[Commentary · Candace Owens] Candace Owens’ Empire of Lies Is Collapsing in Real Time | Weds LIVE Ep. 42

Document text

COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "Candace Owens’ Empire of Lies Is Collapsing in Real Time | Weds LIVE Ep. 42" (published 2026-07-08).
This is third-party opinion/analysis ABOUT State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson — NOT the court record. It is indexed for comparison against the primary transcripts/filings. Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB-icEntNvE) — verbatim ASR.

On Monday, in a courtroom in Provo, Utah, prosecutors began laying out the evidence against Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. The forensics, the video, the medical examiner's findings, Charlie's parents are sitting in that room. His widow is sitting a few feet from the man accused of killing her husband. Listening to the worst day of her life read back to her over and over under oath. Candace Owens looked at that and called it a show trial, telling her audience to expect nothing but quote EEA's tears and an orbit of her payrolled influencers trying to convince you that the unvetted evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. She said the quote real trial would come later. One of the more extraordinary things a free people does, sit down under rules, under oath in front of the cameras for the whole world to see and establish with facts and evidence what really happened to a man executed in broad daylight in front of thousands of witnesses has been dismissed by Candace as theater because the truth threatens to shatter her empire of lies. And of course, the whole thing is a lie in its own terms because a preliminary hearing isn't actually a show or a trial. It's a procedure to decide one thing, whether the case is strong enough to actually go to trial. Candace knows that, of course, she's betting that her audience doesn't. As the hearings in Utah began, she posted something else. Quote, "One more fight, Charlie." She wrote, "I don't fear these demons. We will win." Candace has cast herself as the warrior, the one with spiritual insight, the one with strength who perceives the demons that the rest of us are too asleep or too compromised to see, and who's picked up Charlie's sword to go to war with those demons on his behalf. So, okay, she wants to talk about demons. That's fine. There is something truly demonic about this entire affair. But the demonic force here isn't Erica Kirk, a widow now raising two children without their father. And it isn't Charlie's closest friends, either. the men and women who stood beside him in life and now stand beside his family in the wake of his death. And of course, it's not the organization that Charlie bled to build or the mission that he poured his life into. That's missions now straining, by the way. Trying to carry on the work of Charlie Kirk without Charlie Kirk is no small thing. It also isn't Israel, which has absolutely nothing to do with Charlie's death. And it isn't our own federal government, which also has nothing to do with it. It's not the Egyptians or the French or whoever else is going to be named on a list that seems to grow every day. an endless roster of people and nations and institutions that Candace has slandered one after another after another. No, the demons here are in the man who pulled the trigger. And the demons are in Candace Owens. The name Satan means accuser, as in the one who stands and points at the innocent and says guilty. That's exactly Candace Owens to a tea. Her entire enterprise is built on accusations and lies. a co-mingling of narcissism and resentment and ambition and probably some real grief. Charlie was once her friend after all. All of that though has fused into something genuinely sinister. A person who can look at a grieving widow in a courtroom full of evidence and calculate coldly that the profitable play is to set fire to both isn't confused. She's not misinformed. She's doing evil as she's doing it on purpose. She's doing it for money and she's doing it for fame. Blake Nef said it best on X this week. quote, "As Charlie once told us, Candace is very easy to understand once you realize all she cares about is money." I would add to Charlie's indictment and fame. Candace wants to be Oprah. She wants to be very rich and very famous, the wealthiest and the most famous person that she can be. But you can't slander the dead and torment the living and profit from the whole affair and walk away with your soul intact. It just doesn't work that way. Candace is gambling her own soul and she's playing with other people's lives and she's going to lose both bets. Now, I understand that in her mind she's sitting on top of the world right now. She's the most famous she's ever been. She's the most followed she's ever been. She's being rewarded more than she's ever been rewarded for anything in her life. If you do the math on what her podcast, which was number one in the world, is actually generating in ad revenue right now, the number is staggering. But she isn't slaying the demons. She's carrying them. and she's applauded for it by a gullible and spiritually broken audience every single day. Just today, she tried to spin a whole new conspiracy. This one about Ben Shapiro. Ben mentioned that his security team was in touch with Charlie's security team almost immediately after the shooting. Candace framed this as quote, "Ben confesses." Just one little problem. Candace and Ben had the same security firm working for them at the time. Ben's only security firm, by the way. He he doesn't have some special secret IDF security firm also working for him. He only has the one and it also represented Candace Owens at the time. Interestingly, I was having lunch with the founders of that security firm at the very moment that Charlie was shot. Yes, they did find out right away. Yes, they were in touch with the members of TPUSA security team right away. Yes, they consulted with their own team right away to ensure that their clients, which included Candace and Ben, were also safe. That's called being good at your job. And these guys are very good at their job. So, I guess if that implies that Ben is guilty of involvement in Charlie's murder, it also implies that Candace herself is guilty of involvement in Charlie's murder. But of course, it doesn't actually suggest either thing. It's just another random fact taken out of context by Candace and surrounded with implications and suggestions and nods and winks and side glances and all the rest and then thrown out to the internet as still more proof that something. I'm not actually sure what it is we're trying to prove, except that whatever it is that is the official narrative can't possibly be the truth. The whole thing would be comical if it weren't so tragically sad and so damn evil. Ben said on his show that it's a sin to listen to Candace. Just so if you're listening to her for entertainment, you should be ashamed. If you're listening to her for research, you should guard your soul and guard your mind. But listen, this whole thing was never Candace's story to star in in the first place, no matter how bad she needs it to be. It's Charlie's story, and right now, a real proceeding is underway in an open courtroom laying out piece by piece exactly what happened to Charlie on that terrible September day. Here to discuss that and more, my friend Mark Meckler, co-founded Tea Party Patriots, leads the Convention of States Action, and is the CEO of JTN networks, the parent company of Just the News. Will Chamberlain is an attorney who uh revived human events and now serves as senior counsel at the Article 3 Project and as VP for external affairs at the Edmund Burke Foundation. And Gary Milton, aka Paramount Tactical, who served four combat tours as a US Army Special Forces weapons sergeant and sniper team leader and has spent nine months going claim by claim by claim through Candace's allegations with actual sourced evidence. A thankless job, but we're glad that you're doing it, fellas. Thank you for being here. Good to thanks for having us. >> Mark, >> tell us what's happening in Provo. >> You know, I think this is really interesting. It's different than the legal system in most states. Most people are not familiar with a process like this. So, this is a preliminary hearing. We don't see this in trials in most states. >> And what people are thinking of is a full-blown trial where you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not that. In a preliminary hearing, all they're trying to do is demonstrate probable cause. In other words, the attorneys come in, the prosecution comes in, they bring witnesses, they bring them before a judge, and they're demonstrating to a judge that they actually have enough evidence to conduct a real trial. And what the judge wants to make sure is we're not going to waste the time of the court, right? It's not a sham proceeding. It's not a fake proceeding. These are real charges with real evidence behind them. I think it's a great summary methodology, though. I wish more states used it because I do think it separates the wheat from the chaff and the real cases from the fake cases. And I think for the public, if you're watching this and you're concerned about this case, this is a way for you to get the summary of the case, the base evidence, the base facts in hand very quickly. >> Does the defense also present evidence in this hearing? >> No, actually, it's just the prosecution showing that they have probable cause to continue with a trial. So what role does the defense play if any in the >> I mean they can cross-examine the witnesses and try to demonstrate that it's not good evidence. >> Prosecution is trying to put things into the trial and the defense if anything is trying to keep >> that is correct out of the that's the entire process and and folks need to understand that probable cause way different standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. >> Right. It just means yep this looks like something that should proceed and it's nothing that would send somebody to jail. A and yet one of the things that's happening on the internet as people watch the hearing is that they're seeing for the first time a lot of evidence um that they haven't seen before. And even though we're not going to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt uh of anyone's guilt at the end of this, we we are already seeing that a lot of the counterfactuals that have been presented by people like Candace Owens are in fact untrue. We don't we don't need to determine guilt to determine that many of the things that Candace has put on the record are just false. You've been going through that better than anyone. >> Yeah. >> What have we learned this week that we didn't know before? >> Well, we learned all the evidence that they said didn't exist actually exists. >> Uh including [laughter] including, you know, they they talked about it. They didn't show all of it, but they actually talked about how they do have video evidence of the shooter, the alleged shooter, allegedly Tyler Robinson, moving into position, taking the shot, being at the exact same exact same place, the exact same time. And then the other thing like you know they're going to be be able to link that up and sync that up to the cameras there on the ground as well. So it's not like there's this this this is ambiguous in any way. And really at the other the other end of this is I know people keep talking about well we don't see the exact we we can't zoom in and see that like you know there's recoil or a muzzle flash or whatever else. Um, but at the same time, like a probably what 99 whatever percent of people get convicted of murder all the time without actual video evidence. And we just happen to have that as well. So, I mean, it's almost been comical to watch Candace and many of her sick offense and people downstream of her just crash out and continue to attempt to distort what's being said and what's being done. Yeah, it does feel like a lot of the voices that have been, you know, providing counternarratives really for the for the last almost year, the people most invested in trying to reframe this as being some sort of cover up, some sort of conspiracy, you know, either the uh the fault of foreign governments or our government or TPUSA itself or just the Jews trademark. Um, they really feel like they're unraveling on social media this week like you know people are people who are normally excellent Candace as an example is an excellent broadcaster one of the most gifted uh I get in trouble when I say how talented she is because people hate her and understandably they hate her but when you say when you say yes the person you hate happens to be one of the most talented >> it just upsets people but it's true Candace hugely talented and yet she's not comporting herself uh in any way consistent with her level of talent and sophistication uh or experience this week. I mean, she really feels like she's melting down and she's not the only one. Um, what are you to what are we to make of that? >> I mean, I think it's she's freaking out because you have a narrative that she's been putting forward that is just getting hit from all sides. >> Yeah. >> Um, and suddenly there's just this huge slew of not only the existing facts that need to be explained away, but the new ones that everybody is seeing on video, right? You know, he she made a big deal of saying, I think on Shawn Ryan that she didn't think that Tyler Robinson had even gone to the campus. Well, they have evidence showing him there four different times with him him in in person. She tried to say, "Oh, it's she's he's not as tall." It's like, well, okay, then why was he driving his own car and why was his DNA evidence on the towel and on the screwdriver in the roof? I mean, it's there's going to be so many distinct layers. I mean, even I I was on uh with Jack and he pointed out that there was there was new evidence, a new factoid, which is that he went to Chick-fil-A on campus. It's like, okay, well, then he would have probably paid with the credit card. If you'd paid with a credit card, then that's another piece of evidence that places him at the scene. And the guy lived hours away. Why is he there, right? What's he what's