Tucker Carlson: America After Charlie Kirk

Hey, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Last week, within just really minutes after Charlie Kirk was shot at that event in Utah, a kind of proxy war broke out over his memory.

Who gets to own it, who gets to use it?

While the rest of us were still reeling in shock, trying to figure out what happened, a ton of people appeared online, not just in this country, to tell you exactly what happened, exactly what it meant, and exactly what we should do next.

And you can see why, with this this level of emotion, rage, and grief in the air, it's pretty wise to leverage that much energy.

It's almost like nuclear power.

It can be used for good or bad.

And a lot of people wanted to use it.

There's no question about that.

So they begin telling you, Charlie died for this.

He lived for this and he died for that.

So the crazier reaches of the left, it was Charlie was a Nazi.

And the lesson is Nazis get killed.

It makes sense.

He was a bad guy who got what he deserved.

And a lot of them said that out loud.

Certain parts of the right immediately told you that actually this was about something completely different.

You know, Charlie died for Israel.

Many began to say the prime minister of Israel said that, and so did a lot of other people.

Charlie was a defender of Israel, which he was, by the way.

And therefore, he died for that cause.

But none of these explanations, all self-serving, are really satisfactory.

They don't capture who Charlie Kirk was.

And on some basic level, they're dishonest.

Charlie was not a Nazi.

He was not killed because he was a Nazi.

Yes, he was a defender of Israel.

He didn't die for Israel, however.

Why did he die?

What was his life about?

What was the sin, the core sin that Charlie Kirk committed against somebody, power, that got him killed in the end?

And the answer is right in front of us, certainly those of us who knew him.

Charlie's life was defined by his Christian faith.

Not his religious faith, not his spirituality, but his belief in Jesus, his life as a Christian.

Everything in his life flowed from those beliefs.

Everything, everything he did, said, and believed came from the fact that he was, above all, a Christian.

And that

is and was, and in fact has always been deeply provocative and offensive to the rest of the world.

And why is that?

It's worth thinking about it for just a second.

Christianity doesn't seem like the kind of religion that would provoke people to anger and violence.

In fact, it seems just the opposite.

It's the world's most profoundly nonviolent religion, maybe the world's only truly non-violent religion, a religion based on a man who Christians believe was also God, who, as he was being led away to be tortured to death on made-up charges, scolded one of his disciples for fighting back.

This is a religion committed to love above all and to living in peace and harmony, truly.

It's a universalist religion that believes that every person has a shot at heaven.

It's not exclusionary at all.

And so you would think it would make sense that if you're a government or if you're in power, that you'd want a lot of Christians living in your country because they're not going to cause massive problems.

Not a lot of sincere Christians are fomenting insurrection at any given moment.

Pretty much none most of the time.

They're tidy.

They get married.

They love their children.

They pay their taxes.

They're commanded to pay their taxes.

So why wouldn't you want a nation full of Christians?

Why wouldn't you encourage this religious belief, even if it wasn't yours?

Why would you hate it?

Well, there are a couple of reasons.

There are a couple of things about Christianity, and these were evident throughout Charlie's public life, that are deeply provocative to the people in power.

And the first is the insistence that Christianity comes with inherently, that you are not God.

You are not God, and neither are your leaders.

God is God, and all of us stand before him in the end to be judged, and all of us will be found lacking.

Christians believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus.

That's the only way.

But all of us, whether we believe in Jesus or not, are fallen.

We are sinners.

We are less than we ought to be.

We are not gods, and neither are the people who lead us.

And this has a lot of implications.

The first being, if you're not God, you don't get to do whatever you want.

There are limits.

There are rules that you didn't write that you have to abide by.

That's not a judgment.

That's a statement of fact.

Some call it natural law.

It's been the basis of every functioning society since the beginning of time.

But the basis of our society is the Christian understanding of justice, which flows from that belief.

You are not God.

God is.

He writes the most basic rules.

You abide by them.

Period.

That's the basis of our law.

That's the basis of Western law.

And that is a threat, a challenge to people who would ignore the limits on their behavior, very much including our leaders and very much including the most powerful people in our society, whether they're elected or not.

Nobody wants to be told you're not allowed to do something.

And Christianity inherently tells people that.

It doesn't judge them.

It just states it clearly.

No, you do not have the power to kill except possibly in self-defense, but you can't just go killing people.

And you can't go killing people because, and this is the second thing about Christianity that tends to set the teeth of the powerful on edge.

Christianity insists that every human being is created by God, every single one.

And that means that every human being has a soul, a distinct, unique soul created by God.

It is, once again, the only true universalist faith there is.

And the New Testament is the story of this, an underread collection of books that is not the story of the Old Testament.

It is very much the story of the New Testament.

In the New Testament, all people are God's chosen, every single one.

And the story itself.

makes that point.

The founder of most Christian churches in the early Near East was a former Pharisee, a Jew who was in charge of killing Christians until he famously met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

His name was Saul.

It became Paul.

And he is the most prolific author in the New Testament and the basis of a lot of Christian theology.

And his life tells the story.

People can change no matter what they look like, no matter what they previously believe, no matter where they're from, no matter what language they speak, because they are created by God.

And every person,

every single person, whether you like them or their relatives or the way they look or not, has that chance because all were created by God and all were loved by God.

That is the basis of Christianity.

That's the Christian story.

And so a sincere Christian proceeds with that belief.

There is no tribalism in Christianity.

There is no identity politics.

It's the opposite.

You may prefer to be with people who look like you.

That's fine.

But God doesn't prefer to be with people who look like you.

God prefers to be with with all people because he created all people.

He's the God of the universe, not just of the people you like.

And that, again, has massive implications for the way that sincere Christians live and for the way that Charlie Kirk lived his life.

And the first is, if other people have souls, if they, like you, were created by God, then they have freedom of conscience.

You can tell them what they ought to think, but you can't make them.

You can tell them what they ought to say, but you can't force them.

Christianity does not convert by the sword.

It can't.

It requires free will, and it requires free will because it respects the individual conscience emanating from the distinct soul of every human being.

And that is why, in the West, which is based on Christianity, our civilization is a Christian civilization, tattered though it currently is,

collective punishment, hurting people for the sins of their relatives, is unthinkable.

It's a crime.

Because each person will stand alone as he was made before God.

And every person is equal before God fundamentally.

Does it mean each person is equal in his ability?

It doesn't mean each person is equal in the choices he makes.

Of course not.

But it means that every person is a human being with a divine spark inside.

That is the core assumption of Christianity.

And it was obvious when you watched Charlie Kirk that he believed that.

Charlie's been famously quoted for the last couple of days saying he abhors anti-Semitism.

That is absolutely right.

And he did.

He said that in public and he said it very often in private.

He meant it too.

But he abhorred racism and bigotry on the basis of genetics of all kinds because he was a Christian and he believed that God created each person.

Now, why is this a problem for temporal authorities?

Why is it a problem for the people in power?

Because once again, it circumscribes what they can do.

It sets a limit on their powers.

If God created each person, including the infuriating, annoying, disastrously wrong person I'm talking to, then I can't force him to repeat my creed.

I'm not in charge of his conscience.

Only he is.

And that is a limit.

So when Charlie Kirk said, I believe in free speech, he didn't simply believe in free speech because it was in the Bill of Rights.

He understood that it was in the Bill of Rights because it's in the New Testament.

He understood that that's a right that comes from God bestowed on all of us at birth.

And he felt his job, his duty, was not simply to protect it, but to live it, to show people what that looks like.

And I just want to play of the many clips we could play of Charlie Kirk on college campus.

He spent his whole life.

worn out most of the time.

As an older man, I often said to him, how the hell do you get on plane after plane after plane?

But he felt an evangelical duty, small evangelical duty to do it, to get out there and talk to people.

Why?

Not simply to build a coalition or get this or that person elected, but because he believed as a Christian that convincing people voluntarily with words in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

So the Gospel of John begins.

Words are the key to winning people's minds and their souls.

And he really meant this.

He wasn't just repeating the words.

He meant it.

And it was obvious in the way that he interacted with people who disagreed with him and people who hated him.

Here's one clip that tells part of the story.

Would you want someone who is not necessarily stable or ready to bring a child into this world and provide that child the life it deserves?

Would you want them to still bring that child into this world?

Without a doubt, every life has a moral obligation to be able to live.

If I can't give that child the life it deserves, why am I bringing it to...

Got it.

This will be my last question.

I want you to think about it.

If a single mom has two two-year-olds, twins, and she wakes up one day and says, I can't do it anymore.

I can't give them the life they deserve.

But that's just not the circumstances.

Hold on.

Should she be able to take out a shotgun and kill both those kids?

No.

Of course not, because you think that would be objectionable.

That's why I think it's objectionable to eliminate two babies that are six weeks old, because they're morally the same thing.

One just happens to be bigger.

One just happens to be older.

One just happens to be outside of the womb.

They're both human beings.

And you have something in you that says, no way is it okay to kill a two-year-old.

That's called your soul talking.

You have something in you that tells you the truth.

You can call it instinct if you like.

Charlie Kirk referred to it as the soul.

But both mean the same thing.

You have the spark of the divine, God's God's spark, inside you, and it reacts, it hums, it vibrates like a tuning fork.

And you know on a basic animal level, like your dog knows, when something is wrong.

You can feel it.

And the whole purpose of modern society, it seems sometimes, is to get the rest of us to ignore what we know, that vibration inside us that tells us the truth.

Always, it never lies to us.

Charlie did not ignore that.

And you'll notice that in the end, he appealed to it with that young woman.

He didn't scream, you're a murderer in his face, though he considered abortion murder which it is he felt that deeply this wasn't her performance he wasn't you know another non-profit phony at dc feigning outrage about something he really believed that taking innocent life was wrong in the womb or in crowded cities anywhere he thought it was wrong because his faith tells him it's wrong and because his conscience confirms that belief.

And so does yours and so did hers.

So did all of ours.

We know when something is wrong.

And the people above us shout at us, no, really, there's an explanation for it.

