way with his opponents on college campuses.

The justifications for Charlie's assassination,

the celebrations in some cases, are not just coming from some weird.

There are always weirdos.

I'm sure there would be some weirdo on the right if a left-winger got killed.

There would be some fringe weirdo who would be shunned and condemned by everyone else on the right.

In this case, though, it's coming from the elite.

That is what is so distressing.

You want to talk elite.

The president of the Oxford Union, Charlie, was invited to speak at the Oxford Union.

I got an invite to speak at the Oxford Union, not that long ago.

And it's a similar, it's a debate society.

We have some here.

There's the Yale Political Union.

It's a formal debate society where you're supposed to have civilized people following Robert's rules of order, debating topics.

Charlie did a great, great job at the Oxford Union.

Here is what the president of the Oxford Union had to say, George Abarananyi or something.

He says, all caps, Charlie Kirk got shot.

Let's effing go.

Prayers up.

Prayers up for his being shot.

Not to help him and protect him as he was shot, but celebrating the fact.

Thank you, God, that he was shot.

Lest there be any confusion, here is George Abarananyi

describing his views of political violence in extreme detail.

at the Oxford Union.

To effectively create change in the world we desire, inside prop will argue that at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation.

And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with.

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.

Is that ambiguous too, New York Times?

You're going to write a bit.

It's just his message is so unclear.

The president of the Oxford Union,

when he said that he wholeheartedly supports political violence against people on the right, I just don't know what he could possibly mean.

This is jarring for a lot of people

because

of two things.

One, that guy is technically elite.

I know it's absurd that he walks into the Oxford Union wearing a do-rag.

It's absurd that he was admitted to Oxford.

It's absurd that he is tolerated in polite society.

But he is.

He is in there wearing something vaguely resembling a tuxedo.

He's the president of the Oxford Union, and he's defending calls for violence against ordinary right-wingers.

And then he's celebrating when Charlie Kirk, the most mainstream right-wing talker and debater in the world, was murdered.

And he is in the elite institutions.

That's the first reason.

The second thing that is really jarring for a lot of people is this guy knew Charlie Kirk because this guy showed up to debate Charlie

wearing a sweatsuit or something.

Again, just tells you a lot about our institutions.

But he showed up.

Now, this was, I don't think at the Oxford, maybe this was at the Cambridge Union.

I can't quite tell.

But he met the guy.

He knew the guy.

And this is what's really striking a lot of people.

Charlie.

Look, obviously a lot of us knew Charlie and a lot of us were friends with Charlie.

Charlie had a lot of friends, but some of us have known him for many, many years.

And so you think, all right, man, this has been really tough on people because,

I don't know, he's a friend of ours.

No, that's not why.

That's part of it for some of us, but that's not why.

It's, I think, mostly the reaction.

The fact that people we know,

family members, friends, people we grew up with, people we work with,

do not merely

hate the the way we vote.

Do not merely say nasty things about us.

Do not merely even call us hyperbolic terms like Nazis and Hitler or whatever.

Though those things are related, I guess.

They want us dead.

They're saying they want us dead.

I'm not reading the tea leaves.

The message is not ambiguous.

They want us dead.

They would be happy if we were murdered.

They would celebrate that, actually.

And

I don't even think that they realize what they've done.

Maybe some of them do and they don't care, but others, I don't think they do.

I remember years and years ago, Ann Coulter came to campus.

I was in college.

And my friends were going off.

Some of my friends were going off about how much they hated Ann Coulter and how she was evil and calling her all sorts of terrible names.

And I said, you know, there's really not much difference between me and Ann Coulter.

They said, not at all, Michael.

That's not.

It's totally ridiculous.

I said, said, no, we kind of basically believe the same things.

The only difference is she's famous and I'm not famous.

And they kind of laughed it off or whatever.

They just wouldn't confront that fact.

And that's really, especially when you're talking about Charlie Kirk, who was much more moderate than Anne, who was much more measured and centrist than Anne, or than really anybody on the right.

Because then the only answer that the left can have, your friends, your family, and your coworkers, is, no, no, no, we're happy that this guy got murdered,

but we wouldn't want you to be murdered.

We wouldn't be happy if you were murdered.

I mean, yeah, we're happy he got murdered because of his beliefs, but no, there's a big difference between you and him.

He says his beliefs out loud.

That's the only difference.

The only difference between Charlie Kirk and half this country is he had the guts to say it out loud, to state his moderate, normal, common sense views out loud.

And they murdered him for that.

And implicit in the broad, public, elite attempt to justify and explain away and shrug off and even celebrate his murder, implicit in all of that is a threat.

You shut your mouth or you're next.

And we'll cheer it on.

We'll dance on your grave.

That's what's implicit.

And that is...

60% of the national trauma around Charlie Kirk's death.