he doing on UVU campus? Um, so you have all these problems. And so now she's got to come up with a sort of new fixation on, you know, a random factoid maybe that'll help her or she's got to, you know, somehow but but in the end, I think the easiest thing to do is start lashing out at people. And so this this explains lashing out at Ben. >> Yeah. So a procedural question for for those of you who know more about this than I do. Um, how much of the prosecution's ultimate case are we getting in this hearing? You know, you say that we find out, for example, that he that Tyler Robinson was uh ordered food at the Chick-fil-A on campus, and you say, "So, probably there's a credit card transaction or probably there's uh would every piece of that have to be presented as potential evidence here?" >> No. >> So, we're we're not seeing all the evidence. You're hearing all the testimony. We're just trying to get get to a baseline that says this is enough to proceed to trial. >> Yeah. I think what what they're trying to do is give the judge enough to say probable cause. Honestly, watching the evidence this week, we're done. I mean, it's pretty hard to look at those videos, to see him on campus, to watch him limp in the way that you would limp if you had a long gun down your pants. All that stuff is enough to make a judge say, "Okay, yeah, you >> we're done with getting to the probable cause threshold." You >> that I mean, my opinion is they've already done it. I don't know if you would agree. >> Oh, of course. I mean, like, think about probable cause is the standard required for somebody to make an arrest. It's the standard required for a grand jury to indict, right? Like if this had been shown to a grand jury, would it have been any problem for a grand for a prosecutor to obtain an indictment from a grand jury? No. Uh I think Utah seems to again have this kind of unique robust preliminary hearing that allows cross-examination by uh the defense attorneys. But even given that sort of unique circumstance, this is still overwhelming from the perspective of probable cause. >> So let's go through some of the actual conspiracies that have been debunked one by one this week. them. What are some things that we I shouldn't say that we now know are untrue because I suspect that we all knew that they were untrue already. You know, one of my favorites uh is as recently as this morning, there were still people in my uh in my mentions saying, you know, why was there never an autopsy? It's like, well, I've only watched a few minutes at these hearings and there was an autopsy. like the the your fundamental premise that there wasn't an autopsy has already been completely discredited >> as as if it were ever credible. Yeah. >> In in the first place. >> Um but it might be fun to kind of go through a few more of those that that you've picked up on this week, Gary. >> Sure. Whether we're talking about Candace or just going into Look, this is this is where I came into this. Number one, I I'd follow Charlie for many years, was a big fan, and was I don't remember if I was watching it live, but within minutes, I was watching what happened. I'm talking less than 10 minutes. I I actually think I was watching a lot. But regardless, because of my background, number one, it felt personal, right? It's like this is a guy that I feel like I know. And I think a lot of people that watch us and you know, they feel like they know us. They have this personal connection with him. Obviously, had never met Charlie prior to that. So, I wanted to know what was going on. I'm skeptical of the government. Maybe they have something to do with it. Although, even at the very beginning, probably for the first week, we didn't really start hearing in the mainstream at least, any sort of these wild conspiracies. But what we did see right off the bat, like day two, we have the allegedly, you know, Rick Cutler with a palm gun. And I'm like, look guys, let's just stop this. That's not a palm gun. We don't see any recoil. There's nothing between his fingers. There's no way to aim that. And then it moved to I don't know, some random kid making a hand gesture. And then it went into an iPhone gun. And and I started debunking that like and this guy's like, I don't know, 50 feet away. But what was weird and and I knew something was happening right then because down in my comments I immediately saw you're a Fed. Wait like I'm a Fed because I said it's not a palm gum because we we clearly don't have anything going. And then immediately you're paid by the Jews. I'm like I couldn't care less about Israel or the Jews or or whatever else. Like what is going on here? And I started seeing that happen. And then we went into um I don't know tunnels underneath Charlie multiple camera guns. Uh there was a >> exploding microphone. >> We'll get to that one because that one's that one's super special right here in my heart. Uh but you know, there was there was all these things. Camera guns. Um and then we also had tunnels underneath Charlie. He was he was shot from below. Um then we went into drones. These drones were flying around that were shooting Charlie. And all I was doing at the time was going through there and debunking this nonsense. And it's not that hard. >> [snorts] >> Uh, and of course, you know, within the first couple days, we were we're all trying to we had very limited footage, especially the first couple days, but we're all trying to interpret an extremely high-speed energetic energetic event that's being filmed at 30 frames per second. >> So, you know, one of my first things was like I thought he potentially had body armor on and then like later on I was like, "Hey, I'm wrong on this. I confirmed that." But as we got more information and things that come out like just debunking these things were suddenly an attack on something, right? Because the attack was reciprocated. There was a counter assault against me saying there's no drones. And that's where things started getting weird. And back then probably around I don't know October or so is when the first time that I started hearing about the exploding mic theory which again coming from special operations I've worked with a lot of explosives like there is visual and auditory observables with an explosion. I don't care if it's a shape charge. I don't care what kind what you got going on. Uh, it gets pretty obvious like there was so much energy that killed this man, but it wasn't enough energy to create enough heat to burn a shirt to >> like create an actual explosion. We see no we see nothing that we would associate with any sort of uh of explos explosive. And what I will say, I gave Candace a lot of credit. I mean, for months and months and months when people would bring up the exploding mic theory, I'm like, this is so dumb that not even Candace is going to touch it. >> [laughter] >> You give her way too much now, Gary. >> She was waiting for the end of that. So, uh, you know, and now here we are. Now she's convinced. And, you know, there's a whole lot of other things in between there that that took place. But, and of course, you know, there's there's the, uh, Charlie's not dead theory. And, you know, which is one of the most disgusting. >> Um, but, you know, that's that's where we're >> when it happened. >> I just pointed out your question was what conspiracies have been disproven by this hearing? And it seems like the answer is zero because they were already all disproven. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> So, >> yeah, I was sitting with, as I said during the monologue, I was sitting with u the founders of FRG Security who uh are are very good friends and who provide all of the security for Ben and all the security for Daily Wire. And at the time, they did some of Candace's security, not all. Um, and they got they got the news, you know, before I did. And in in fact, one of them is who told me as we were sitting there. Of course, they kind of sprung into action. We we we're all standing. It was a very surreal experience. We're in this brand new sort of steakhouse here in Nashville in a new development. So, there there wasn't anyone else there. And so, we sort of had this whole section of this restaurant to ourselves and we're standing at the table. you know, not you don't have a lot of self-awareness in a moment like that, >> right? >> Um because we're in the booth like I I think we're standing kind of uncomfortably still like I am here uh we only got to talk a little bit because they were of course immediately working. You know, they had concerns people, you know, is this a isolated incident? Should we do we need to be concerned for our other high-profile conservative clients? But every every couple of minutes we'd have a down moment, check in with each other, check in with what was happening in the news, what we knew or what we were hearing from whomever we were hearing something from. I remember when the video first started circulating and I said to to one of the fellas who was a dev crew guy and you know those guys all the things that could be done they did right during the war on terror. And I said, I mean, obviously I knew Charlie for a long time since he was a teenager. And you know, your reaction in a moment where you see something like that is not probably the way you would predict your reaction to be. You're in sort of a heightened adrenalized state. But we all went through some version of this, right? Where you >> you're not you're not responding the way you would script yourself to respond. In in the state that we were in, I I was somewhat emotionless because my emotions were over here somewhere. And I just said to uh to the f to to the can I can a guy come back from a hit like that?" And he said, "In my experience, no." And something about something about a guy who has experience like it was a it was an understatement by him, but it carried real authority, you know, in in my experience of watching people take bullets. No, it kind of brought it all >> right brought it all to me. And um for that reason among others, one of the worst uh conspiracies from the very beginning is this. It couldn't have been a 300 6. Uh, and people will say it can't be a 300 6 because it is true that a 300 6 round contains an incredible amount of kinetic >> energy. And it's absolutely true that if a 306 round had hit Charlie's spine, there would have been an enormous release of that kinetic energy. If it had hit him in the head, a tremendous release of that kinetic energy. Um, but a 300 six going through your neck, your neck doesn't even have there's nothing to to stop that round if it if it doesn't hit the spine. There's nothing that's going to slow that round down and release any of that kinetic energy. It's actually the fact of it in some ways being a high caliber round like that with so much velocity behind it in such a soft part of your body. >> Sure. >> It just doesn't even stop, right? straight through. Uh, I hate those kinds of lies the most. I think the 306 lie or conspiracy is so represent so representative of all of the kinds of lies that get told in these conspiracy theories because it contains truth. >> It's certainly true. If you've ever shot a deer with a 30 six uh and hit its center mass, it does a whole lot more damage than what we saw happen to Charlie. And so you're able to find experts who will tell you, "Oh yeah, yeah, that round would carry an enormous amount of uh energy behind it and it would do a whole lot more damage than that if it if it did something that it didn't do, >> right?" >> And that's to me that's how all of these are. Uh that you you find some little something that you can make plausible and then you present it with absolute authority. >> Yeah. I'm telling you right now that could not have been done by a 3006. People hear that kind of authority and it sounds completely plausible that it couldn't be done by a 3006. And then you're able to like on on that >> uh almost like technicality I happen to have been sitting with someone though who knows what it looks like when a round hits somebody in the neck. And so it was never it was never in question. I think that when you examine conspiracy theories, this is true for probably most people when you when you experience the sort of gish galloping that happens in conspiracy theories, the sort I call it the preponderance of false evidence. So many things that just aren't so, as Ronald Reagan might might uh put it. We can all in our own experience and expertise find one or two of those things that aren't right. Like, well, it is it is weird that Charlie wasn't wearing Kevlar. It is weird that there were no eyes on uh the rooftop. It is strange. You know, all these things that in the moment do seem implausible to you. And you go, but I know that 306 thing can't be true because, you know, I know just a little bit more than the average person about how that round would actually release its kinetic energy in that exact situation. But there is something about the power of gish galloping that that doesn't stop you. >> You go, "Well, that one's obviously they're just wrong about that." But what do you make of this? And then you're able to just sort of elied the actual evidence that would disprove the conspiracy. You allied all of that and go right back into the things that can't be disproven. I think that's why these guys are going so crazy this week. >> Oh, yeah. >> Because just thing after thing after thing now is being laid bare before >> being crushed. Yeah. >> There's nothing. And no, they can't move to the next thing fast enough to stay ahead of well to stay ahead of the the actual fact of the the actual reality of the situation. That's what's amazing about this moment. It's the last thing I'll say that >> Candace thrives and people like her thrive on the internet because on the internet they get to set the rules of the discourse. The other thing that's absolutely crushing them all this week is that court is the one institution left in American public life where they don't get to set the rules. The rules are inconstant law. The procedures are inconstant law and you're held to a standard. Now, we might say that there are problems with the standard. We might say that courts sometimes reach false conclusions. Of course, it's not a perfect system, but it is a