That's just your superego barking at you.

No.

You know in your heart, deep inside, what every person has known, and that is the murder of innocence is a crime.

It's a moral crime.

And that girl knew it.

And in the end, that was Charlie's appeal.

Listen to that divine spark inside you.

Listen to your soul speak to you.

Turn off the music and get off the drugs.

Push the distractions, which it's hard to believe aren't actually designed to crowd out that humming inside us.

And be still for a moment and accept what you already know, what you were born knowing.

Listen to that.

Only someone who appreciates the person he's speaking to as an actual human being could speak that way.

Notice how rare that is.

It's been noted in the past couple of days, Charlie was a free speech champion.

Absolutely he was.

And I pray that that's his legacy.

But I also think it's important to explain why that mattered to him.

It was not abstract in any sense.

It was central.

It was the core.

Because consider what it means if you don't respect free speech, which is another way of saying free conscience, the right of other people to make up their own minds about the basic questions of what is right or wrong and to express their views on those issues.

If you don't acknowledge the right of other people to do that and if you take steps to prevent them from doing that, what are you really saying?

You're really saying, I don't think you have a soul.

I think you're a meat puppet I can control.

I think you're an animal, maybe sub-animal.

You're a slave.

You're a person to whom I can dictate belief.

I don't acknowledge that you have the right to come to your own conclusion is another way of saying, I don't acknowledge that you're a human being.

It's dark.

There's nothing darker than that.

And trust me, they believe it.

The ones who've thought about it, and there are a lot of those.

But for a lot of people, particularly those who are just repeating what they think they should say or responding to the momentary rage of the moment,

they just throw stuff out.

And we've got to hope that the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, is in that category.

She said this just yesterday.

Watch.

There's free speech and then there's hate speech.

And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.

There's free speech and then there's hate speech.

This is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category called hate speech.

And of course, the implication is that's a crime.

There's almost no sentence that Charlie Kirk, and I'm not running the risk of appropriating his memory for my own ends by saying this.

It's provable.

There's no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that.

And you've got to think the Attorney General didn't think it through and was not attempting to desecrate the memory of the person she was purporting to celebrate, that she just threw that out there, that she hadn't thought about it.

You hope that.

You hope that Charlie Kirk's death won't be used by a group we now call bad actors

to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build.

You hope that.

You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country.

And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever.

And there never will be.

Because if they can tell you what to say,

they're telling you what to think.

There is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human.

They don't believe you have a soul.

A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views.

And by the way, that thinking, and not to pile on the attorney general, who's a very nice person,

but that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like.

Why do they believe that?

How did we get here?

Is it the video games?

Is it the SSRIs?

Yeah, probably.

But what it really is,

is 12 and then 16 years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that, who say exactly what the Attorney General just said.

Well, there's free speech, which, of course, we all acknowledge is important, so, so important, but then there's this thing called hate speech.

Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way.

They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence.

And we punish violence, don't we?

Of course we do.

They've been taught that every year of their lives.

And so naturally, most of them believe it.

When Charlie Kirk is shot in the throat with a 30 out 6 on camera, I doubt very many young Americans want to see something like that or actually applaud the death of a man, a father, a husband.

But they've been told for their entire lives in schools exactly what Pam Bondi just told them.

Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech, and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime.

That's a lie.

And it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about.

And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them.

There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under the U.S.

code who disagree with their beliefs.

Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity.

of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

That's got to be the red line.

Because again, when they can do that, what can't they do?

And this is something, by the way, way, that Charlie thought about a lot and that I had occasion to talk to him about a lot.

And I really don't want to make any of this about me because it has nothing to do with me.

But I did have reason to have these conversations with Charlie a lot, many, many times over the past three or four months.

And this began at an event that he held in Florida in July, the TPUSA MFest event.

turning point event.

I often go.

I always have the best time.

I always see Charlie ahead of time.

We have a cup of coffee in a hotel room, talk about what's going on.

In addition to being, of course, a conservative advocate, he was also a conservative organizer and a coalition builder.

And he was very involved in politics in a way that I'm not.

So it was interesting as hell.

But it was also a way to learn what young people are thinking about, talking about, because he was on college campuses all the time.

And what is the state of a couple of big debates that are happening within the Republican coalition, particularly around foreign policy.

And Charlie's views on foreign policy, which I think are fairly well known now, a lot of people lying about them,

were evolving,

but had really evolved.

And who knows why he reached the conclusions he did?

I think his Christian faith informed them mostly.

It was also the experience of talking to young people, and his views were very much like theirs.

He believed that the war on terror had been a net loss for the United States, and it caused incalculable damage, not just economic and physical damage, but spiritual damage to the United States.

It was bad.

We got nothing out of it.

We were only hurt.

And he didn't want to see that again.

And he felt very strongly about that.

And of course, I agreed.

And so before that speech that I gave in July, we had a conversation about this backstage, right before I went on.

And I was fulminating and getting all red in the face, like I often do to my shame.

And I was mad thinking about this and thinking about the effort by the neocons in the United States to draw us in to another forever war with Iran.

Not a defense of Iran, of course.

It's merely an acknowledgement that we've done this before.

This happened in Iraq, which

we entered into at the behest of those same foreign policy strategists,

and it didn't work.

And so I was going on at some length backstage with Charlie, and I said,

you know, probably not going to talk about that.

I'm not going to torture you.

I know your donors hate this when I say that.

And also, Epstein was in the news, and it was clear to me that, you know, Epstein's probably not like a Mossad agent or something, but Epstein clearly had contact with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence, but the only one you're not allowed to talk about is Israeli intelligence.

But it seemed true to me.

And I had done some work on that.

I knew a bunch of people pretty close to that story.

So I thought that.

And I said that to Charlie.

And I said, but I'm not going to say that because I don't want to make your donors mad.

I know.

It's just going to be like an endless.

flurry of texts telling you to stop or you're going to lose a bunch of funding.

And he looked at me, I'll never forget it,

and said, go all the way.

Do it.

Go all the way.

I said, man, a lot of things I can talk about.

I don't need to talk about that.

And he said, do it.

So I did it.

By the way, I think that that conversation, he had a mic on and so did I.

It probably exists somewhere on somebody's server, but that's, I think, a faithful rendition of what he said.

And by the way, I'm not trying to blame him for my remarks.

You can.

agree or disagree with those remarks, but I'm saying this only because I was shocked and sickened by the reaction of the ghoulish and really repulsive reaction of the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death.

Basically made it all about him and all about his country, immediately trying to

take the energy, the sadness, the grief that people felt over Charlie's murder and redirect it towards support for whatever project he's involved in.

And by the way, Benjamin Netanyahu is not the same as the nation of Israel at all.

Bibi is despised by many people in Israel.

And if you know people who live there, you know that that's true.

There are huge divisions within the Israeli government.

I mean, there are certain parts of the intel world in Israel that do not support some things that Benjamin Netanyahu has done recently.

So it's not the same as attacking Israel, attacking Bibi, but I don't think I've ever seen anything lower than his attempt to hijack.

Charlie's memory and use it for his own political ends, particularly because what he said was completely untrue.

Charlie didn't hate Jews.

He loved Jews.

He had tons of friends who were Jews.

He loved the state of Israel.

He loved going there.

He did not like Bibi Netanyahu.

And he said that to me many times and he said to people around him many times.

He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force.

He was appalled by what was happening in Gaza.

He was above all resentful.

that he believed Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute his wars for the benefit of his country and that it was shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States.

And he resented it.

Didn't hate Netanyahu.

He wasn't out there with a placard saying that,

but he certainly expressed that to me and a lot of other people.

And there's no question that Bibi's defenders on the internet will call me a liar or a kook, but that's a fact.

And enough text messages exist that I think.

It can probably be verified in pretty short order.

Not that it needs to be, because that is true.

Shortly after that speech, there was a very intense attack on Charlie, and to some extent on me, not that I really noticed, but on him, I have no donors.

He had $100 million worth of donors.

And so, because he was involved in a different project from just yapping on the internet, which is what I do for a living, he was dependent to a great extent on his donors, of course.

It's a nonprofit.

And they went after him and tormented him.

Not all, of course.

Many were supportive, but the ones who were offended by my speech, and there was a small, very intense group who were, tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Two days before he died, he lost a $2 million donation because he had publicly pledged to bring me to the next turning point conference in December.

And he told me over the past couple of months that he was losing a lot of donations over that pledge.

They put out a flyer basically saying that I was going to be at this event giving a speech.

And so he would text me and say, man, I'm really taking a lot of heat for this and people are really mad.

The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie Kirk an anti-Semite and quote dangerous Charlie Kirk an anti-Semite.

He was not an anti-Semite.

He was the opposite and he was not dangerous.

He was a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace.

He was the opposite.

And he was very stung by that.

Those of us who've been called names for a long time are a little bit harder to offend.

Charlie was deeply offended by that and expressed some of those feelings on Megan Kelly's show and in other places.

But that did not let up.

The reason I'm telling this story is because he called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic.

And

I said to him every single time, look,

I've got my own way to communicate my views.

This is actually not the most important issue to me.

There are lots of things I can talk about.

I don't need to come to turning point.

I can take a year off.

No problem.

I hated seeing how much he was suffering.

The hassle he was getting from people.

And I was being attacked too, by the way.

It was a huge effort.

I wasn't fully aware of it actually because I don't go online that much, but there was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee, for example.

Someone who had his own problems with free speech, who was famously canceled.

And I like Seth Dillon.

I had him on a couple of times.

I had dinner with him to show support.

Seth Dylan was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage, because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever.

Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case, that that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying.

This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about.

It's not just about Israel, by the way, at all.

The trend is really simple.

People with power don't want to hear disagreement.

They don't want to be challenged ever.

That's why we have free speech, to acknowledge that even those of us or people with less power still have a right to talk because they're human beings.

You don't own them.

So time after time, Charlie would call me or come to see me and let me know, wow, or show me text messages.

These people are really mad that you're speaking.

And I would always have the same thought.

Well, like, I feel pretty moderate, actually.