The realization, the undeniable, I'm sorry to say, realization.

I try to give every grace I possibly can to the other side.

I try to see things from the other side's point of view.

I don't want to strawman anyone.

I know Charlie.

Charlie was very gracious to the other side.

And yet

it's just undeniable.

It's just the New York Times and it's CNN and it's The Nation and it's the Reuters and

it's the head of the Oxford Union.

And it's all of this

saying, no, no, we really do want you dead.

No, we really do.

What he said does justify his death.

Well, he was divisive.

He was controversial.

You better not be.

So what do we do in the face of all of that?

I have an idea, which is

quite common sense and I think generally popular.

Some don't agree with it, but I think it's the only thing we can do.

And it is what's happening right now.

We'll get to that momentarily.

First, I want to tell you about Manukora, honey.

Hold on one second.

Go to manukora.com slash Knowles, Canada W-L-A-S.

Are you looking for something simple and delicious to add to your wellness routine?

You've got to check out Manukora honey.

In fact, I didn't have Manukora honey this morning, and I sound like I'm paying the price right now.

I need to go get some right after this show.

Manukora honey is exceptional because it offers both incredible flavor and great health benefits.

This rich, creamy honey is ethically produced by master beekeepers in New Zealand's remote forests, where bees collect nectar from the native Manuka tea tree.

What makes the honey special is its impressive nutritional profile, three times more antioxidants and prebiotics than ordinary honey, providing powerful support for your immunity and gut health.

It even contains MGO, a special antibacterial compound that comes from the tea tree nectar.

It's really, really delicious, which is the main reason that I recommend it.

It's got all those extra benefits, but I think it's just really, really delicious.

You can use it, you know, put a little bit in your tea.

You can also just have a teaspoonful each morning.

That's all you need to benefit from the wonderful bioactives.

So right now, it's easier than ever to try Manukura honey.

Go to Manukora.com slash Knowles, save up to 31% plus $25 worth of free gifts with the starter kit.

It comes with an MGO 850 plus Manuka honey jar, five honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon, and a guide.

Manukora.com slash Knowles, Canada WLAS, save 31% plus $25 worth of free gifts.

It is not possible.

to have an open marketplace of ideas when people shoot up the marketplace.

I made this point on the show on Thursday or Friday.

I posted a column to X about this that went pretty viral.

This is not a particularly radical opinion.

This is a pretty moderate opinion that has been the standard understanding of politics

for a very, very long time.

But it's lost on some people now.

I don't know why.

Maybe people are too ideological in their thinking.

Maybe they've just been sloganeering to, I don't know.

But

we like healthy and robust debate.

That's a really good thing.

America has a great, wonderful tradition of that.

And we sometimes use this phrase, the marketplace of ideas, to describe it.

And I think that's actually an apt analogy.

It's an apt picture because marketplaces are great and there's wonderful exchange and it can lead to flourishing and mutual enrichment, but marketplaces have to have rules.

There have to be some rules.

You need to have common media of exchange.

You have to have trust in the marketplace.

You need to have some security in the marketplace.

You need to have rules that regulate the commerce in the marketplace.

When people undermine all of that, you cannot have a marketplace.

You cannot have, to use a phrase from G.K.

Chesterton, the thought that stops thought.

We have a wonderfully open and healthy society in America, at least in principle.

But that society is circumscribed by things like the Constitution, by the ideas articulated in the Declaration of Independence, by morality and religion, as the framers told us explicitly and repeatedly, that the Constitution does not work to govern an immoral and an irreligious people, and many other such statements.

So,

yes, we have

a relatively open society, but it can only remain relatively open within certain constraints.

If you undermine those constraints, your society commits suicide.

That's what we're seeing here in the marketplace of ideas.

If you enter into the marketplace of ideas and say, we're going to shoot all of you if you disagree with me, you have not expanded the marketplace of ideas.

You have not contributed to the marketplace of ideas.

You have fundamentally undermined it.

So it's an, even if you are a defender of the free marketplace of ideas, it is a fundamentally incoherent view to say that we should tolerate this kind of stuff.

And just as a purely practical political matter, we cannot continue as a country if half the country openly wants to murder the other half and openly celebrates the murder of the other half merely for expressing opinions, especially for expressing very moderate and centrist opinions.

It is not possible to go on that way.

You will not have the social trust that is requisite to have a country.

This is an urgent, urgent problem.

It's actually an existential problem.

Something has to be done about this.

I cannot go into a restaurant if I believe that the kitchen staff with the crazy colored hair and the wearing all the weird stuff and the crazy flags and everything, if I believe that that person in the kitchen is going to poison my food because that person in the kitchen wants to murder me because half the country wants to murder me for holding normal ideas,

we can't have restaurants.