system. It's a system that you can't just skate around by. but what about why' they paint over the parking lot so fast or whatever the next thing that you want to move people's attention to. The court doesn't actually allow you to do that. It forces you to deal with the evidence as it's presented. And I think that those boundaries uh are kind of like the elven rope in uh in the Lord of the Rings. You know, it burns as precious like they they can't they can't bear the touch of the actual constraints of the procedures that they're having to face right now. >> I think that's exactly right. I think an interesting analogy uh kind of a little bit off offbeat but uh are if you guys are familiar with the trial of the David Irving trial um David Irving the famous uh Holocaust denier uh actually sued an American author for defamation in Britain and you know wanted to go to court over it uh and they went to trial and he lost and if there's a lot of good books about it from like the expert witnesses and other things and you know the expert witnesses who are historians were saying oh it doesn't make sense to use a court is like an arbiter is like an orbital forum for history, right? We should be doing this in the academic world. And after the trial, they're like, actually, this is quite good for an ar, you know, an arbitral forum because uh there's something about sustained questioning under oath that is very that does not allow people to kind of get away from things. >> And you know, I I found this as a lawyer, like when whenever you're asking a question and somebody tries to dodge the question, you can just there's no time limit really. So, you're like, "Well, thank you for dodging my question. I will now rephrase my question in a way that prevents you from dodging it in the future." >> Yeah. >> And so, and that's just in cross-examination. We are even even to cross-examination of like defense expert witnesses. We're just here. And so, I think that that's a big problem, right? Courts are actually about as good an engine for truth as humans have devised, especially American courts. I mean, yeah, >> you think about something, you know, what are our rules of evidence and what are our procedures? Well, they are the product of the accumulated wisdom of thousands of judges over hundreds of years as to how to obtain truth from people and from facts. And so that's now what we're going to see in terms of this trial. >> And you can't just shout, "You lying [laughter] >> No, you'll get kicked out of court. >> Get yourself in trouble or you maniacal homosexual." >> I'm not maniacal. >> Right. [laughter] >> That's terri That's a terrible accusation. >> That was my favorite comment about you. >> You can't do that stuff. One interesting thing also is that if you've never most people have never felt real sovereignty >> um if you are ever actually litigating in front of a judge or you know just in the presence of a judge under their jurisdiction in that sphere they are totally sovereign over you. They can they can point at you and say you are in a jail cell right now because they want they think you're misbehaving, >> right? >> And and most people don't even conceptualize of that. It's just it's a remarkable it's a some judges abuse it. Some judges are really obnoxious with that and just are almost dictatorial in the way they treat lawyers and uh people. But what it does ensure is that people do behave themselves. >> Yeah. And run appropriately, it is a totally controlled environment, >> which is the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory on the internet. It's completely uncontrolled. And I think you nailed some really important things about how conspiracy theories spread. There's always a kernel of truth in them. You never look at a conspiracy theory and find one that's just completely untrue and they hang the whole theory on something that's true and then they play whack-a-ole, right? If you disabuse them of a single notion, they won't admit it. They'll just turn away from that and they'll go to the next theory and the next theory. There is no end. There's literally never an end. And this is what we're seeing with Candace. And this is why you're seeing Candace start to fall apart because the further they have to move away from that single kernel of truth, the more ridiculous the story becomes, the easier it is to prove what they're saying is false. And eventually it results in total collapse. In Candace's case, what it usually results in, she just quits talking about the thing and she moves on to her next conspiracy theory. And I think one of the reasons she's getting so strung out here is she can't stop talking about it. The trial is happening. It's really interesting. She's on vacation right now because she can't talk about this thing. She's now in legal jeopardy. There's just a lot of things coming at her from all directions. I think that's why you're seeing her fall apart. >> Yeah. >> Well, and to her credit, what is she good at is transitioning. >> Yes. >> From one thing to the to the next. You know, one of the first things that I addressed was, you know, the French Foreign Legion were involved. And of course, we had we had to have [laughter] We had to have one Israeli something in there. >> There's an Israeli agent in there working with the French Foreign Legion >> and and she had all this >> French foreign legion and just one Jew. >> There's [laughter] always at least one Jew. It was Alfred Drifus. Sorry. >> It was a kosher croissant. Um [laughter] but yeah, so you know she she she lays this out and like always what we're getting is anonymous sources providing unverifiable information. That that is the crux of what she does. And you know she lays this out. I have so much evidence of this. I can't show it to you. This all this secret knowledge. But let me tell you something. What is happening here is the Mcron decided they were going to kill Charlie because they were so worried about me [clears throat] highlighting the fact or bringing bringing the fact that, you know, unfortunately Breijgit has a penis. Like that's what they were worried about. So that's what they had to do. And then it just kind of fades away. But before that, now we have a $ 1.5 million hit out on Candace and they're going to kill her. She's so concerned about it that she leaves directly from the studio to go to Dollywood. And I don't know if like they got their money back. I don't know um how that works. But then we just move into something else and like like what happened to that? Like that is that is quite the >> the extremely sophisticated plot that you laid out. And then how does the US like do we just allow that? And of course we get the Egyptian planes like reconcile all of this for me and there's no need to and the it's one thing for Candace to do it but it is disappointing to watch that so many Americans fall for this. Yeah. >> And never hold her to a standard of of anything. And you can show and illustrate lie after lie after lie or omission after omission after omission. and they're like, "Go, Max, Candace." >> Well, I will say as someone who's worked with Candace, she has a remarkable ability to convince you that you're crazy. Um, there were times where I would walk into a conference room to have, you know, some conflict with Candace. we'd be involved in some conflict with Candace and my role would require me to to go in and and try to, you know, deal with the situation. And many times I would walk out of the encounter convinced that I had done something wrong and that Candace had actually never done anything wrong. I wasn't actually convinced, but but I had somehow been positioned. Yeah, >> she had moved me on the chessboard to a place of and she does it through all kinds of rhetorical techniques, makes herself the victim immediately, you know, points out to you all the ways that you failed to deal appropriately with her along the way, which precipitated whatever the ultimate uh event was. Um, but it is it is a true superpower that she has. and she said, you know, if you add to that something that I didn't have with her, but that the audience does, a parasocial relationship, then she then her superpower is just magnified that much more. You know, everyone in public life has uh a parasocial relationship with their audience and vice versa. That's just the it's the nature of the medium. It's the nature of, you know, it comes with the territory. Particularly though this has become true in the age of podcasting. You know it was one thing to have a parasocial relationship with Walter Kronite. Um I always think about this great story uh that Oprah I like to use an Oprah story because Cand Candace has told me multiple times that she wants to be Oprah. Oprah told this story once and it always stuck with me that she was in a super fancy restaurant in LA at the height of her power. You know this is the late 90s or the early 2000s or something. She's the queen of the world. Uh, you know, she's a billionaire. She's certainly the mo the most famous woman in the world. And she's engaged in some conversation with some interesting someone. There's a tap on her shoulder. And she turns around and there's a stranger, her eyes as big as saucers, and she says, "Oprah, Elizabeth Taylor just walked into the restaurant." And Oprah was offended. She thought, "You're tapping Oprah Win. I'm a billionaire. I'm the most famous woman on planet Earth. You're tapping me on the shoulder to tell me that an actress from 40 years ago just walked into the restaurant. What? What on earth?" And she says, "And then I realized, oh wait, I beam into people's living rooms five days a week. They sit in their underwear. They change their kids' diaper. They nurse their babies. They have the flu and they're in their pajamas. They don't have their makeup on. And I sit in their living room with them every day. And I tell them they know my best friend's name and they know that I'm struggling with my weight. They know that I'm on this new diet. They know that I just wrote a book. They know what book I like. to see Elizabeth Taylor, they have to drive to a temple in the heart of town and pay an offering and walk into a dark room and look up at the at the 40-foot altar once a year, >> right? >> You know, twice a year if you're one of the biggest movie stars in the world. And she what she was describing there, although we didn't have this language in the vernacular in the same way that we do now, is the nature of a parasocial relationship. Elizabeth Taylor has a parasocial relationship with her audience. Of course, she does, but it's a very minor one, >> right? >> Because part of what made a movie star a movie star is that you didn't know much about them. You >> there was no intimacy. >> You didn't have any intimacy, but she had great intimacy with a daytime TV host. And that doesn't even compare to what you have now in the age of the internet. Complete ubiquity. You know, people spend three hours a day with Joe Rogan, right? Or they spend an hour and a half a day with Candace plus Instagram. They see pictures of her with her kids plus the things that she writes on uh Twitter is just con the clips that are coming at you constantly and it forms in in the entirety of the audience a sense that you have a relationship with the person even though you don't. We all succumb to this to some degree. >> Sure. >> Uh but some people it's it's probably a small percentage for some people this becomes a kind of reality. you most of us you you know like it man it really feels sometimes like you know Joe Rogan but you know you don't >> right >> right um but for some people I think they actually don't even know that they don't and so I say that of people like Candace Candace cultivates that in her audience >> we all experience it you point a camera at yourself you're going to experience this to some degree she cultivates it and if you add to that the superpower of her personality disorder I think you do wind up with a situ you wind up in a situation where I I would suspect that there are hundreds of thousands of particularly women, though they're not exclusively in the country right now, who if you told them that whole story, hey, you remember when when the French took out a hit on Candace and then she just went to Dollywood, they would say, "Well, yeah, but that's because Candace talked to Donald Trump and he was protecting her." Or, "Well, yeah, of course, but Candace has the best security in the world." Or, "Well, of course, but we would never let anything happen to Candace." or just no, that didn't happen because they'll do anything to protect the image of Candace that they've built and that Candace has built with them. >> Yeah. >> Uh >> I mean it's there is no evidence that could impact it. >> No, I mean it is it's genuinely cult behavior. I mean that's what and the and the brilliance that Candace has in all this. I mean she's created a whole new genre of entertainment. This is like a murder mystery. Choose your own adventure. Yeah. You get to cosplay as an investigator and you get to join the investigation. And by the way, I want you to go out there. I know that you people can find this information. I'm not going to leave my studio. I'm not going to go talk to anybody. I'm not going to go to locations. I'm not going to do any of those things. I'm not going to talk to professionals. I'm not going to talk to anybody that have has any subject matter expertise in any of this. I want you all to do that. And I have a, you know, a a freaking murder mystery email tip line where you can send this information to me and you can feed me new content and I, if you're lucky, I will pull that out and I will read what you sent me and give you a little credit for it. But it is I mean there's a lot of >> It's like Candace AI. >> Oh, it it's I mean it's it's like you have to >> you have to give her credit in those areas. the way that she can manipulate people. >> Yeah. >> And you know, what she does isn't sophisticated, >> but it's extremely well executed. And like you said, I mean, she's she's exceptional at it. She really is. >> When you say AI, it's artificial insanity, though. [laughter] >> You know, I've known Candace for a long time, like since way before she was famous. And I first met her at a Turning Point event. She