I've never been an Israel hater.

Obviously, I'm not an anti-Semite.

I just don't want more wars.

And I don't want a foreign country humiliating my country and telling us what our laws have to be.

I mean, this seems like pretty basic America stuff.

And he would say, I totally agree with you, but they want you off the stage.

And I would always say, no problem.

And he would say, no, it's important.

It's a matter of principle.

I want you to be there.

Great.

By the way, I'm not accusing anyone of being involved in that murder.

I'm not trying to mutter darkly or imply anything.

We don't, there's a lot we don't know about who murdered Charlie and why, but I don't know, and I'm not going to pretend that I do.

But I think it's important to say that out loud because it's a fact, and there are many liars out there trying, Bibi Netanyahu, number one among them, shamefully, who are trying to distort the truth, a truth that I know and can prove.

And the last thing I'll say about Charlie is that his views were changing on topics that had nothing to do with foreign policy, you know, the famous kind of red line, third rail, can't talk about it.

But it's possible that the subject that makes people even madder in Washington, New York, and L.A.

than having non-conventional foreign policy views is having non-conventional economic views.

Man, they really don't like that at all.

And Charlie's views on economics and on the way that wealth is distributed in the United States were changing fast, really changing fast and hardening.

Not because he was a socialist, hardly.

He was about as much of a socialist as I am, not at all.

But because he lived here and he spent a lot of time with young people and he couldn't help but notice because he was an observant and honest person, that they're not thriving at all and that the chances they'll have lives comparable to the ones they had growing up are very small.

Most of them won't have houses.

They won't own anything.

They'll be in debt.

And for that reason, they won't get married or have children.

And so the people who are born here won't continue their legacy in the United States.

It's the end of our civilization.

And the root of a lot of this is spiritual, but the root is also economic.

And it raises a question, a basic question of fairness.

And I tried to address this in the speech that I gave for Charlie in July.

I don't think I did a very good job and it was misinterpreted, but I invoked Bill Ackman.

And the point I was making had nothing to do with Bill Ackman being a criminal or even being an Epstein

friend.

I mean, I don't really know anything about that.

I don't know much about,

I'm not accusing Bill Ackman of a crime, and I'm not accusing him of, you know, being a sex creep or...

massage or anything like that.

I don't think that.

I don't know that for sure.

And I wasn't trying to say it.

What I was trying to say is that Bill Ackman is not creative, not particularly intelligent.

Bill Ackman is worth $7 billion.

So you have to ask, like, how?

And

it seems to me that Bill Ackman is rich for the same reasons that a lot of other people I know are rich, because he's hyper-aggressive and he's well-connected.

And my only point was, if you live in a society that awards the spoils to people on the basis of those two qualities, like the most aggressive, the best connected people get the richest.

That's a dysfunctional society.

There should be a reward for creativity and decency and hard work, steadfastness, following the rules.

Like you should have to add to the sum total of your society, you'd think.

It's not an argument against the free market.

It's the argument against whatever we're living through right now.

This is really dark and ugly.

And if people like Bill Ackman are getting the richest, what has Bill Ackman done?

Shorted the market or something?

Talk down Herbalife?

I mean, I'm not even saying that should be illegal.

All I'm saying is, if that's one of the richest guys in your society, you've got a very sick society.

I don't think Bill Ackman's like a drooling idiot or anything, but like, when was the last time you heard Bill Ackman say something constructive or creative?

Like, never.

So it's just bad.

And it's not just about Bill Ackman, of course.

I mean, he's just a minor player in the life of the world, but he's a kind of metaphor for how off track we've gone.

And that doesn't seem like a socialist point.

Once again, I'm hardly a socialist, and neither was Charlie Kirk.

That seems like a Christian point.

Fairness is at the root of the Christian story.

People will be judged not by who their parents were or by how they look, but on their hearts, on themselves, on choices that they made.

That's fair.

So again, fairness is essential to the gospel and it's essential to any working society.

In a fair society or a society that its citizens believe is fair, people will comply voluntarily with the rules because they don't think the game is rigged.

But in a society in which Bill Ackman, Bill Ackman, makes $7 billion

and like the smartest, hardest working, most interesting, creative young people you know can never own a home, in a society like that,

you're going to get Mom Donnie as mayor.

You're going to get a lot of bad things because people will opt out of the society because they know it's not fair.

It's rigged.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

And Charlie, not surprisingly made it much more eloquently i thought in an amazing interview the last interview i did with him uh late july of this year here's part of it we know how to create wealth but we don't know how to create it for the generation that needs it most If you look at the economic conditions, you would think the other conditions surrounding it are like abject poverty.

These are the problems that like third world nations have.

I know.

Our young people can't afford stuff and they have to finance their basic necessities.

And yet we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world on the planet.

We have a $37 trillion GDP.

We have the greatest companies, and we have all this stuff to brag about.

And yet, all of our problems would beg the question, and it's like this inherent contradiction.

We're super wealthy on one side, like a powerhouse juggernaut, and we are like an economic nightmare on the other side.

How did that happen?

So, if there is such a thing as the left in the United States, if it still exists, you would think a message like that would at least get a hearing, a respectful hearing.

Like, hey, what about wages?

What about the ability of young people to just buy a little house with a little yawn and sub lawn in some subdivision?

Like, isn't that kind of what they say they want?

Empower, you know, the most vulnerable, the people who try hard and play by the rules.

They called him a Nazi.

They didn't care that Charlie Kirk in real life spent his time trying to stop war,

trying to,

figure out how young people could buy a little house somewhere.

Aren't those like left-wing goals?

No, they didn't care at all.

And in fact, they hated that because they're for war, because they're for death, because they're for the inequality he described.

Because it leads to a volatile society that empowers them, of course.

They're not a check on power, the professional left, the trans community.

They're the shock troops of power.

Charlie Kirk was a check on power.

Charlie Kirk, inspired by his Christian faith, stood up to people fearlessly to say what he thought was true.

And for that, I will always love and admire him.

I want to go down to someone else who loved and admired him and knew him well and played a pretty, I think, important role in the final months of his life.

And that is my old friend, Megan Kelly.

Megan, thanks so much for coming on.

Oh, Tucker, thanks for having me.

That was a barn burner, man.

You hit on some really important big points.

I don't even remember what I said, but I meant it.

So I just want to start.

You had this experience last week that I've always prayed I never have.

You were on live, you were live when the news came in that our friend had been shot in the throat.

And your reaction was captured for all time on camera.

And I just want to start by playing it.

I thought it it was just an incredible moment that said so much about you and about him.

So here it is.

Oh, well, it looks like we don't have the side.

Well, in it, you said the line that stuck out to me, your first reaction was, he was sent by God.

That's the first thing you said.

You'd not heard this news before.

Why was that your gut reaction to his shooting?

Because I had spent so much time with him over the past few years, just on the air, Tucker.

You know, I never went out to dinner with Charlie.

I didn't know him quite like that, like

a personal friend.

But I'd had him on the show more than 15 times.

I'd been on his show repeatedly.

I'd been to multiple turning point events and, you know, talked with him backstage quite a bit, just done a lot with him professionally, a lot.

And I mean,

I wonder if he's been on anybody's show as much as he was on mine over the past couple of years.

And I got to know his thoughts on virtually everything.

And I saw what people are seeing now: how they were all infused with his Christian faith, that he was a truly happy warrior, that he gave almost everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, that he had a much more positive and optimistic outlook on humanity than I do.

And I think than you do.

I mean, I think we're a couple of cynical mofos.

And Charlie wasn't.

Charlie was, he was like an angel.

This picture that the left is painting of him in the news is totally foreign to my understanding of Charlie or to anything I've known.

And I watched Charlie on his show, too.

I know, I know the things they say he said that were controversial.

They just fundamentally choose to misunderstand and misinterpret him.

I mean, he was,

you need to look no further than Erica in order to see.

that he was real.

Like her goodness, her love, their love story, her strength in the wake of his death.

That's the woman he loved, and that's a woman who loved him.

Why?

Because he was some devil figure?

The opposite.

These two were as wholesome as you could find.

And everything he said was from his love of humanity and his belief that they could do better.

I mean, I'm much more like, no, they can't.

Let's move on without them.

Like, we've got to, you know.

And Charlie, I mean, in all of these college campus exchanges, whenever talking about most people, he would feel like everyone

could be redeemed.

And if he could just get to them, if he could just talk to them, if he could just buoy them up with hope,

they would do better.

They could see themselves as Charlie saw them, as God sees them.

And I just ran into that optimism and that positivity from Charlie so often that I really did see him as God's messenger, Tucker, as an angel sent to us.

And it's like, we didn't deserve him.

I feel like he's gone now because we didn't deserve him.

Man,

you are too deep for cable news.

No wonder you left.

That's just such a beautiful summation and so insightful.

I'm not sucking up.

I mean it.

That's, I

wish I had said half of that in my open.

So, but why is that so provocative?

I've been thinking about this since he was murdered.

Like, what, of all the people that we know in our business, you know, the kind of let me give you my opinion business,

I think it's fair to say he was the kindest.

I mean, for real and in private too, he, even people he was really mad at, he would always say, well, I try, you know, I understand where that person's coming from.

It's like, wow, he, his decency was a challenge to me who struggles to be that.

Why, why,

why was that so offensive to people?

Because it was power.

It's so much more powerful, frankly, than

negativity and anger.

It's infectious.

You know, it's a contagion.

It's like a magnet for people, whether they like him or not.

They're drawn to him.

And he was converting people.

So he was a huge threat.

That's really, like, I've been asking myself this question a lot over the past week.

You know, let's take the accused shooter in this case.

Yes.

And let's say, okay, this, this was, it was motivated exactly as the authorities say.

And he was, he thought Charlie is, quote, too hateful.

And this is a guy who's into furries and he's into trannies and he's living with one and you know, all the things.

Why would Charlie have been targeted by this guy for that?

Why would it be Charlie?

You say all the same things.

I say all the same things.

Most of the people in our space and in conservative or independent media say those things.