If I believe that

I go into a workplace and my coworker

is salivating at the prospect of murdering everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton and celebrating that and calling for that and threatening that, then we can't have workplaces.

We can't have a country

under those conditions, much less a free marketplace of ideas.

So

what must be done first is not, as some people are calling, merely to redouble our devotion to the free marketplace of ideas.

Maybe you can get to that eventually if you really want to.

But what must be done now is is to reassert order.

Order is not contrary to liberty.

It's not contrary to freedom.

It's not contrary to the exchange of ideas.

It is the prerequisite for those things.

Liberty requires order.

You cannot simultaneously be free and ignorant.

You cannot simultaneously be free and undisciplined.

This is why we do not let toddlers vote.

We all recognize this.

Not only the founders and the framers, but every even semi-reasonable person.

We behave as as though that is true all day long.

We must have order.

And I'll put that into really practical terms.

There need to be consequences for undermining the whole system.

People who go out and say that ordinary, normal

conservatives should be murdered wholesale and the streets should soak in their blood, those people need to be ostracized from society.

They should be corrected first in charity and graciousness if they refuse to behave as they ought in the most basic ways that civilized people have to behave.

If they persist in particularly antisocial behaviors, if they persist in particularly suicidal ideologies, they need to be ostracized.

And I'll make it even more practical.

They need to lose their social standing.

They should not be welcome into polite society.

And in some cases, they should lose their jobs.

We didn't even get to

all of the consequences that we're already beginning to see, but there are some hopeful signs.

There are companies who are firing people for this, and they need to.

They need to do it.

And with any political reform,

I think one should always err on the side of caution, err on the side of restraint.

But I think a good place to start would be with people who are openly celebrating the murder of an innocent man whose only offense was expressing his opinion.

And that is happening now.

That is beginning to happen.

Microsoft has said comments celebrating violence against anyone are unacceptable and do not align with our values.

Office Depot said much the same thing.

NASDAQ, Perkins Coy, a left-wing law firm, very prominent left-wing law firm, said that.

This is not who we are.

We've separated from the individual who was celebrating the murder.

The Carolina Panthers, Delta Airlines has suspended employees over these kinds of social media posts.

This is really, really important.

And

I don't want people to be confused by this, and I don't want them to be led astray by liberal ideologues,

by the squishes.

But

ask yourself, what is the purpose of the open marketplace of ideas?

You don't need to wonder that long.

The people who promoted this very idea, going back to the Enlightenment, going back to the early days of liberalism, going back to writers like John Milton and John Locke, they tell you

the purpose of the open marketplace of ideas is to arrive at the truth.

The argument for the open marketplace of ideas is not just to amuse ourselves.

It's not just to threaten everybody.

It's not just to post funny memes.

It's to arrive at the truth.

The argument

And I'm not weighing in at all on whether this argument is convincing.

I'm just saying the argument is that by having more and more voices in the public square, eventually the good ideas are going to win out over the bad ideas.

And so then we're going to arrive at the truth.

The means by which this occurs in the open marketplace of ideas is through debate.

If you tolerate or even celebrate

murder for debate, then you have fundamentally undermined the entire open marketplace of ideas.

Do you understand that?

This is what Chesterton means by the thought that stops thought.

This is what the squishes and the very shallow people, even on the putative right, just don't seem seem to understand.

The whole idea of the open marketplace of ideas is that we arrive at the truth through debate.

If you tolerate celebrating murder for debate, you've undermined the whole thing.

You haven't expanded the,

you've committed ideological suicide.

We can't have that.

We need,

these companies are doing a very good job.

by firing these people.

In certain cases, in teachers, for instance, there was a teacher in Canada who showed the assassination video in 4K to a classroom of 10 and 11-year-olds and then justified it, then celebrated it.

These people need to lose their jobs.

They need to face severe consequences.

Law enforcement, President Trump through Stephen Miller, very ably saying that

the government will go after left-wing terror organizations.

Antifa is an organized terror organization.

They have anarchist bookshops.

They make bombs.

They practice shooting us.

They attack us regularly.

And in the case of Charlie, they succeeded.

They need to be vigorously prosecuted.

They need to be vigorously suppressed and run out of society.

Not to undermine our liberty, as some ridiculous people are suggesting, but in order to preserve our liberty.

The only way that you can possibly preserve liberty, the only way that you can possibly preserve a healthy exchange of ideas, the only way that you can possibly preserve a flourishing society is by suppressing the elements that undermine it.

Antisocial,

suicidal.

We have so much more to get to.

We just don't have time, so we'll have to get to more tomorrow.

Today is Music Monday, and very fittingly, Tom McDonald has a song dedicated to Charlie.

We will get to it.

The show continues now.

You do not want to miss it.

Become a member.

Use code Knowles Canada Yearly As a Checkout for two months free on all annual plans.