was literally sitting by herself. This shows you how unfamous she was. She was sitting by herself at breakfast. My wife and I went over to chat with her. And I have a habit of when I see young people coming up in politics and especially if you see somebody who flips from the left to the right, everybody thinks it's cool. Like, oh, they're getting famous, they're on Fox News, they're on Daily Wire, Blaze, whatever. It's like so cool and they're so popular. >> It sucks to be them at that point. It's really hard. Everybody they know that they knew from their former life hates them, is attacking them. uh they're they're being uh everybody's on them on the right. We love you. You're incredible. By the way, they're usually going broke at that point in their lives because every other way that they could make money in the past, all those people now hate them. Nobody's paying them. You go on Fox News, you're not getting paid to be on Fox News or whatever you're doing that's making you famous. >> And so, I just tend to go up to like I just want them to know like if you need anything, >> I've I've been through this. It's ugly. I'm happy to help or whatever. And so, I did that with Candace and it was fine. and we had a nice conversation and then about 6 weeks later I just felt compelled to call and check on her. You said something which I think is so true. If you spent any time with Candace, you know, she's extraordinary. >> Oh yeah. >> I mean, she's just she oozes charisma. She's articulate. She's intelligent. She's pretty. I mean, she's got she's the full package as a broadcaster. And so I knew she was going to be really famous. So I called her up and just said, "Hey, how's it going?" And she was frank and she said, you know, "Not great." And I said, "What's going on?" and she was telling me it's just rough. I'm having a hard time making it. And I said, "Well, this I have a kind of a litmus test question with upandcomers like, "What would happen if your car broke down tomorrow?" And Candace told me, "Oh, I'd be screwed. Like, I can't I couldn't afford a a car repair." And she said, "In fact, I have a I have a tire that's flat right now. I can't repair it. I literally So, here she is. She's becoming famous. She's traveling around talking for TPUSA. She's making virtually no money. She can't fix her tire on her car." And so I offered to help her with that and I started paying her. Like this is a story I've never told publicly. >> Wow. >> And I just said, "Well, what do you need to survive?" And she said, "Well, I'm getting paid 1,600 bucks a month. My rent is more than that. I'm watching my YouTube for monetization. How much do you need?" She said, "I need about a,000 bucks a month to survive." And I said, "Okay, well, I'll pay you 2,000." And she said, "Well, for what?" And I said, "Just do what you're doing." Because she was extraordinary. And I just, you know, we could afford it out of our nonprofit. I put her on the budget. I started paying her and she at some point said, "Oh, do you want me to endorse Convention Estates?" I said, "I mean, if you want to, but that's not why I'm not doing this for that reason. I'm doing it because you're a talent. You're important. I think you're going to be famous and do really great things. I just want to help." So, I paid her. I don't remember exactly whether it was a month or two. It's relatively short. And one day, I got a text from her that was like the most vicious text I've ever received from anybody in my entire life. I mean, just cut me to the bone. said something like, "I don't think who you are who you say you are. I don't think you're genuine. Don't ever talk to me again." >> And I literally the look on your face is the look on my face. >> Out of nowhere, just like what? >> At zero, like out of nowhere. >> Hadn't had a conversation. And I basically said, "What the f are you talking about?" And she said, "Was I not clear? I don't ever want to talk to you again. Lose my number." And I said, "You're batshit crazy. like I don't even know what this is. And that's the last time I ever talked to Candace, right? But it was my first evidence that she's psycho. And the follow on to the story is many years later. I knew Charlie socially more than politically. We used to hunt together. And so we would go feeasant hunting and fishing together. And so I was on a pheasant hunt with him. This is when Candace was having her explosion with Kanye. Remember she said Kanye designed the logo for Blexit and he said no. So this is all blowing up. Charlie has now made her his communications director. We're on this hunt. Charlie's there. He's on the phone constantly. He walks up to me, says this really weird thing. He goes, "I think I owe you an apology. I don't like I'm not offended by anything you've done that I'm aware of." He goes, "You don't know." Nope. Okay. Like, you don't owe me an apology. It's fine. And I asked him a little bit later. I'm like, I just I don't know what that was all about, but I do have one question. I got this super weird text from Candace. like it was just the meanest text I've ever gotten in my life. I was just trying to help her. And he pointed at his phone and he goes, "Some people never change." And that to me was the beginning of a throughine, right? Like I saw, okay, I don't know what's going on with her and Charlie, but it's bad and she's being vicious. She was bad and vicious to me. She then goes to Prageru and I kind of tried to warn the Prageru folks like can't tell you exactly what's going to happen but it's probably not going to be good. She leaves Prageru. I get told by folks at Prager you pretty ugly. She ends up at Daily Wire. I'm like oh my god my friends at DW [laughter] this is so bad. Obviously it goes poorly there. There is a throughine from the day I met her that she is a vicious psychotic person. >> Yeah. She's certainly capable of being incredibly vicious. Uh, and she, you know, she presents that as being like a great defender of justice in her public mission, but she has a she has a high capacity to mistreat people in person. >> Yeah. >> You know, one of in the in the commercial that launched Jeremy's Razors, which I don't always wear Gucci. I'm just gonna say the best commercial, [laughter] the greatest commercial in history. >> Kind of a kind of a big day for me today. >> Yeah, understand. >> I only I only took I only took the possession of the Gucci jacket again about an hour before you guys arrived. [laughter] It showed up in a in a U-Haul. Well, I'm going to wear it. Um, at the beginning of the of the Jeremy's Razor commercial, there's the bit where I pull up in a McLaren and I jump out of the McLaren and I just kind of throw the keys without even looking at the assistant who's trailing behind me, you know. Uh, and I wrote that joke into the Jeremy's Razers commercial because on the on her first day working for the Daily Wire, uh, Candace arrived at our Nashville office and walked in the office and literally just handed her keys to the first person who she whom she encountered [laughter] because she had just she had just pulled up in front of the building and got out of her car. She wasn't even in a parking spot. She just pulled up, handed her keys to someone, and she did it with such nonchalants that we laughed about it for months. And I didn't perceive it to be >> I mean, it's a little diva-ish, you know, but I thought it was kind of charming and funny in its own in its own weird way, you know. I didn't I mean obviously it's the very beginning of of a relationship and you know everybody seeing each other in the best possible light but I did think it was funny enough to write it into the Jeremy's Razor commercial you know a few months later when the time came came to make that but I came to see this over time as being really indicative of how she would treat particularly junior staff you know I had a PA tell me once I walked into the building where we do all of our did all of our daily wire production which was separate from the building where the offices And I walked in and there's just this junior employee standing at the door holding a Starbucks cup. I said, "What are you doing?" And she said, "Well, I wait for Candace every morning to give her her her Starbucks order." And I said, "There's not there's not a Starbucks nearby. Like we're we're in an industrial district. We're, you know, 15 minutes from anything." >> And she said, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, but it has to be hot when she gets here." She says, "So just every 5 minutes or 10 minutes uh that goes by, I go and heat it up in the microwave for for 30 seconds." And I said, "Well, what time does Candace arrive?" And she said, "Well, usually between 9:30 and 11." [laughter] >> So >> that's 10,000 steps. >> Oh my goodness. I mean, there microwave. >> That's a lot, you know. That's a lot. >> Yeah. Uh, look, but I think that's an important story to add context to all of this. >> Yeah. >> Because people see Candace in her persona, you know, on her show, there's a real human being behind there. >> Yeah. >> And for those of us who've had to have encounters with that real human being, it's not pleasant. She's not a pleasant person. >> Yeah. She can she can be incredibly winsome. >> Yes. in moments, you know, uh because she is ferocious. There are times when she's ferocious on your behalf. Um and it reads as friendship. You know, there there were times when she stood up for me, particularly I'm thinking of the the Steven Crowder incident and she went on, I think it was on Tim P, uh that day and and defended me. And man, I appreciated it because no one can do that the way that Candace Yeah. Candace can do that, you know. But man, when that eye turns on you that there are no rules, it's a it's the all's fair in in I don't know if there was any love. All's fair and war for sure with Candace. Uh she's not bound by she's not constrained by any um normal conventions. You know, she's not constrained by loyalty. She's not constrained by truth. You know, Dennis Prager used to say that truth is not a left-wing value. Um, I worry that more and more truth is for for huge swallows of the right now, truth is not a right-wing value. >> I agree with that. >> But truth is certainly not a Candace value. I think that Candace in whatever whatever personality disorder it is that she has. I think that she she'll sometimes say, you know, I would pass a lie detector test. And I think she would. >> I agree. Because I think whatever her personality disorder is, it's one that allows truth to emanate from her. She is the center of the universe. She is God in her story. And when God says, "Let there be light, light is." And if Candace says, um, Jeremy is a maniacal homosexual, it's absolutely and completely true from her point of view, the very moment that she says it. And uh if tomorrow she says Jeremy sexually harassed all the women at the Daily Wire, you'll say, "I caught you in a contradiction." But there is no contradiction. It was absolutely true that Jeremy's a maniacal homosexual when she said it. It's absolutely true that Jeremy sexually harassed the female employees at the exact moment that she said it. if it is funny to her or useful to her or amusing to her or part of some broader conspiracy six months later to say Jeremy's uh was castrated as a child and is completely asexual and wouldn't even be capable of having a sexual thought. Well, that'll be completely true in the exact moment that she says it. None of those conventions bind her in any in any way. And I think I think that is so difficult for the average person. We don't in our day-today lives encounter someone like that. And it makes it almost impossible to actually understand her because you can't hear me say that and and relate to it because no, I can't relate to it. No one can relate to it. Even knowing it about her, I would lose track of it when I would go into to rooms with her and I would get bested by her in these moments. It's almost like a glamour. It's not until you're out of the room that you're like, every word of that was a lie. I knew that it was a lie the whole time, but man, the p her her gifts make it very powerful when she when she >> we we knew. I mean, we knew this was a lie within 48 hours, right? I mean, within 48 hours, we had most all the evidence we really needed to be like Tyler Robinson was the guy clearly. I mean, his parents turned him in, >> right? Like, if his parents, you know, >> the filthy Zionists, >> right? Right. his I mean if any of these conspiracy theories had even the slightest ring of truth do you don't you think his parents would get up and stand up and say our child is innocent let him go please >> they haven't I mean and I guess it you know but then of course you know Candace what Candace is capable of is remarkable but I of course she doesn't think she's the bad guy I think there there's this anecdote about somebody asked Kristoff Waltz who played Hans Hans Landa um asked him you know how do you play evil so well and he's like Hans Landa doesn't think he's evil Yeah. >> Right. Like Candace doesn't think she's evil. The point the point is of course she just has blinders on, you know, has moral blinders on and is just capable of pursuing forward what she's doing. >> Yeah. I think there's a broader social philosophy going on here which is it's not just Candace but as a society we've lost the rational ability for shame and glory. Shame and honor. >> And so it used to be when somebody got caught in a lie there was great shame in that. Right? Honor meant you told the truth. And if you actually got caught outright in a lie, it was completely humiliating and you would retreat from the stage. That doesn't exist anymore. If you look at the internet widely, if you go on X, spend any time there, which all of us do unfortunately. Uh sometimes >> I'm only there to will to read will. [laughter] >> Funny. Well, what you're describing now, this is this is guilt culture, right? And actually what we're moving towards is shame culture, which and they're different, right? Guilt is feeling wrong because you've done something wrong. Shame is feeling bad because other people have seen that you've done something wrong. And that's what and moreover it's like this is very uh I don't mean I'm not trying to be racist