Why?

Why Charlie?

And sadly, I think it's this factor.

It's this

magnetism from him, this positivity, this aura, like this angel-like aura around him that was so incredibly threatening, way more threatening than the rest of us, because it was powerful.

And it was winning people over.

It was converting people at a rapid rate.

And not just any people, but young people, you know, the people who had never been converted before, the people for whom people who talk like you and talk like me had never even tried.

They weren't even players on the field.

It was, they were seeded in the whole battle.

And he said, no, no, no, no, no, we're not seeding them.

I'm going to start at 18 to speaking to them in a way that they can hear and understand me.

And I'm going to practice it.

You know, for the past 13 years, he practiced.

He went out campus after campus.

And in the beginning, he wasn't as good as he was in the end.

He was good, but he wasn't as good.

And so it was a skill he developed over time that made him more and more threatening, more and more effective.

And you look at the numbers just in the presidential election.

It's not an overstatement to say that Donald Trump has Charlie to thank for his election in November 2024.

Swinging the youth vote by nine points.

We've never seen anything like it in the past hundred years.

You don't swing the youth vote toward a Republican.

Nothing in modern presidential politics.

So he was a really integral, hugely important player, even though he was so understated and projected zero ego.

So you didn't see him like that.

He didn't have sort of the swagger of that in most of his public appearances.

He was quick to subjugate himself to whomever he was talking to.

But he was way more important than he ever let on.

And I think that's why he was perceived as such a threat.

That's why him saying the things others would say carried an extra layer of threat,

both to this shooter and to Charlie's many detractors.

And I just want to add as a period to this, as a footnote, I guess, to this, Tucker, you have a lot of it too.

And it is the reason why Charlie is not the only one who's been threatened or was threatened to cut ties with you or not platform you.

I too have gotten that, especially since you've been more outspoken on Israel.

And I couldn't care less the amount of pressure they put on me.

I'm like, what are you talking about?

This is madness.

Why would you want to silence such a powerful, important voice just because you disagree with them on one subject, one on which we've all watched you sincerely evolve as you grapple with principles you've been espousing for years, like America First, like what's happening to Christians, like what's best for us and our kids here?

What, how do I keep them safe?

That's my number one priority.

And I've been just absolutely disgusted and recoiled from people who have tried to pressure me on it.

It'll, of course, never happen.

But I know from speaking to Charlie, he felt it too.

You've heard it from Charlie that he felt, and there is a layer here of nefarious pressure to have certain narratives go only one way

that must be called out and must be fought.

Well, I should have said in my open that when Charlie was denounced as anti-Semitic and quote dangerous by the American Jewish Committee, you were two.

That was a press.

I don't know if you've ever even seen it.

And I just remember when I read that at the time thinking, okay, these are like two of the most pro-Israel, basically pro-Israel people

on the internet.

I don't understand.

So I maybe we show this offline, but let's just have it now.

I don't get that.

Why would you attack?

There are definitely people who hate Israel who are not anti-Semites or people who hate Israel who are anti-Semites.

There's a whole range.

And then there are like people who have like, you know, religious reasons for wanting to blow up Israel.

Those are all threats.

Why would they be attacking you and Charlie?

And honestly, I feel like me.

I mean, what is that?

Why attack people

who are pretty reasonable, who don't want to get into a fight on the topic, who just want to like have their country thrive.

Why denounce them as dangerous anti-Semites?

What is that?

And let me just underscore for your audience what I had said.

I mean, the sum total of what I had said when they started coming for me, just to show the absurdity of this.

I had said on Piers Morgan that Israel was losing the PR war, that they had lost the Democrats and the Independents and were starting to lose the Republican Party in America.

And it was time to wrap it up, which was a quote from Donald Trump, who had said it a year earlier when he was still a candidate.

Time to wrap it up.

That's what I said about Israel.

And then at turning point at the Student Action Summit with Charlie, we talked all about Epstein and my appearance there.

It was all about Pam Bondi, frankly.

And we talked about whether he might possibly be an asset for someone.

And I said he might be.

And Israel, yeah, would make sense to me.

Didn't know, but that's one of the things we should consider and look at.

And that will conclude the list of things I said about Israel, that after two two years of going on the air and defending them every week, turned some weird crowd into, she's an anti-Semite.

So, I mean, F these people, because it's a lie.

It was even more of a lie about Charlie, who had said even less than me.

He had said nothing, like absolutely nothing.

And they use those terms about him because he was on the other side of me when we had that discussion and because he hosted you and because he had the nerve nerve to invite Dave Smith in a debate, because he allowed one side to be represented, and he had the Israel side fully represented too.

So this was just such an unfair accusation.

And I don't know why

these very ardent advocates don't accept friendship when you offer it, when you've proven that you are genuinely a friend.

I've said openly, Tucker, there's no, I'm not, I don't want a debate.

I'm on their side.

There's no reason to put somebody on this show so they can convince me that Israel's right.

I'm on their side.

I agree with that.

But in response to those comments and then ultimately having Marjorie Taylor Greene on, where we criticized APAC, I mean, who defends a lobbyist group?

They treated me like I was Mehdi Hassan.

Not everybody, you know, but like the loudest Israel defenders.

And

to turn around and call Charlie Kirk an anti-Semite is such a disgusting smear.

And you're right.

He's young.

You know, he was young and wasn't used to being attacked like that by people who supported him and people whose donations are actually really important to the ongoing existence of his organization.

And it took a lot for him to say no to them.

And it took a lot for him to be honest about the fact that his opinions had evolved.

And let's face it, Charlie was like an unofficial spokesperson for the youth of America, in particular conservative youth.

And I don't know if people have checked, but they no longer support Israel.

Everybody under 30 is against Israel.

Charlie was 31.

And so as a friend, he's saying to them, same way I, as a friend, I'm saying, I am telling you, you've lost Dems independents and you're starting to lose Republicans.

You need to wrap it up.

You've had a two-year long leash.

I know you want your hostages back, but this cannot go on until you have every hostage.

It's just not going to, you're going to lose every friend you have.

And that's what he was saying because that's what he was hearing from his constituency.

And so what he did to them was brave and noble to the donors who were very, very pro-Israel.

It was brave and it was noble.

He did not deserve to be smeared over it.

And look, I, like you, have zero belief that this had anything to do with his death, but it's part of the larger narrative that you're making, that he was a truth teller, that he was a fearless truth-teller, and that there were a lot of pockets when he turned to them and said those truths that grew extremely uncomfortable.

And whether it was some too online,

disgusting, messed up 22-year-old in Utah, or somebody who couldn't stand his messaging that was very frank around race or around Islam, whatever.

Take your pick.

He said the

hard truths on all of these things.

I think a lot of people have to have a really ugly conversation with themselves now in the wake of his death about whether they added to the hate surrounding him.

And for Benjamin Netanyahu, who really tormented Charlie, we talked about it many times.

He tormented Charlie and his advocates tormented Charlie.

For him to run around saying that Charlie died for Israel is just too much.

It's just disgusting.

And as his friend, I feel that he's not.

And that statement was out

of line.

No, I agree with you.

And I never talk about Bibi Netanyahu.

I don't really, I don't think much about him.

I just don't.

I had the opportunity to interview him a couple of months ago, and I declined.

I'm just, I'm just not, no, I just don't want to.

I didn't want to platform him.

I didn't actually, frankly, want to do all the work that I would have to do to sufficiently interview him in a way that would be, you know, tough, as I do when I have any foreign leader in my crosshairs.

I just wasn't interested.

I, I, whatever.

For him to do what he did was wrong.

It was deeply, it was a moral wrong to sit out there and read part of Charlie's letter and try to have the final say on Charlie's pronunciations about Israel.

And he knew that they weren't the full story.

And he's a foreign leader.

He's not an American leader.

So how dare he?

You know, at best, you come out there, you say, I'm so sorry for this loss, my prayers to his family.

That's it.

He was out of line, Tucker.

And I, as not even a Netanyahu critic, saw it very clearly and talked about it today on the show, too.

Can I ask you about next steps?

I'm always wary of people who want to.

I just want to ask you about two issues.

One are hate speech laws, which I'm paranoid about, but I think we should be.

And two,

is the effort by one person in Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, to get the federal government to ban sex changes for children.

And she can't seem to get that done.

So are we going to get hate speech laws, do you think?

Pam Bondi seems to suggest we are.

And two, are we ever going to ban the mutilation of kids?

So, on the hate speech comments, that was an absolutely ridiculous comment she made today.

I mean, it was absolutely foolhardy.

There's just no way she doesn't know what she said is legally unsound.

There's just no way she was attorney general of the state of Florida and became U.S.

Attorney General and doesn't know that.

So, it does worry me because does that mean she's actually pushing for a policy change?

Because there's just no way she doesn't already know what she said is wrong.

There's been reams of Supreme Court precedent on it, and she knows that.

So is this about policy change?

She tried to wiggle off of her original point as the day went on, as incoming came almost universally from the right, that she had said something very, very wrong constitutionally and vile as a moral principle.

And we've been fighting against this for decades on the right.

Like, what is she saying?

She sounded like a Merrick Garland.

She sounded like an Attorney General Kamala Harris would have put in in place.

And so she tried to pivot off of it as the day went on and tried to make it smaller into, no, all I'm saying is violent threats, criminal threats are going to be punished.

Well, yes and no, it depends on the threat.

There's actually only a sliver of threats that is actionable under the law.

So you're getting closer, but you're not quite there.

You're giving, again, still too wide a berth to attacking free speech.

But yeah, it is true that certain threats, true threats, can be ruled unconstitutional.

You could go after somebody.

So she does worry me.

And, you know,

Trump was asked about it and he kind of made a funny joke about it going after the ABC

news interviewer who asked him the question.

But I think Trump will see that there's so much resistance to this on the right that he won't let her do that.

He won't let her push for it and he won't let the Republicans do it.

I just have to think Trump reads his base better than she does.

Yeah, I agree with that.

And speaking of reading your base, and I've got to thank the presidents for this.

I don't know why Speaker Mike Johnson has held it up, but I mean, we don't let kids get tattoos or smoke cigarettes, but we do let ghoulish doctors who are getting money for doing it mutilate children.

Like,

why can't Marjorie Taylor Greene get a hearing on this legislation?

I don't understand.

I know.

I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that.

I mean, like this, they chalk this up to, oh, it's a spending resolution.

We're just going to continue the spending that's in place until, right?

It's like, okay, you're funding mutilations of children.

And not just the mutilations that are done with surgeries.

you're funding with these, you know, puberty blockers into cross-sex hormones, sterilization of minors who cannot possibly consent to that.

And not just sterilization, but actually the end of all potential for sexual pleasure.

How does a 12-year-old understand that he's sacrificing that with your weird experiments on him?

It is truly a moral scourge what we're doing to our children.

And I don't actually, I'm sorry to say, I don't have a lot of faith that that's going to get a ban at the federal level, which means it'll be left to the states, which means if you live in a blue state, it's, it's go, you know, have at it.

Go ahead and mutilate children and sterilize them and deprive them of sexual pleasure because it makes you feel good.

It's not dissimilar to the left saying Trump shouldn't add additional law enforcement.

They shouldn't accept additional law enforcement where he wants to send it because it's racist to let black people live.

It's racist to let them live in peace, to not be carjacked in these inner cities, which are predominantly African-American.

That's what the left is telling us, that it's racist for Trump to send those troops or even volunteer.

And they're saying the same that what's good for children,

what's kind, what's the honorable thing to do is to let deranged parents chop off children's healthy body parts and sterilize them because

that's what an evolved person would do.

And so that's another thing that this angel sent to us would speak very frankly about and

threaten all these people who have a constituency, whether it's someone with a last name, Pritzker, who actually has money invested in the transing of children, that governor's cousin is one of the big funders of all these school pushes on the trans issue, or somebody who just gets Jones out of saying they're going to open the prisons and let black people not get arrested for the crimes because they just think that's beneficial, I guess, somehow to other black people who are usually their victims.

Never mind the race of the victim.

It's not beneficial to any of us.

In any event, I don't have hope on that front.

We're going to keep fighting.

But if they don't ban it at the federal level, which I don't think they're going to,

we're never going to get all 50 states to ban it.

I think it would be worth reading a daily roll call of the people standing in the way of that because that's the kind of crime that historians will reel in horror that we allowed.

I think your remarks about Charlie at the beginning were like some of the wisest I've ever heard.

And I'm actually going to look at the tape because I was so impressed by what you said and moved by it.

So, Megan Kelly, thank you for taking time late at night to do this.

I appreciate it.

Great to be with you, as always.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, we have

someone joining us now who are just really, really grateful to have.

Someone who has been famous for decades

for a different skill.

And in the last 10 years, has really emerged as a consistent voice of wisdom online.

And never interviewed him before, but really happy to, I don't think.

Scott Adams joins us now.

Scott, thanks very much for doing this.

Nice rabbit, Doctor.

Yeah.

We talked once before

quite a few years ago.

And it was on Fox News, and I've just erased that whole part of my brain.

It's like CTE or something.

I can't really remember what I did there.

I think I'm ashamed of some of it.

But anyway.

Tell us what you think

the lesson of Charlie Kirk's life and death are.

Like, what strikes you immediately?

Well, you know, one of the big questions is, how did somebody get to that place where it seemed perfectly reasonable for them to get a gun and shoot a living human being?

Yes.

And

some people know in your audience that I'm also a hypnotist.

I'm a trained hypnotist.

And so I tend to look at these situations through that filter.

And through that filter, you can see a really clear cause and effect.

You know, starting around,

let's say 2016, there was wall-to-wall, Hitler, Hitler, Nazis, 24 hours.

Before that, there had been other Republicans who had been accused of being Hitler.

But I think that everybody treated it like hyperbole.

You know, oh, it's just, you know, it's a political insult, and it's the most common one.

So you don't take it too seriously.

Yes.

But imagine being a young kid.

and growing up when the news, the people in nice clothing would go on TV and they would say, in all seriousness,

he's basically Hitler, the Nazis are coming.

And you would create a mass hysteria.

Now, a mass hysteria would be worse than TDS or drum derangement syndrome, because that would be sort of what happens to an individual that could have TDS.

But if you have a lot of people who have TDS and they start...

talking to each other, pretty soon you've got a mass hysteria.

And the mass hysteria created this, what I call a Hitlerian bubble, meaning that a lot of people are living in what they think is a reality that is just completely Hitlerized.

They see Hitler everywhere and they see it in Trump.

They see it in his lieutenants.

And this is different.

So this is not like what we've seen before.

All it takes to completely brainwash somebody to believe ridiculous things, even things that their observations should tell them are not true.

All you need is people in good suits whose job makes them seem credible to say day after day, it's the repetition that matters, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

And you convince people that they're living in a hellscape and they better do something about it.

So the main thing I saw was that.

You know, once the bubble is formed,

it's hard to get out.

I mean, you can't talk people out of it.

There's no amount of information that will change their mind.

Cognitive dissonance will kick in if you show them a counterexample.

And the weird thing about Charlie, who I'd never met, by the way,

I didn't have the pleasure.

The weird thing is that when I started hearing all the accusations, and there were a lot of them, I said to myself, well, I'll bet some of these might be a little bit true.

So I started to look for the original quotes, et cetera.

None of them are true.

And there were a lot of them.

They were all either a made-up quote or a quote and a context and nothing else.

And when you hear people talking about it, especially the young people, they'll say things like, he was a bad hater person,

but there's no example.

So that's sort of the sign that it's

a mass hysteria because they can't give reasons and they don't seem too interested in the reasons.

They're just sure that something has to be done.

Now, on top of that, for the young people, there's probably also an economic pressure.

They might feel that life doesn't have a positive path.

So that might be playing into this a little bit as well.

But I do wonder what will happen.

And I predict that there's going to be another big bubble of psychological distress.

when the people who have said such bad things about him in public realize that none of it was true.

Because over time, it looks like he's going to be talked about so much that

we'll finally have a complete body of information about him so we can understand them.

And it won't happen to most people.

Most people will just have cognitive dissonance.

They'll still believe he was Hitler Jr., but there will be some people,

not a big percentage, who are going to realize that they did something so shameful that it will haunt them for the rest of their lives, that they were part of saying something terrible about one of the best people that we've witnessed.

I mean, he genuinely was a high character person, and you can see it in everything he did.

So there's something big coming up.

But then another thing that happened that was fascinating to me, because I didn't expect it, which was the Democrats have always had what I call a machine, which is that since they worked with the media, you know, they had the media in their pocket, you would see it happen when they'd have some, all right, our message this week are these words, and then everybody would say the same words, and then the media would just pump it out.

So it was like this big, well-functioning machine, and then they had the NGOs and all the funding tricks, et cetera.

But when Charlie Kirk died, you could almost feel this massive energy being released.

You know, he sort of controlled it, but when it was released, you know, his mortal coil was no more.

I feel like that energy just went into people.

And suddenly tens of millions of people simultaneously said, what can I do?

What can I do right now?

That's different.

People don't say, I'm going to stop everything.

Tell me what to do.

I'm going to go to church.

A lot of people did.

I'm going to say stuff on social media.

I'm going to hunt down the people who said bad things and cancel them.

But I'm going to do something.

We're going to figure out how to start another chapter of TPUSA.

And

all of that's happening.

And it doesn't seem to be slowing down.

The vigils, et cetera.

If anything, the energy,

it might be growing.

And I've never seen anything like it.

In my life, I've never seen the Republicans turn into their own machine, and now it is a machine.

And it's going to be incredible.

So,

you know,

I was thinking yesterday, it sounds like a joke, but it's quite serious.

The thing that protects the Democrats from, you know, also having some kind of problem like this is that they don't have any leaders that are worth taking off the board.

I mean, if you said to me,

Somebody's got a plot to take Tim Walsh off the board, I would say, oh, no, no, no.

If you're a Republican, you ought to keep him there because he's not doing a good job.

You're Jasmine Crockett, your Chuck Schumers.

I say, please keep them right where they are.

They're doing a great job.

Nobody needs to harm them.

But on top of that,

I don't believe that Republicans, conservatives ever even think that way.

I've never heard one.

say anything suggesting violence.

Like not even in just a casual conversation, the joking way you might do it in private, nothing like that.

And I think it has to do with the fact that overall, the

conservatives, the Republicans, MAGA people tend to look at Democrats almost as if they're clowns.

They say things that literally make me laugh.

No joke.

I sound like Biden there, but

I literally,

that frightened me a little bit.

I literally will watch the news and watch Republican prominent people talking because I think it's funny.

And

when the left watches the right, they think they're watching monsters.

Yes.

So you can imagine how somebody wanted to kill a monster, but nobody wants to kill a clown.

Well, maybe somebody does, but

so far Republicans have not wanted to kill any clowns.

And I do think,

well, first of all, the cancellations we're seeing, I have a little bit of mixed feelings about it because my point of view is that the people involved who are getting canceled are themselves brainwashed.

And I don't mean that in sort of the,

I don't know, the

hypothetical way or anything.

Like, I mean, actually, literally, they've been exposed to the strongest brainwashing you could have, which is about eight years of wall-to-wall Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

And, you know, Charlie's one of the the generals.

So if you can't get to the Hitler, you're thinking, well, you know, maybe one of the generals would be less protected.

And that was the case.

But I feel a little bit bad for them because they're victims too.

But at the same time, the way society works, you can't let them get away with that.

So there has to be some reckoning.

And I am enjoying, I have to say, being a cancelled person myself, I am enjoying the

Schadenfreude or the

catharsis of seeing that it can go both ways, at least for now.

And by the way, I do think that the violence goes in both directions, but I don't think that there is an equivalent to a massive machine that's been creating a situation that guaranteed there would be violence.

If you just keep saying Hitler and you're selling it not as hyperbole, but you're selling it as absolute fact, the people who don't have access to alternative theories are going to believe that and they're going to act on it.