but very like Arab third world where it's like >> you know and it's sort of the problem in our diplomacy where we expect them to feel guilty about things but they'll just keep lying because to admit fault to admit wrongdoing >> is the most embarrassing thing right >> and you know maybe this connects to the fact that I mean we sort of talked about this or not really but the idea that we're dealing with the problem of the third world vacation of the audience for podcasts right like right? >> You know, before two years ago even, I mean, everybody had to focus on a North American audience, um, a western audience. And now that a view is a view, and you have the entire world coming in to watch things, you're getting this kind of very distorted from our perspective, warped view of how things work, of what audiences like, what audiences will reward, and therefore what's sort of anchoring and pulling podcasters in that direction. >> Yeah. Th this phenomenon I think is maybe a part of the most important thing that we're facing in our culture right now. >> You know, move move past the Charlie hearing for a moment. Move past Candace Owens, what social media is becoming, the fact that we all feel it changing, but we can't really put our finger. We can't really articulate exactly what those changes are. Um but they are the changes in social media are changing us. >> Um I'm I'm convinced that it's the biggest crisis. The biggest crisis in the country isn't AI. The biggest crisis in the country isn't Iran Iran. Biggest crisis in the country isn't the homelessness I'm sorry the the housing affordability crisis. Although it's these are all problems. um the ubiquity of social media and the ambiguity of social media and the anonymity of social media uh are all sort of con um there's this confluence of those events that is creating this sort of manufactured social proof that that convinces us that to that to be a part of what's socially accepted um is to be a part of what the the mob on the internet tells us. And we don't even fully understand that, you know, half the mob isn't American, half the mob probably isn't human. The anonymity of the internet >> obscures all of this, that there are actual ex robust foreign intelligence operations taking place under the guise of the anonymity of the of the internet to create manufactured social proof. And we we're all being pulled toward these ideas and these beliefs. You say shame is being seen as being wrong. >> Um but sometimes it's being seen as being wrong even when we don't think we're wrong. >> In other words, it's not that I got sometimes you feel shame because you were caught. You uh a man cheats on his wife gets caught. He did something horribly wrong. He was perceived to have done the thing that was horribly wrong. He feels shame. You know, if you didn't put a black square on your Instagram account in the middle of BLM, if you didn't have incredibly strong convictions, you may have known that it wasn't wrong. I I know I'm not a racist. And yet, I still may have felt shame in that. I I mean, I have incredibly strong convictions politically, but I think millions of people felt shame in that moment because because the mob was perceiving that they had done something wrong, even though they hadn't fallen short of their own conscience in any way. And so that there's like this manufactured shame that happens. Social media is driving all of that. >> Yeah. >> And and Candace Owens is the culmination. Like this is the only time in history that that she could even exist the way that she does. And it's because of, you know, we can go into postmodernism, but really it's we've gotten to this thing where it was relative moralism, but now it's relative reality. like I can accept I'm only going to accept the facts that I like and and there's nothing I'm not only am I gonna believe in something >> that has no evidence, I'm going to believe in this something even though there's overwhelming evidence against it. >> And that's where things get crazy. That's where you get into these conversations online or I've had people on my podcast and disagree like like help me to understand how you're coming to these conclusions and there is no answer. The answer is well what about JFK? Remember JFK? Yeah. >> You know what the CIA did? You know what this like that that's you're pulling again? You're gish galloping a bunch of irrelevant things that have no actual bearing on whether or not we have evidence for this. Whether it's your position on this or my position. Now my position, I have DNA evidence. I have video evidence. I have the parents turning them in. I have five confessions, admissions. We'll call them admissions. Like you got nothing over here. And now I got like we can see him crawling into position. We see this guy arrive in this car. Well, you know, we lost track of him or or like we can't see him perfectly on the roof. Well, yeah, but I mean, we watch him on multiple camera views. We see this guy get out of the car. We see that same person in the same clothes. Yeah, but they could have switched him out or something like something in between. Like, >> right. >> I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. that that is like this is the only time that this con which is really what it is. It's a fraud that that could exist and it's because of the culmination of social media, [sighs] you know, this relativism that's been going on for a really long time. The rejection of of Christianity and God in this country and a lot of other things, but a lot of people are exploiting it. And first and foremost, and you kind of touched on it already, I do think this is fifth generational warfare. Like I see that our political and our foreign adversaries, you better believe, are exploiting this and capitalizing on this moment and they're pushing this because really what this is ultimately is Candace, at least at one time, was a useful idiot and they were using her to divide the right, but then she goes to Russia and now I'm not I don't know how useful idiot she is. She's just a useful tool that has been convinced to push certain narratives. >> I I want to push really quick. So like >> query whether it is is like a lack of Christianity in the country. I mean maybe but she professes to be a Christian. Carrie Bowler professes to be a recently converted Christian. >> I don't know that it's I I feel like it's uh whatever belief system you're here to. I mean even like you know >> Sure. I I would say I would say let let me rephrase that. The lack of morals and ethics. >> Okay. Fair enough. Yeah. like however however you want to frame that whatever your foundational philosophy and and and fundamentals that come from but that's what we've because here again I even remember when I was a kid like even it was just societ society wrong to accuse something someone of something heinous without evidence matter of fact I remember in my house and my parents weren't all that like sophisticated or you know aerodite but it's like okay you're accusing this person maybe somebody at school well what evidence do you have like then don't do that just the normal >> like and now not only is it not condemned it's encouraged incentivized >> and extremely profitable >> right >> there's two pieces of this one one um is co >> I don't think you can really talk about what's happening probably for the rest of our lives >> without talking about the the government's overreaction to co >> sure >> the hubris of shutting down the world breaking pe it broke people socially it broke people spiritually it broke people mentally it broke people econom eomically. >> Yeah. >> Uh the institutions didn't lose our trust for no reason. >> Yeah. >> The problem is once once you have no faith in any institution, then you you think you've been set free now to see truth, but you've actually now been set free from any standard of truth. You know, the gatekeepers exist for a reason. They they failed us. Absolutely. I'm not defending their behavior, but they didn't exist for no reason. We have to have cultural community uh institutions that we empower to have to be some sort of gatekeepers to be some sort of standard bearers and we've lost that completely. The the other piece is IQ that because of the third worldification of social media now the social social proof is when it looks like everyone thinks one thing. >> Yeah. >> Right. Candace uses this and and you know a lot of these guys Carlson all these guys they love Yeah. Everybody knows everybody sees what you're doing. Obvious obviously >> it's this they're they're invoking social proof continually to make you feel like if you disagree with them, you're actually outside of >> um the bounds of what's normal or or what's acceptable, >> what's agreed upon. But I I have a a buddy who was special ops in Afghanistan and he said that one day they were doing something with some of their Afghany army partners, Afghani military partners. I don't know the term and you know they were like we're going to do this, we're going to do this. We're going to do this and the guy's like you're out of your mind. This cannot be done. Yeah. >> And they said something like you know we hit a golf ball on the moon 1969. We can do this or whatever. And the guy stopped what was this saying we hit a golf ball on the moon. We can definitely do this. You had a golf ball on the moon. What are you talking about? They said, "I'm talking about Americans went to the moon. We had a golf ball on the moon. We do hard things. This is a hard thing. We can do this." The guy said, "You cannot go to the moon. You can't." He said, "Yeah, we put a man on the moon. You cannot put a man on the moon. The moon is this big." [laughter] And obviously, it's easy to laugh at that guy. But in the developing world, in the third world, um there's not a high accumulation of IQ. That is just it's not uh this isn't a race a statement of racism. It's not a statement even of genetics. I'm not making a statement about eugenics. I'm making a statement that uh part of what has allowed the west to become the west is that because we've had something approaching it's grown out of centuries something approaching market economics something approaching human liberty those systems incent high IQ they allow people with high IQ to prosper which then allows that to be something that you're selecting for you know a as a as a society evolves but That's not necessarily true in the third world where those kinds of systems and those kinds of realities aren't the governing philosophies of the world. They don't necessarily select for high IQ in those societies or at least they haven't up until now. >> And so when you allow the entire third world anonymously onto the internet, there are a lot of people who think that the moon is this big. And people who think that the moon is this big respond to something other than facts. When they use the term people will say all the time, Candace brings facts and evidence and all you bring is assertions or they don't say they don't use the word assertions. >> Yeah. >> She just brings the receipts. They >> She brings the receipts. Yeah, that's right. >> They don't add anything to it because there's nothing to it. >> That's right. >> And it's always strikes me because she never actually provides any evidence. She makes bald assertions. That's all she does. >> Um but because she makes them with a kind of vigor. The other thing that happens is Candace will say things like, you know, you're gay or you're uh short or you're awful. And people will reply in my comments and say, "I bet you wish you hadn't got out of bed. Candace owned you. She totally destroyed you." And I'll be like, "She didn't even lay a glove on me. >> She didn't even give me a bad hour, much less a bad day. She said nothing." Uh she she backed those assertions with nothing. Pure hyperbole. uh not hyperbole ad hominon, you know, just just a hyperbolic ad hominon. Uh just a personal attack and and it means nothing to me when >> an evil person has a low opinion of me. That means nothing to me. >> But to those people who are saying it, she did win. And I actually think this is a ve this is a very difficult challenge for us as we try to communicate truth into this new information ecosystem is that if we don't back our truthful statements with a certain amount of passion >> with a certain amount of attitude with a certain fighting tenor there's an entire group of people out there who aren't capable of weighing whether or not what we said was true on the merits at all. >> And we because we're being gentlemanly, we're trying to communicate from a from a place of maybe not area died exactly, but just like well-mannered or, you know, in a way that doesn't make us feel shame to show ourselves in public. >> We're trying to behave, you know, decently. We actually just miss out on it, but we lose half the audience right there because it looks like if you really believed what you were saying, you'd attack her personally. Yeah. you'd say that she's, you know, short, bald, and ugly or whatever it is, you know, >> what are we supposed to do with that? >> Yeah. >> Well, there's something freeing when you can just speak, especially in public, and you don't even have to think about your words. You just kind of like as we sit here and talk, I want to make sure that I'm saying I'm speaking precisely and I'm not overstating facts or like there's something amazing when you don't have to do that. And you can just say you can use as much hyperbole, exaggeration. You can emit whatever facts. actually have to worry about any of this stuff. And she does that and she's very convincing. She's very compelling because of that. Uh but you're right, she has not put forth a single bit of evidence on any of her material claims. She will drop receipts on things that don't even matter to what she's saying. Whether it's, you know, Israel killed Charlie Kirk, the United States killed Charlie Kirk, uh you know, Erica Kirk was at Fort Wuka, Brian Harple was for Fort Wuka. we have nothing of those things and yet people and then on top of that it's all insinuation and suggestion and one of my favorite things that she constantly does and I catch her on this all the time it's like she'll actually start off an episode where she's presenting something new or somebody into the story whatever it is and it she'll even say well you know I'm just speculating but within about 5 10 minutes she's referring back to that thing as a fact we've already established this is what's going on Right. >> And it it is and I've seen this and again I don't know if she was trained on some of these tactics if some of those things were just came to her naturally but you know coming from special operations and understanding how information operations psychological operations work and cognitive warfare works >> she is very good at it and it's not really sophisticated tactics but she uses them in a way that she can blend it seamlessly into the backdrop and if you don't know what you're looking for. You don't even know what's happening to you. >> Yeah. >> Right. Rhetoric is logos, ethos, pos, right? It's not just logos. >> That's right. >> You know, I think there is a theme. >> I think I didn't understand. >> No. Oh, so this is, you know, basics. You ever you know, logos, logic, ethos, credibility, posing. >> I love Legos, >> right? Legos, >> right? Legos. Legos are great. [laughter] But I mean, the whole point is that like this is this is all what what you're describing is debates over ethos, right? That's right. Ad homonym isn't necessarily a fallacy. By the way, I'd always hated being people are like, "That's a fallacy." Whatever. It's like, "Okay, but it's actually effective though in a sense that uh it is a fallacy." Um, but the idea being that she's she's what she's engaging is a credibility game, right? She's insult insulting you, lowering your social status. She's going after your credibility by speaking with force and vigor and power. She is elevating her own credibility. It's totally separate. And so, if you're gonna, you know, we were joking backstage about college debate and how people are speaking at an extraordinarily high rate of speed that think of that as pure logoentrism, right? That is >> that's facts. Don't care about your feelings. >> That's that's right. You know, and >> many facts as you can issue, >> right? But the scoreboard doesn't care about your facts either, right? So, sorry. Sorry, Ben. I like, you know, I'm not trying to be mean. Um, but the the point being that like what Candace is doing, why it works is is she's playing the ethos game when other people aren't necessarily is important for the right to learn how to play the ethos game, too. That means insults, too. Like I think you know on a random side note you know this is one of the mistakes I think for example the Israelis or the pro-Israel side makes when they talk about Gazin genocide right there's there's a lack of contemptuousness for the allegation right there's they're so focused on defending themselves like no look at the statistics we aren't doing that and instead of just being like of course we're not doing that you like why would we could if we wanted to and we're not >> you know the because you're because you're not forceful enough because you're sort of looking weak and defensive as opposed to contemptuous and arrogant which is actually, you know, maybe bad in some broad moral sense, but good from the perspective of persuasion. >> Donald Trump actually understands this. >> Yes, >> Donald Trump uses ethos to to great effect even today when he's speaking about renewed bombing in Iran. And he says, you know, we're not bombing them at a very high level to be honest. You know, a high level would be bombing their bridges. And we could take them out. I think I think in one day I think we could take them out in one day. All of them in one day. They couldn't do anything about it. What was his answer to Rand Paul in those early debates? You're short and you're at 2% in the polls, [laughter] >> right? Like Rand Paul would make some argument about policy and he'd just be like, you're short and you're at 2% of the polls. >> Yeah. >> I think part part of what we're dealing with here is very old. >> And Candace is doing something that goes back that has plagued Christianity since the beginning, which is she's practicing a form ofnosticism. >> Oh, yeah. >> Right. So she is using secret knowledge. I mean she actually uses the words I may not know but I know know right and that is >> I may not know but I know >> right that's purenosticism right? So she has a secret knowledge and so for her listeners they want to be in on that secret knowledge. This is the waynosticism has always worked. They know something that the rest of us don't know. So anytime we question it it's like oh you just you don't know. You're you're not in. You've been fooled. You're the rube. You're the mark because you don't know what we know. You don't know what Candace knows. This is a very old game. It plagued early Christianity. I think it plagues any moral system that has a serious moral foundation and principles. Gnosticism is a really dangerous philosophy. >> I was associated with a gal who was very high up in the Nexium cult. You familiar with familiar story? >> Yeah. And eventually this cohort of women within that cult even allowed them their genitals to be branded with a branding iron. Um and you think well how how could a person possibly get to a place where they would allow that to happen? And it is the constant promise the con, you know, you're you're being constantly brought along this Gnostic journey toward inner acceptance or inner knowledge ultimately, you know, where if you if you just continue along taking the steps and eventually they can take you places that you would never in your rational mind have allowed yourself to go. >> Yeah. You know what? We we have friends that we've actually lost to this that are not friends anymore that became Candace acolytes and you can't reason with them. There's literally I mean you're dealing with this online constantly. You are as well. >> And well, I'm going back to the ballistics discussion, right? And >> and all these people that's impossible this guy, it couldn't have been this gun. And I was so frustrated because my wife came to me one day and said, "Well, our friend so and so says this gun couldn't have done this." thought I'm not the your level of expert, but me and a little AI, like it's pretty obvious, no problem to be a 3006. And so I did the ballistics analysis. I produced an entire report. I sent it to her and she said, I know when people are lying, there's nothing you could say that would convince me. >> Yeah. >> It's like, what do you And that's I said to my wife, like I don't know what to do with that. Don't ever tell me what this woman says ever again. I just it's a waste of time. I don't want to deal with it. Well, that's where you get into narcissism or the fact that we're now dealing with a religion, right? Because it is it is faith without evidence or faith in spite of evidence against it, it's worse. >> Yes. >> So, you know, like early on we heard those arguments and look like the other thing that I think we do get into a problem, especially on the the ballistic side of this is like let's not pretend that this isn't a an anomal an anomaly, right? or it's an atypical result. But with that being said, >> it's not unheard of. As a matter of fact, it's like, oh, you know what, Gary, I know because I had a 30 odd six that if I shot some like something would explode. There's definitely an exit wound. I was like, okay, well, what about Martin Luther King? He was shot from 65 yards away and we have a very similar wound track and very similar results with no exit. All right, hit him in the jaw, hit him in his his spine, and then it deflected downward, no exit. Well, that's different. Like, no, no, no. We started off with the the argument that there's no way that the human body can stop that round. But if we add something in there now, Charlie Kirk is now 143 yards away. 142 yards away, almost exactly half the distance. >> And now it and even if we go back to Martin Luther King, do we know if it hadn't hit him in the jaw that it would definitely would have exited? No, you don't know that. Okay. Now, we go to Martin, we go to Charlie Kirk. Exactly. almost exactly h twice the distance away. And [clears throat] now it didn't hit him in the jaw, but we hit his spine, deflected downward, no exit. And then we go to >> Did it hit the spine? Is that >> it? It did. It So it did hit his spine. It hit him hit him in Well, here's what has been relayed. Basically, it was Andrew Kovette to Stephen Gardner. Uh, and I could ask him this specifically, but what what was said was that it basically it crashed into, and this is really obviously low low technicality when it comes to the wording of this, not very specific, but crashed into the C1 uh the C2, the C3, the C4, I don't know what the last cervical vertebrae is, and then the T1. Now, that doesn't tell us anything. So, people are making all these ridiculous uh animations where it's like the round goes in here because you're seeing one is obviously pretty high. It goes in here, goes upwards, goes downward and and it's like, "Oh, yeah. This makes sense. This is the magic bullet." Like, that's not what happens when you're dealing with hydrostatic shop shock. And you're also dealing with the transfer of that much energy. It could have hit him in the T1 and sent enough energy. And we also know that that bullet fragmented. So it could ascent fragments upward that damaged those >> those those those those vertebrae that were north of T1. And then on top of that it's just a tremendous amount of energy. And I think immediate number one just going back to your friend when I saw what happened to Charlie. I was like done. >> That's done. >> Yeah. >> And and and then like I talked to my wife about this she's like oh well they just said he has a heartbeat. I was like I don't care if they have a mechan if they have him his heart is mechanically beating his brain. >> He's he's he's gone. like I and you know there are definitely pictures where you can see in the back where there's clear separation of the vertebrae and you know again but you have to look for these things you have to think about these things right now I know I only know four people that have been shot with 30 odd sex that is Charlie Kirk Martin Luther King uh a fellow green brain named Chuck Ritter he was actually shot with 762 x 54 which is the exact ballistic equivalent of 3006 he was shot from 25 yards away. It also hit him. It went in between his ribs, hit his spine, deflected downward. Not only was there no exit wound, >> he's still alive and it was all caught on video. And like he even posted his like he came on here and he's like, "Yeah, it can happen. Like that happened to me. You're a liar." Okay, here's a video of it. Here's a video of this happening. Oh yeah, you're a liar. Here's my medical records. Here's the pictures of You're a liar. Uh and then I just found somebody sent me a new one, a guy named Shane Hill. also shot from a very short distance away. A 30 out six hit him in the spine. And what's interesting to me, because look, I've been shooting long range for over 20 years. It's what I do for I teach long-range ballistics for a living. We have our own line of long range precision custom rifles. Like, this is what I do. But what I don't sit around and do, and most people don't, I don't care how good they are at ballistics or whatever else. Like, what we're not there's, you know, there's internal, external, and terminal ballistics. Most people are not sitting around studying terminal ballistics and and we just don't >> right >> and on top of that specific to 30 odd 6 I thought it was a lot less likely to stay in the body or it was more likely to exit than even I and once I started actually researching that piece and part of that was saying >> Gary yeah you're a ballistics expert but do you really know that much about terminal ballistics 306 have you studied that and the answer is no so you start going back and you hear about Martin Luther King you start looking at what was going on with that and there's a lot of controversy around Martin Luther King, but what has never been contested was whether or not he was shot with a 30 sick. That's just not there. And we see almost exact results. And then just going back to the same parallels, it's like, >> okay, what was the muzzle velocity when with the firearm and ammunition that Martin Luther King, we already know that he's going to hit get hit with more energy because of it's a much shorter distance, >> right? But now, like what allegedly Tyler Robinson was using, was it the same muzzle velocity? Is it a different type of projectile? Was that round stabilized? And we can get into the whole nerd nerd side of that, but now was that bullet in extreme, y'all? And I I do think there's evidence of that. What we do see is an atypical entrance wound. It's elongated and larger than I would expect for an entrance wound. And I think that round was already tumbling or starting to tumble before it entered. But regardless, we have multiple examples. And you can get into I started diving into pathology reports and old military pathology reports specific to 3006. It's much more common than we think it is. It reminds me of u I remember there was a meme on uh way back when and it was a showed a guy carrying around an artillery round and it said what 45 guys think they shoot. And [laughter] >> you know it's it's like we don't really understand the limitations of what happens when it actually hits the human body. And I do think there's something specific and I don't know if anyone's ever studied this >> but when a human being a 220lb human being like Charlie Kirk gets hit in the spine. The spine is made to flex. The spine is made to disseminate and distribute shock. >> Yeah. >> And I think it does that. And again, I know four people by name that have been hit by 30 odd sex with no exit wound and all of them were hit in the spine. And I think there's something to >> And we haven't seen this autopsy report yet. >> No, we haven't seen the autopsy report at all. No. >> And we will, right? That we will like we'll see a lot more at trial. I think we talked about that earlier, but there's there's going to be a lot more coming. There's going to be testimony, right? You're going to have a whole bunch of people up on the stand under oath, not just, you know, the police officer