So,

and I like the fact that there's a little mutually assured destruction.

The left is getting to see a little bit of payback, reminding that

the Republicans aren't going to take infinite abuse.

You know, there's going to be a point where it's going to come back.

I kind of like that.

But I just,

you know, overall, I wouldn't be proud of it, you know, the cancellations.

I do believe that they're brainwashed victims.

And I do wonder.

Yeah, go ahead.

Well, I thought your description of brainwashing seems accurate.

It's very distressing to think that could happen in our free republic, you know,

the free and brave United States.

I thought the people were more independent-minded than that.

So that's sad.

It's probably just human, though, a weakness that we all share, the susceptibility to propaganda.

But

why would you want to hypnotize a population or a portion of it?

Like, usually, there's a goal in mind.

What's the goal here?

Well,

power.

Democrats know that they can win an election that way.

If they had better ideas and better policies and charismatic leaders, I imagine that's what they'd go with.

But, you know,

Trump enters the contest, and you have the most charismatic leader with sensational ideas, according to at least his base.

What are you going to do?

He's the common sense guy.

Are you going to say, we really do want the border open?

We really do want a little bit more crime in our urban centers.

What are you going to do?

You don't have any kind of a rational attack to the common sense president who's been here before and knows how to get this stuff done.

So it's just all they have.

And I don't know that it's, I don't know that it's intentional that they did it so hard that it guaranteed violence.

I don't think violence was the intention.

I think just winning elections was the intention.

Yeah, that sounds right.

So thank you for this, by the way.

Last question.

Where do you foresee this going?

Well, you know, it's unpredictable because the cognitive dissonance will cause people to think in a way that's non-standard.

That's that's exactly what it is.

So there might be a lot more of that coming.

But one of the things that's going to happen is it might be the last

what would you call it, the last straw that makes the entire Democrat situation collapse.

Because if you look at their situation, they're running out of money.

They don't have good leaders.

They don't have ideas that can beat the competing ideas.

And they don't have momentum.

They don't have the podcast world.

You know, the conservatives have that pretty nailed down.

Basically, they have the best talent for just about everything right now.

Just an amazing amount of talent

in

the right side of the world.

But then you add on top of that the emotions and the feelings that people got because of Charlie Kirk's death.

And that was probably the only thing missing was

no matter what, I'm going to get to the voting booth.

You know, you could have a hurricane

and conservatives are going to crawl through glass to get to the voting booth.

So I suspect we will see a number of votes from the Republicans like we've never seen before.

It could be sensational.

Scott Adams, I really am grateful that you took time to do this.

You look great.

Thank you very much.

Godspeed.

Thanks, Tucker.

Thanks.

I got a text earlier today from someone I sort of know saying, Cenk Uger, why is he on your show?

The Young Turks guy?

Isn't this a tribute to Charlie Kirk?

Why would you have some screamy lefty on your show?

Well, precisely because Charlie Kirk's life work was speaking with, not just to, but with.

people he disagreed with vehemently, I thought that our next guest, who's run the Young Turks for probably almost 20 years now, I think.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, who is one of the most visible daily broadcasters on the left, the fact that he had this kind of amazing exchange with Charlie Kirk.

Well, a couple of them, but one pretty recently, I thought it'd be worth hearing what he thought.

So it is with pride that we announced our next guest.

Thank you, Chank, for coming on.

No problem, Tucker.

Thanks for having me on.

I think it's important that we have a moment like this where we try to bring the country together.

Amen.

I so strongly agree.

You had this kind of famous exchange with him.

I think it was 2018 at Politicon, and it got super heated and bitter.

And it was like, I don't know, things were viral in 2018, but it was viral.

And then you came back to a TP USA event, and I was amazed and impressed both that he invited you and that you came.

And you still disagreed on some things, but it was, I mean, the tone was completely different.

Can you explain that?

And better and great, I thought.

Yeah.

So, first of all, in 2018, that was a politicon that I debated you.

We got along pretty well, as I remember.

We did.

We did.

And Charlie was debating my nephew, Hassan,

a soundpiker.

And, but I couldn't help myself because that's who I am.

And I, in the middle of their debate, I said something to Charlie when I wasn't on stage.

I was in the crowd.

and he yelled at me, I live like a capitalist every day, Chank.

And then we, by the way, some people then thought that it was a racial slur.

No, that was just my name.

He was just slightly mispronouncing it.

So then actually, something happened in between

that moment and Turning Point USA,

America Fest.

So we were at the RNC in 2024, and Charlie came by at our booth and said hey do you guys want to talk

and we were a little bit taken aback by that we're really surprised by it and uh anna and i uh anna kasperians my co-host on the young turks yes uh talked it over and said yeah yeah we would like to talk and so he came on the show and so we had our disagreements so for the it's interesting that you have me on here you know partly uh for the reasons that uh you know your friend texted you about oh well that's strange right left and right.

And so I don't agree with everything that you, Megan, and Scott said about Charlie.

I'm sure.

Right.

But I think that's what makes it more interesting.

So

the willingness to talk to us, even though we were so entrenched on different sides, right?

And so then when we started the conversation, what wound up happening surprised us.

So did we still have our disagreements about the Black pilot line, this, that, and the other thing?

Of course, we did, right?

But

when we started talking about corporate rule, he agreed.

And I remember, like, I want to go back and watch the first interview we did with him at the RNC there because I was kind of shocked by it.

It's like, really?

You're also worried about corporations having too much power and

right?

Because that, Tucker, you can understand.

That was a left-wing position for a long time in this country it was but but the battle has been joined and so that is an incredible development in american politics that mainstream media i think has chosen to ignore because it's inconvenient for them uh then we got into a specific topic um which was banning private equity from buying residential real estate and the idea behind that is Private equity is the biggest bankers in the world, basically.

They are the biggest financial institutions.

And they've started to buy all of our homes.

Now, that creates a huge number of problems.

Number one, it drives up housing prices.

That is why they are artificially high, because so much more demand has come into the market.

And I went to Wharton Business School.

So this is not complicated, though.

This is Econ 101, supply and demand, right?

And so

secondly, what...

The number one

wealth creation asset that the American family has is their homes.

That is how we created the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.

And they're taking that from us.

And they're going to turn us all into renters.

And then we're going to be indentured servants to them.

Okay.

And the way that they are doing this is they are

giving collectively billions of dollars to our politicians.

So this issue connects actually the money and politics issue connects to everything, connects to corporate rule,

connects to capitalism, by the way, which I want to get back to, connects to Israel, because it isn't about Israel or any other particular lobby being

evil or dastardly or in charge.

It's the money that's in charge.

And so if Big Pharma, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, et cetera, give money to our politicians, well, then they pass absurd laws like we're not allowed to negotiate drug prices.

Right.

What in the world?

In capitalism, you're not allowed to negotiate prices.

Right.

I know.

So, and we talked about that.

And he said, you're right.

That is absurd.

And we on the right already believe that, that it's absurd and that it's against capitalism.

Fantastic.

So, look, you're right.

We've been around a long time on the Young Truth.

We were actually the longest running show in internet history.

And in that time, we've had, you know, we've been on for 23 years.

We've had about 21 to 22 years of hardened hardened battle, right?

Fighting back and forth, fighting back and forth, right?

And as anybody who's seen me online knows, I can get emotional.

I can get passionate.

Yeah.

And I'm not a wilting flower.

I fight back for sure.

Right.

So what was amazing, though, was all of a sudden I didn't have to fight back that on those issues, not every issue, and not on all the cultural wars, but on these economic issues, we have begun to agree.

And why?

Because

the average guy is getting screwed.

Period.

It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right.

You're both going to get screwed.

You're both going to have higher housing prices.

You're both going to have lower wages.

You're both going to have higher drug prices.

And the people that brought you that is the donor class.

And so when we agreed to that, Then I said, okay, well, now conversation has become productive.

We're not just yelling at each other.

For the first time ever, we are talking to one another.

And more importantly we are listening to one another so we did it again at the dnc

and then charlie invited me to america fest and i went there and again we disagreed on gun rights we disagreed on some trans issues uh but we wound up agreeing on dick cheney and mitch mcconnell uh for example Neither one of us like them, like either one of them.

I agree.

And you know, Tucker, I'll say this.

And there's a lot more talk about in that context.

But

if you told me you are going to go to a massive right-wing conference in the year 2025,

and what's going to happen is the crowd in unison is going to boo Dick Cheney.

If you told me that when we first started the Young Turks and we're railing against Dick Cheney, don't go in Iraq.

Don't go in Iraq.

Cheney's lying, right?

And people are yelling back, support the troops, you're for Saddam and all this stuff if you told me oh don't worry in 20 some odd years that crowd will be booing dick chene and that crowd will be booing mitch mcconnell because they realize that the corporate class the donor class is in charge and they hate it i would have said oh my god that must be a beautiful day in america

Well, so this is what I admire about you.

You're totally sincere about your principles.

Like

you almost don't care who's agreeing with you.

You believe in the idea, the principles.

So you're willing to make common cause with people you don't agree with in everything.

You're not partisan.

And the second thing I should just, I just want to say it out loud is that young Turks, whatever you think of your politics, has had a stated commitment to nonviolence from the very beginning, and you mean it.

And I just, I just want to say that for people who don't know that.

And I want to thank you for that because I think it's really important.

And anyway, but so let me ask you, how were you treated at Amfest at Charlie's event?

Yeah.

By the way, thank you for saying that, Tucker.

And the principle of nonviolence extends through everything.

So do not be violent to each other.

Violence is intellectual surrender.

That's saying I can't win the debate with my mind.

So I have to act like an animal and try to defeat that person physically.

But that means you're surrendering and you're giving up.

It is, it's the most immoral thing you could do.

It's also the weakest thing you could do.

Yes, I agree.

And but that's not just on an individual level, that's also on a societal level.

So when we go to war, that is in a sense weakness, saying we could not use our minds to resolve this issue.

We could not resolve this issue as fellow human beings.