sort of narrating all these various c you know, visuals that are being used for the preliminary hearing. You're going to have uh the I mean the parents are probably going to get called to the stand. You're going to hear the direct explanation of like I mean what they that the whole drama at home where they confronted their son. None of that's privileged. Like that's all coming in. They have to testify to it. Um and you know >> Lance Twig will have to testify. >> Lance Twig will have to testify. He's got a community deal. >> Well, and and there's a video. I don't know if it was played today, but it will be played this week. It's on the docket. It's on the on the prosecution witness and uh evidence report. Um but Lance Twigs will have a video this week. >> Yeah, there's like a video of his testimony. >> Yeah, a v I think a short statement or I I don't know >> video of like a police interview or something like that >> which wouldn't which wouldn't be allowed at trial actually. That's an interesting dynamic, right? You have to >> confrontation clause requires you to be able to confront your witnesses and cross-examine them. >> He will have to he will have to actually show up. Um, yeah. You know, the you you're not allowed to apply logic though. >> No. >> So, like the entire question of, you know, did the would a government do it or would the Israelis have done it? You know, you were a professional sniper. Um, if you were trying to plan how to kill an incredibly high-profile person, would you come up with as a professional, would you come up with the plan of, well, in broad daylight in front of 3,000 witnesses, many of whom are are running cameras. >> Yeah. on a campus that has unknown number of cameras running all the time 247. >> I'm going to climb I'm going to climb up on a roof in an exposed position uh and take this shot with a un un suppressed hunting rifle. >> Yeah. >> Like that would never if your government asked you to do that, you would say, "Hey guys, I think we probably ought to think this through. There's probably about 5,000 ways that we could do this that don't involve me getting caught on camera. The the fact that there isn't video of him, you say, you know, most people who are convicted of murder, we don't have any video of them. And here you have a lot of video, but maybe not the very moment. Luck is not a business model. If you're the professional sniper, it's only luck that there isn't video. It's only luck that somebody didn't hear it and not even try to record it, but just do this and capture the shooter standing up briefly to run off the roof like >> Well, there's a flaw in your logic to begin with, and that is and that is he actually wasn't killed with that rifle. >> Right. Right. >> So, so, and this is this is where things have always been crazy for me. It's like, okay, Israel, I I I think we narrowed it down. Israel was involved. Clearly, United States had to be involved because I don't know, Charlie was definitely going to be a future president. He was about to turn on Trump. I I don't know. But but this is the problem with all that. It's like what we did is we put together this extremely sophisticated, complicated assassination plan and we've created a pathy and it was so sophisticated, so well executed that everybody got away with it. But the one thing it's like it's like Yeah. Hey man, you took the shot from a different location that nobody saw, nobody heard, nobody. Yes. All right. Great job. You did that. What was what were you shooting? 223. What did we leave it with? What did we leave with the Patsy? 30 yard six. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Bad move. >> Like that was the one thing that between like the greatest militaries on earth, both Israel and the United States, maybe French. I I don't know right at this point, but like that was the one thing that we screwed up. I mean, if if we're going to plan this and let's say we were stupid enough to come up with this the plan where we're going to do this in broad daylight, which would make no sense. Um like why 30 like 306 be the worst one with, you know, like why would we go with that? There's so many better ways to do that. >> Isn't the new theory that Twigs is like a Fed or something like that? And because Twigs was the one that actually was there >> was there right cuz the DNA because right the it's the new fact they have to explain is the DNA of Twigs being on the screwdriver and the >> I think Candace has imply has said that Twigs is taller and since the person on camera is obviously at least 6'2 possibly 6'3 >> right obviously >> it must be Twigs >> Twigs even though what where we would see somebody that looks like has Twigs appearance. >> Yeah. >> Right. And >> this is after the Egyptians expended millions of dollars flying around chasing Erica for some reason, >> right? >> I mean, the the level of sophistication here is the level of expense. >> You guys just don't get it. >> Yeah. Clearly, >> that's the problem. >> You know what? There's something going on here that I think is actually the most important weapon that we have, which is mockery. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Like part of we fall into this as conservatives. No, let me debate the facts with you. And you mentioned this about Israel. instead of just saying this is asinine. Yeah, you guys are idiots. Like no rational person I think we should use. OB obviously no rational person would believe the stuff that Candace is saying. It's so stupid. >> And listen, there's a lot here. No one's an expert on everything. I started off saying that I suspect that the reason that there's not the giant exit wound that people would expect is because the the round didn't actually connect with anything that would cause it to release that kinetic energy. you're making a completely different argument, which is that it did in fact hit the spine and uh and deflected into the body. >> That's also a that's also a perfectly plausible answer to the to the question. And I don't know, which is the one thing you can't ever say in these situations, >> right? >> Well, I don't know. >> Yeah. And the other thing they point to is like, well, there's, you know, the odds of that actually, well, the odds of that is probably around 30% or more. and and who knows? But um especially when you start looking at the empirical evidence that I found, it's like I know four people, >> right? >> All shot with three out six, >> no exit, >> all no exit boom. I'm just saying right now we're we're kind of we're betting a thousand here. Not to say that again, I still do think it's atypical. But the idea is like, well, it's such a small percentage. Like low percentage or low probability things happen all the freaking time, >> right? That's why they're part of the probability >> by days. It's like one out of 20,000 days you're going to get into a car wreck. And we've all been in car wrecks, >> right? >> Uh so just be and really at the end of the day, I don't care if it's one in a billion given the evidence that we have just through the process of elimination, >> there was no other gunshot, >> right? Improbable compared to what? Yeah. Right. Improbable compared to the independent probability of Tyler Robinson's car being there four times, the DNA being on the towel and the screwdriver. uh the video camera depicting a person looking like him with stumbling through around with a rough rifle in his leg. the parent. I mean, you know, the independent, you know, okay, so it's like, oh, one in a 100 that a 306 rifle uh or a 306 bullet stops in the body. Okay, compared to the one in a quintilion probability of all these other things being >> almost all conspiracies, I say this all the time, almost all conspiracy theories uh happen because come into existence because uh of the confluence of many improbabilities. Mhm. >> Because the truth is the shooting of what the one of the things that we can learn from the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that the system is very robust and works most of the time. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Because conservatives speak all the time and aren't shot. Why? Because think of all the things that actually had to go wrong in order for this to occur. >> You know, Charlie has had at the time very he has even better security now. He had very good security at the time. Um the it's not easy to get a gun onto a college campus in >> So that was a open carry camp. I mean that was that was that was a carry campus. >> Was it a carry campus? >> So so so >> not not easy to get a 306 onto the roof of >> Yes. >> Uh people miss, you know, the average cop when they're adrenalized misses when they >> pull the trigger once. >> Yeah. A lot of things had to happen exactly the way they happened in order for this to occur. And because each one of those things is unlikely, the confluence of all of them is extremely unlikely. And when a thing happens, it's extremely unlikely. It's very something in the human brain wants to reject it. >> It's like it couldn't it couldn't possibly be what it appears to be. We want to impose onto that chaos a kind of order. And the conspiracy theory is actually more comforting >> to a certain subset of people than the truth. It's more comforting to believe >> that Israel is so powerful and so sophisticated that they actually know exactly what the secondary and tertiary effects of all of their actions are going to be in such a way that they can perfectly orchestrate and perfectly manipulate these situations into existence. At least that that means somebody's in charge. At least that means somebody knows what's going on. So, you know, that doesn't bring me any comfort, but I think it truly brings a lot of comfort to a lot of people when they see 9/11 happened. Think of how many things have to go wrong all at the same time for in order for 9/11 uh to occur. Much better to believe that the Jews just did it. Much better to believe that that somebody somewhere is actually an expert. that it isn't just the DMV all the way down, right? That the government isn't just the DMV ad add infin add infin item, >> right? >> Um, >> it is though. >> Except [laughter] that it is. Well, and you know, the irony of that though is where you're trying to bring order to chaos, which is kind of what what what what's happening is you're saying, "Hey, there's so many things that had to go wrong here >> that I'm going to introduce about 10 times more variables by putting this other entity that that has so many other pieces going on here that it it's it's even it's so exponentially less probable than just what you got there." And that's the other thing too and again you guys you know you've been around scary I I I taught close protection and things like that for a really long time. The there those vulnerabilities this is the one vulnerability that Tyler Robinson in this particular instance exploited but really if like there's always vulnerabilities that could be exploited. As a matter of fact like if I was going to it's like Gary you have to take this person out at this event like UV right? It's like no problem. We're going to do the same thing that they do all over South America and that is I'm going to wait for him to leave and when he comes to the first stop sign, we're going to put somebody out there to make them stop and then we're going to shoot up the car. Like that could have happened. They weren't using they weren't using armored vehicles. Uh we could have exploited this a thousand different ways. And they say, "Well, well, you know, um he had access to the roof." Well, if he didn't have access to the roof, I've been to UVU and literally there's plenty of windows and other build like he could have found entrance into one of those. And it's like, well, it's the security team's fault. Well, the security team is not the Secret Service detail. like you know it's like you're talking about the ability for them to go and room clear all of these secure those have people posted but Tyler Robbins could have went in one of these empty rooms either shot out a window or opened a window and would able to be like that's just the type like Charlie Kirk was not the president of the United States and even with the president of the United States as we see there's plenty of vulnerabilities there as well but to pretend that let's be let's be real most close security protection details are just a heavy dose of visual deterrence. >> Yeah, >> it's just a fact because if somebody wants to take them out, they're going to. And we're not going to worry about, you know, when you got three when you got 3,000 people in a courtyard and you got a security team of 11 people. And by the way, they know that that is a carry campus. So, you know, 5 to 10% of the people in there have firearms on them. So, we're talking between 300 150 firearms within shooting distance, 25 yards of Charlie Kirk. It would only make sense that you're that's what you the most likely course of action or the greatest danger is what we're paying attention to. I mean, there other than Martin Luther King, we don't really have a precedent for a sniper shot taking place on a non-politician and specifically, you know, outside of a president, right? It's never happened before. >> And Charlie wanted to put himself in that environment. >> Yes. >> You know, at Daily Wire, our security team would have objected in the strongest possible terms to one of our guys standing out in an exposed environment like that. And sometimes my job was to heed the advice of my security team. Sometimes my job was to override the advice of my security team because and this is the problem that the president faces but at a much smaller scale. Sometimes you got to press the flesh. >> Yeah. >> Sometimes you have to be out with the people. >> Yeah. >> Um sometimes you have security's job is to never let that happen. You know the I I don't know what conversations took place between Charlie and his team. I know what would have taken place between me and our team. It would have been no, you cannot do that. And I would have said but we have to do that for this reason, this reason, this reason. It's a business decision, not a security decision. >> Excuse me. >> And we would have wrestled with that and had an argument about it and each presented our