So now we're going to kill each other.

So that is why we're anti-war.

And that is why one of the most encouraging developments of my life is how anti-war the right-wing movement has become.

So that another great day in America.

So it's still plenty of things we disagree on.

but agreeing on anti-war agreeing on how the donor class is is robbing both of us blind i mean those are huge developments right so now how was i treated at amfest

i've got to be honest with you and and so the the reason why i preface it by saying i got to be honest with you is because sometimes when we go and talk to the right wing

And as you say, we haven't moved on a thing, right?

So folks come to us and I have a simple principle, take the win.

Okay.

take the win.

Exactly.

Like, so, okay, now you agree with me that

anti-war is the right position.

Is my correct answer that I still hate you?

No, that is not the correct answer.

The correct answer is, oh, thank God.

Right.

And now we'll work on the next thing and the next thing and the next thing.

But for now, at least we had no agreements before.

Now we have a number of really important agreements.

So, but nevertheless, I had my share of critics on the left.

You're platforming it.

I went to his conference.

I wasn't platforming him.

He was platforming me, right?

And second of all, stop with all the nonsense talk of platforming people.

Okay.

I agree.

Just listen to one another.

Talk to one another.

That's not a bad thing.

That's a good thing.

But what if you disagree?

And

of course, you're going to disagree.

It's America.

We're free.

We have no two human beings are the same.

Of course we're going to disagree on some issues.

So if you can't handle that, then you can't handle politics.

You can't handle media.

You can't handle America.

Right.

So, okay.

So with that giant preface, I'll say the people there honestly were universally wonderful.

So

they were.

And so you can say, oh, well, you know, ha ha, that means Jenkson with the right wing.

No, I'm just telling you what happened.

If they were jerks, I would tell you that they were jerks, but they weren't

okay

and and i've got to say like this cancel culture it's not exclusively left-wing no i know

tell me about it i mean yeah the efforts that some people made to keep me from speaking at the next tpusa thing people i agree with on a lot of things by the way i don't disagree with seth dylon and everything mr free speech guy trying to cancel me but i was like shocked by it like they really

hassled charlie and just drove him to, you know, to really fret and drove him to anxiety over this.

Oh, no, no, no.

That impulse is a human impulse and we need to resist it.

Yeah.

So I love what you guys said about hate speech and how it's unacceptable to pass laws on that.

Not acceptable.

Yeah, under no circumstances.

So, and this is what I say on that topic.

So

Charlie says some things about Islam that, you know, having grown up Muslim, I'm atheist now, but my family is Muslim.

My background is Muslim.

I'm proud of it

he said some things about Islam that I was not a fan of right to say the least I bet so so you know what I did in return uh I made my case

so what right like what's why is it so

like debilitating if someone says something that you find offensive I've said things that I'm sure others have found offensive you have Charlie has Megan has so what then you say something back okay we don't cancel we don't kill and killing is the most extreme form of cancel culture so

I despise cancel culture and I have the honor of being having been canceled by almost every part of the political spectrum so

man what an that was that was really inspiring and i'm going to text back the person who texted me and said did you watch that

that was wonderful and i so appreciate your doing this.

Thank you.

And I hope you don't take too much abuse for it.

And I'm sure you will, but I guess you don't care.

So good for you.

Thank you.

That'll bounce off me so quick.

I just say this one last thing, Tucker.

I mean, the idea of making laws against hate speech in honor of Charlie Kerr.

No, I know.

Okay, that's like if I passed away and they're like, in honor of Jenk, we're all going to go on a diet.

Tell me about it.

Or the Tucker Carlson no pizza law.

No, I agree.

I agree.

Come on.

That is the opposite of what I've done in my life.

And regulating speech is the opposite of what Charlie did in his life.

So let's all keep talking to one another.

Let's all keep listening to one another and hopefully use this moment not to create further tragedy, but to begin to end the tragedies.

I'm proud to agree with that, you know, really, really strongly.

So thank you for saying it very very much.

Thank you, Doug.

Great to see you.

Thanks.

You too.

So, we want to end tonight, the way we began, by talking about Charlie's faith and the effect on all of us from a spiritual perspective of his life and particularly his death.

There were reports that this Sunday church attendance was up dramatically

as people suddenly felt stirrings within them that this, you know, had cosmic significance and that God is real.

and this is a reminder that he is which he is um jose trenham is a christian minister and we are honored to have him now to put this in a broader spiritual context thank you very much uh for coming on father trenham um

so how would how would you say

we should think about where this goes from here Like people seem to have a heightened spiritual awareness in the days after Charlie Kirk's murder.

How should we proceed?

Well, thanks a lot, Tucker, for having me on.

I appreciate your

interest and desire to bring a priest into this conversation.

I think it's valuable.

I would say up front,

we should be very careful to make any sort of conclusion from this during this very intense time of mourning.

Yes.

You know,

we Christians have a tradition, 2,000-year-old tradition on how to respond to death.

And we take our time.

This is day seven.

This is day seven.

Usually for 40 days, we mourn very, very seriously.

In the Orthodox tradition, for instance, when a bishop or a major leader of the church dies, he's not replaced until the 40 days is done.

And that's not just out of respect for the person.

In this case,

mourning Charlie, really processing what his loss means, is very necessary to do, and it takes time to do that.

And we're not going to be able to make good decisions about the future without calming down and processing what we've gone through.

So, this is the time I think that we should be very careful.

We should mourn.

We should

consign

all

bad memories to the memory hole.

Bad experiences is what we do for our loved ones when they die.

There's no benefit in remembering the bad.

We instead honor the good and try to imitate the good.

We try to,

in the person's name, do good.

So this is my first thought is really we should mourn.

We should be who we are.

And this is what Christian people do.

We should take our time about this.

I'm unfamiliar with this.

I'm embarrassed to say I don't know enough about it, but I sense that it's rooted in something important and wise.

Can you explain a little more why 40 days and what Christians have done traditionally during that 40 days?

What does it mean to mourn seriously?

Yeah.

Well, I share your sense of it not being something common anymore, which is why

I'm presenting it because it is so universally human, actually, and it's not just Christian.

The number 40, of course, is humongous in the holy scriptures.

It's absolutely humongous.

And the 40 days of Christ, fasting, for instance, in the desert.

40 is a very important

length of time that allows us to truly not make immediate reactions

that we would regret.

And right now, everything is so raw.

Everyone who knows and loves Charlie, like you.

This is a very dangerous time.

It's a very dangerous time.

You're being very courageous, and you're actually processing this with people who have known and respected Charlie, which is a fantastic thing to do.

But a lot of people who are in the conservative political movement are raging.

They're very angry.

I was watching a clip from Matt Walsh yesterday, and I saw that Matt was just out there saying that he is just overcome with anger.

I think that's understandable.

Completely understandable.

I have felt that.

Yes.

I'm sure.

I'm sure.

But for us to respect

this Christian tradition, to pray, typically

in the Orthodox and the Catholic tradition, both during the 40 days,

we do good in that person's name.

We actually

do alms.

We do charity in that person's name.

In fact, you're doing that.

Maybe you weren't intentionally trying to do it in a traditional Christian way, but that is what you're doing by trying to help Erica and support her.

I was very, very happy to see that you're doing that because it's

what we do.

It's what we do in this period.

We usually also pray for the person.

We don't think that a person, when they die,

bing,

they've made the transition to the next life instantaneously.

There are some in the Protestant tradition who think that.

Not all Protestants think that, but there are some.

But the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and some like the Anglicans, we actually pray for the souls of the departed.

And we think, we use the image of the story of Lazarus and the rich man from the Gospels, where Lazarus is the poor beggar.

He's neglected by the rich man.

And when he dies, what happens?

An angelic escort comes and picks him up and takes him on the journey to the bosom of Abraham.

For us,

that is a journey.

This process is a journey

for Christians, of going towards the kingdom of God, but we don't think that it's instantaneous.

And so we're collaborating.

It's part of what our funerals are too.

Our funerals are us gathering around the person and asking the Lord in his great mercy to receive our brother or our sister and place them in paradise until we can see them again.

And we're also learning the lesson of sobriety.

We're learning the lesson of death.

We have to think about death and stare it in the face because one of the great reasons we are so undeveloped, spiritually speaking, as a nation is because we don't face death.

Yes.

One of the reasons that we have an incredible revival going on all over the United States right now is because of COVID.

COVID faced, it caused us to face death.

We had been hiding it.

You know, we've moved our old people, our parents and the sick into old folks' homes and hospitals, and they die there, usually not surrounded by their family members.

And then some Christian traditions now even do funerals without the body.

That is just nuts.

It's just nuts.

And it steals, it steals from us the very, very important process of mourning and facing death.

And it changes you.

You know, in the Orthodox tradition, in the Orthodox Christian tradition, the funeral service was written by one of the great theologians of the church.

His name is St.

John of Damascus.

He lived from 650 to 750, an incredible hymnologist, incredible scholar.

He actually was

a very important political figure at the time that Islam, his father and grandfather, governed the city of Damascus.

And when it was taken over by Islam in the 7th century,

the Muslims left the Christians in place for about 50 years because Muslims were Bedouin peasants.

They didn't have cities.

They didn't have development.

And they couldn't run a city like Damascus.

So they they let the Christians do it for about a half a century.

And then about 706, that was it.

And no more Christians in leadership.

And he became a monk at that time, John of Damascus.

And he wrote this incredible funeral service for one of his dear brothers.

And it's used to this day for the last 13 centuries.

And it's a deep reflection on the misery of death, where John is looking into the grave and he is contemplating how horrible it is for a Christian person person to die and to see his soul be removed from his body, which is what death is.

It's the separation of the soul from the body.

It no longer animates the body and it's lifeless.

And to see the body decay.

And he says it happens to the rich and to the poor exactly the same way.

All of the human, you know,

differentiations that we make to honor the rich and to neglect the all gone.

All gone, all normalized, all brought to the dust by death.

By death.

So

I don't mean to belabor this, but I think it's important for us.

It's important, of course, for the immediate family, for all of Charlie's close family and friends to take their time, not expect that they're going to be able to just bounce back instantaneously and get right back at turning points.

Work.

No doubt they will eventually, but I hope that they'll take the time right now to pray, to mourn,

to think deeply about the future and about how they can honor Charlie's name.

This is my hope.

I think that's such a profound thing to say.

And anyone who has been present at the death of loved ones, I think it confirms that it's one of the most powerful and

obviously crushingly sad, but also beautiful and inspiring things.

I mean, it absolutely changes you.

And it's hard to remain an atheist after something like that.

And we have been robbed of that experience.

So what are the signs of hope that you see now?

You know,

I would say

before hope,

the sorrow of what has happened to Charlie is so illustrative of a descent into a level of violence that at least in my lifetime, and I'm only two years older than you.

I was born in 67.

I think you were born in 69.

Yes.

You're a San Franciscan.

I'm an Angelino, born and raised in Los Angeles.

I have never seen anything like this, Ducker.

I have never seen anything like the violence that exists today

in our

towns.

When I grew up in Pasadena, I, as a young boy, I went walking to school.

My mother let me stay out every night until the lights went on.

When the lights went on, I had to be home for dinner.

If I wasn't home for dinner, I was in trouble.

But she had no worries.

She had no worries.

No,

in this last period, 10, 15 years especially, violence has just absolutely exploded you know

charlie reposed on the 10th of september of course the next day was the horrible you know remembrance of 9-11.

he died on 9-10.

We have 9-11.

This coming December is going to be the 10-year anniversary of the terrible terrorist attack right here in...

the inland empire, just 10 miles from where I am right now, when 14 people were murdered and 22 people wounded by a Pakistani Muslim couple that thought that they would do something for Islam by shooting their co-workers.

They were from a mosque one mile from me right now.

That mosque already had two of their

members in prison because of terrorist ambitions.

My own parish, just...

four months after that was visited in the middle of a Sunday liturgy by a group of

Muslim young men who thought it would be fun to bring bullhorns in the middle of our service and come outside the church and scream Allahu Akbar

at our church.

And then, and this is, of course, Muslim terrorism.

But now we also have this

rise of very, very serious leftist violence.

And the whole country, I think, is reeling from the assassination attempts on our president and now an attack on on charlie who wasn't a politician at all so i would say that if we're going to look for hope it can't be fake it can't be fake we have to assess where we are and violence has a special as a sin violence has a very special serious place you know

if you read the patriarchal histories in the opening books of the bible If you read Genesis, for instance, chapter 6, this is the account of God regretting that he had made the human race.

What could the human being have possibly been doing to make God

regret having made us?

And the consequence, Moses tells us, is that he sent a worldwide universal flood.

Yes.

Moses articulated the reason.

The reason God did that and had to start over with Noah.

And in fact, he made Noah a second Adam.

He gave the same commission to Noah that he gave to Adam.

Be fruitful and multiply.

Fill the earth, rule it, and subdue it.

Why did he do that?

It says, because the world had become full of violence.

Yes.

When you attack another man, when you attack another man, you attack God.

Because every human being, as you were just saying so beautifully, is made in the image of God.

And so to attack a human is a direct divine offense.

Violence is extremely serious.

I'm not surprised that we have this level of violence in a culture that murders unborn children at the rate that we do and have sustained it for the decades that we have.

Yes.

Really is any violence surprising?

Do we have hope?

That's what you asked me.

So forgive me, but that's the background.

That is how black it is.

Yes.

That is how black it is.

Do we have hope?

And

what's the future?

I would say that from without a without a belief

that God is merciful and that he loves the human race and that there's no sin so great that if we repent of it, he will not send his love and forgiveness.

Without that belief, certainly we have no future.

The statistics are horrible for our country.

We are so captured by an ideology that is hopeless, atheism, strict secularism, which is running our country now.

It is extremely hopeless.

Yes.

And without a major reconsideration on the part of our people, a return to classic American virtues, a recovery of Christian faith.

Without that, certainly we're doomed.

But

we know, we know from Christian history that repentance is possible.

And it usually takes, in a national sense, in a personal sense, it's up to us to repent and to believe.

In a national sense, it takes leadership.

Leadership that is willing to address the important things at the heart of a

national catastrophe.

And we have been living through national catastrophe.

We have lost our faith in God.

All of our institutions have been captured by strict secularism.

Our law is godless.

Our universities

exclude God.

Our country

has gone down a very, very serious, deep hole.

If we're we're going to get out, if we're going to have hope as a nation, we need leadership, leadership in the likes of George Washington.

I think our forebears, our forebears

are ashamed.

My grandparents and America, they're ashamed at where we are, Tucker, as a nation.

Our relationship to faith, our explicit commitment to God, are excluding him from everything that's important in American life.

We have to repent.

And we need someone.

Give us, God, someone like a King David.

Give us someone like my patron saint, Josiah, who was the last great king of Israel, who himself lived at a terrible time.

His father and his grandfather were both awful kings who had completely apostatized, abandoned the heritage of Israel, led the people to copy the pagan practices of the surrounding nations.

And forgive me, we're way worse than pagans.

I always tell people, look, don't call the secular nonsense that's going on in America America pagan.

That's an insult to the pagans.

The pagans believed in the divine order.

They believed in the gods.

Okay, we don't believe that there are gods.

There is one God.

But the pagans at least knew they were accountable to the divine order.

They were accountable to the gods and that they had to live with respect to the wishes of the gods.

To call America, which has no reference, most of our leaders make no reference to God at all.

They act as though they are not accountable to God's law.

And

I think that's far, far worse than paganism and a full-blown insult to pagans to call it pagan.

No, unless we have a leader who's going to address this, it needs to be addressed right directly.

We need to repent and we need to recover our faith.

If we do that,

times of refreshing will come from

God.

We can be changed.

A new day can arise, but it's not going to be with a little fix.

It's not going to be with a little something here or a little something there.

I've never seen, I've been a priest for almost 33 years.

I've never seen the

radical interest in faith that we're seeing right now.

I'll tell you, if I use my parish just as a little example,

I have maybe, I don't know, a little more than a thousand active parishioners that are here regularly.

And

over the years of my ministry, I've catechized, I've instructed and prepared people for baptism.

You know, maybe 20, 30, 40, a really great year would be 40 people.

I have over 200 people in catechism right now.

And this is happening all across the country.

People are moving towards God, moving towards faith.

If this continues and it translates into lives that are rooted, lives that are where faith is important,

where true repentance has happened, where this

quest

for

just biological life, as though that's somehow the sum total of value, is rejected.

You know, if you study the scriptures, there's three types of life that are described in scriptures.

There's biological life.

In Greek, it's called vios,

from where we get biological, right?

There's the life of the soul.

Many Americans don't even know that that exists.

That's called psiki.

It's the life, it's the most noble part of you, right?

Even the Greek pagans, to use this again, knew that.

The body is like a chariot, and the soul is like the charioteer.

Leading the person in nobility said that the body does virtue, the body does something beautiful, right?

If you don't think you have siki, if you think you're just the body and you don't have a soul, which by the way is the worldview of the major tech titans of our country,

this is why someone as noble as Elon Musk is becoming would stand up and speak to the protesters in England when they were saying, what can we do?

What's our future?

And he said, what?

He said, technology and AI.

I promise you, Thucker, technology is not going to save us.

No.

It is not going to save us.

And to say that is so hopeless.

If we are soulless, and we have greater technology, then the soulless are going to use that greater technology to oppress us.

Of course.

We need to affirm what all all reasonable human beings in civilized countries except the modern nuts secular West,

if we don't recognize that a human being is more than his body, he has more than veos, more than biological life, he has the life of his soul,

and then there's something that's most important, which is eternal life.

Aeonia Zoe, it's called in the scriptures.

Eternal life.

This is the life of God's kingdom.

These are the three fundamental lives.

Two of them we have stopped talking about for many decades, and the consequences have been tragic.

What a wonderful explanation.

Charlie Kirk was very interested in Orthodoxy, as I'm sure you know.

And he was knowledgeable on it too.

I'm not, but I know that, but I'm interested.

But he was very interested in it.

Were you aware of that?

He interviewed a friend of mine, Father John Strickland, who's a very respected Orthodox priest and a Russian scholar who's published extensively on Russian history.

And Charlie was very interested in that.

And I watched that interview and a few comments that he made afterwards in which he actually

got very much into the mind of us Orthodox Christians and explained why so many people are converting to Holy Orthodoxy.

And I thought actually he was spot on.

very much spot on.

He said, people are becoming Orthodox because they want something that is time-tested.

They want something that's substantial.

They want something that actually informs culture, something that isn't just a plaything

and can be categorized over just here.

Or Orthodox Christianity, traditional Christianity in general, it is a lifestyle.

It impacts everything because Christ is king and he's king over every aspect of our life and over civilization.

This is common knowledge.

Europe, of course, you take a train through Europe.

Every town you go through, you're going to go through a town that has the best land given to the church, and the church is going to be the highest building.

Because everyone knew if you don't enthrone worship at the center of your community, if you don't make the heavenly attachment to your earthly life,

you're robbing yourself of significance and you're trivializing yourself to just be limited to time.

The best thing that can happen in America is that people go to church, root themselves in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, because the river of life comes from the altar, out the doors of the church, and vivifies society.

And do we ever need to be vivified today?

Beautiful.

Father, thank you.

And before you go,

I'm going to spell your name.

For anyone who's made it to the end of this, I never do this, but I think what you said is so wonderful that I know that people are going to want to follow up.

J-O-S-I-A-H,

Trenham, T-R-E-N-H-A-M, Senior Pastor and director of your church.

So I know that people will want to know more about you, and now they can.

So, thanks very much for joining us.

I appreciate it.

Keep going, Doctor.

Keep going.

Thank you very much.

Well, we're gonna.

And we're gonna, we will keep going.

We'll see if this format works.

I kind of like it.

Thanks a lot for joining us for an hour and 50 minutes.

We'll be back soon.