side and we ultimately would have made the decision that we thought was best. And sometimes that decision isn't security first. Yeah, he he understood the risk and I did have long conversations with with I interviewed Brian Harple. I've had conversations with him and some of the others security detail about that exact thing. They were constantly trying to get Charlie to take security more seriously. >> They were wanted him to wear a vest. His wife wanted him to wear a he wouldn't, >> you know, he didn't I could tell what he didn't want them to do was win through terrorism, right? He didn't want to capitulate to change anything that he was and I feel the same way and I would probably do the same thing and it probably you know if you were in his position I'd probably end up dead too but I would feel the same and by the way Trump feels is kind of like that as well right he's like he's like get down no you know fight like you're getting shot at uh [laughter] but you know his >> president you know his security team wanted to have bulletproof glass up there they wanted those things ballistic protection action. Uh, one of the things that that he talked about that Charlie insisted upon like they wanted the rope line and you can see at UVU the the all the bike racks that are sitting there that are, you know, >> being a hedge between him and the a buffer zone between Charlie, >> the area where the person was speaking, he insisted that that was open between him and the mic. So, right, we at least had a direct line. That was that was with Charlie. So, you know, he understood the risk and um he was willing to take those risks and he thought what he was doing was that important and how he was doing it was just as important. >> Yeah. If I I can tell you that at times where I've put my guys on um the average time I put them on a campus, there's metal detectors. >> Mhm. when we've put them in environments where there are not metal dete. We've put them on in in environments before uh where it was constitutional carry or whatever in whatever environment they were in. And my team has still said, "Well, we should still have metal detectors." And there's times where you have to say, "Well, you can't." >> We're we're for people being able to carry firearms. >> Sure. And you in order to be for that, you know, there are certain situations where even in that environment, I still think metal detectors are appropriate. But there have been times where I've had to say to our security, no, if you can't bring in metal detectors, you know, the whole purpose of this event is that. But I will say that in those when I've had my guys speak at those events, we've asked them to wear Kevlar >> or whatever to wear something under the >> Sure. >> You know, during the height of the Tea Party era, I was >> I was wearing Kevlar everywhere. >> Yeah. It's awful. I mean, because the threats were on and there were active shooter threats and I was coordinating with local police and you know, in the beginning I I kind of thought it was funny to be honest with you because they'd be like, "Oh yeah, people are going to try and kill you." And I'm like, >> "I'm just I'm just a regular guy. Why would people try to kill me?" And they started sharing threats with me. And honestly, for my family's, you know, peace of mind, I started wearing body armor. It's terrible to wear body armor to be honest with you. you you know it's even the lightweight stuff is heavy. Lightweight stuff isn't going to stop most heavy duty rifle rounds. >> It wouldn't stop a 30 odd six. >> It wouldn't stop anything. It's not going to stop a head shot or a neck shot. So, you reduce your risk a little bit, but you also are doing what you were talking about Charlie didn't want to do. And I understand that like you don't want to give into it. >> No, >> you want to go out there and you want to be in the fray. You know, I did an event with you guys uh in Nashville and it was the the uh rally against childhood mutilation at the capital. I was there. We were talking with your producer before before this. She was there and I went out into the audience and it was nuts out there. I mean, you had Antifa all blacked out carrying ARs. Fully legal to carry long guns there at the state capital like that. And I had a a cameraman with me and I was miked up. It was insane out there. I'm actually wearing hearing aids right now. I'm going to make a claim with you. They damaged my hearing. I mean, they literally had the bullhorns out. They were feeding them back on me. And at some point, I was out there just in the melee enjoying myself to be honest. And my cameraman just grabbed me by the back of the shirt and he pulled me out. He said, "Way too dangerous." Like open firearms all around you. I I was not wearing armor at the time. He's like, "I can't protect you. I'm afraid you're going to get killed. I don't want to be the guy that gets that on film." and he dragged me out. But the threat is real when you're out there. And you as a CEO were talking about this. I think this is really important. We do this as CEOs all the time. In general, >> we are risk analyzers. That's our job. There is a reward. >> There was a reward for Charlie being out there in that crowd. But somebody, Charlie in this case, had to analyze the risk and say, "I'm willing to take that risk because I think the reward is great enough." We've all said this. I know it for sure. Charlie knew what he was facing. Yeah. Like he >> Charlie was willing to die for what he was doing. >> Yes. Absolutely. And if you had said to Charlie that if you had asked him that question directly like you could become a martyr for this cause he would have said I don't want to but fine. And like if that's what it takes I'm willing to take that risk. >> Yeah. >> But you have a question just broadly speaking this is something that I struggle with all the time. We started by talking about Candace and all the evil she's doing. It's not just Candace. It's Candace. It's Tucker. It's Megan. It's Nick Fuentes. There's a whole bunch of them out there and and you know we've now sort of talked the A-list but there's a bunch of B and C list people doing the same thing. What's the strategy? Like what's the right strategy? Cuz we can give all the facts and figures you've talked about. We can do that adnauseium and they just blow it off. >> You mean the strategy against them? >> Yeah. What do we do against them? Because that's what I care about. How do we kill this virus or at least suppress it? Well, I I've been talking about this for a long time because you're right and I think like you know what I talk about in my podcast is like this is this podcast is not for you to sit here and listen. This is a call to action because what we have is they believe whatever they they don't have facts. They don't have evidence. They don't have anything backing up what they do but they are passionate about what they are doing. And yes, there's a huge >> artificial uh and I would say foreign adversarial push that's taking place as well. But we can I that's probably 30 40%. >> Yeah. But there are real players. But but they're are real players and most most conservatives and this is why we lose to the left as well, right? And these are kind of we can go into horseshoe theory and all this, but there's a lot of similarities between this woke right and the people that follow Candace and the left and they will go out there and they will share content. They will push narratives. They will be down in your comments, my comments fighting with us, trying to uh they're trying to demoralize us, demoralize anyone that follows us, anyone that was agrees with us. and everybody else is like, I'm just here to observe and I don't like it. But what I do think is happening in the last month or so and and I think this this hearing will continue to push this and people are done with it. And this is why I was like soon as I saw that Candace was on this exploding mic thing, I was like, "Thank you, Jesus." Like >> most people will bypass because they don't know enough details about whether or not there was a tunnel or the French were involved. They're kind of, you know, when I say most people, most reasonable, logical conservatives that don't like what she's doing, but aren't in the the the weeds of it and they they won't engage because they can't argue it, right? >> But when you throw out something like an exploding mic, that again, enough force, enough energy to kill a man. And by the way, their claim, not mine, that it destroyed the microphone itself, >> but it didn't create a hole in a shirt, didn't even come loose of the the magnet. >> No. no equal and opposite reaction like like >> Newton's third law still applies here but you just want to suspend that. So I mean the real answer is people have to get engaged and understand that where I think most conservatives like I dabble in social media I don't sit there and fight people like this is the battlefront unfortunately uh and this is how Russia, China, Iran and many other of our adversaries are taking advantage of this and and it's it may not be that big of a thing now. I think what the the ultimate effect of this is yeah we could lose the midterms. There's a delta between our perception on X and and and and what's going on on social media and reality. And it's it's a lot less than we think. And I think, you know, to me it was like the Thomas Massie uh primary spelled it out for me. It's like if you look, we're on X. It's like this guy's going to win big time. Everybody supported him. Kenneth Owen, Tucker Carlson, and he just lost his ass. Yeah. >> Like he lost by a large margin. And >> for an incumbent, >> Yeah. 47 incumbent, that's a big loss, >> right? Yeah, but we we got to we got to mobilize people and they got to get as passionate for saving the country and for for truth as the people are that are trying to destroy this country, trying to undermine the fabric of this of of our nation. And that is truth. >> I think it's really good that the Turning Point guys are defending themselves more aggressively. I think that's a really big part of it. Uh because it's hard to get people to defend you more aggressively than you're willing to defend yourself. Yep. >> Um so I think it's really good that they've come out on offense. I think they've chosen a really good time to do it, which is this kind of the evidence is being refreshed for everybody and added to. >> Uh, and so you just got to go out there and conf, you know, just confidently tell say the say the truth and do it in a confident and somewhat arrogant fashion, you know, like >> like no, we're right and she's again this is a nice beautiful thing. So I don't want to use the R word if I don't have to, but Right. That's that's what I mean. >> No, we believe in the resurrection of the Rword around >> Oh, good. All right. Okay. like, "No, you're being retarded." Actually, [laughter] >> you know, I I love what you said, Gary, because that that's kind of my sweet spot, which is I'm an activist and >> and I'm involved. That's all I've ever done politically is lead activist armies. And the one thing I tell people is be engaged. Do not be an observer. People will watch a podcast like this and yeah, those guys are right. You're awesome. And thank you. Like, we appreciate it if you do that, but not really. like we really need you engaged and that means being in the comments and that means telling people who are saying stupid things, hey, you're That's ridiculous. Don't say stuff like that. Don't follow Candace Owens. She's a And I really think and you're saying it as arrogance. I I do think it's mockery. Like mocking Candace for what an idiot she is and the stupidity of that the complexity and stupidity of the things that she's saying. If if we teach our followings to do that, then we can crush them online and it's important we do. It's not reality. >> You say ridicule is the most >> powerful% right. I think we we under we underutilize ridicule agree as the sort of you know >> Yeah. I mean what you're talking about is preaching to the choir and as it turns out the choir is who needs to hear it because they're the actual ones who are motivated to show up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Keep them moral moralized. >> Keep them moralized. I agree with this. I I would also say we there's a policy piece you know we we need uh at a policy level even small government guy like me um social media deserves our attention >> I agree >> we have to you you can't just allow foreign governments >> uh to spend billions of dollars manufacturing consensus in your country. >> Yeah. >> That has to be addressed and only the government can address it. I I would also say that um we need to take these people to court whenever we can. >> Agreed. >> You know, Candace can't win in court. Doesn't mean she'll never win a case. >> Means that over time Candace can't survive in a place where she can't manufacture the rules or she's held to a standard uh where there's a sovereign in the form of of the judge. Um and then the other thing is we have to build institutions on the right. You know, a lot of what we're surviving right now is the death of the institutions postcoid. >> Yeah. >> Um post2020 COVID was it, but it wasn't all of it. You know, BLM in the middle of COVID and uh you know, followed by 51 current intelligence officials say it was Russian disin just all of it. The Hunter Biden lap, the whole thing, the institutions just completely failed uh and crumbled. But conservatives believe in institutions. We're not, you know, you can't be anti-institution and be a true conservative. Conservatives believe in the power of tradition. We believe in uh the power of culture. We believe in the power of uh of law. Um we we want to build on the foundations of the best of the past. We're not radicals and we're not revolutionaries. And we live in a in a radical and revolutionary and dispirited moment right now where it's very hard to know who to trust. And so we have to be the ones that you can trust and we have to build new engines of uh consensus which over time will become corrupt and over time will have to be replaced. We don't live in a utopia. There is no perfect solution. There's no perfect institution. But you have to have institutions. You can't have a culture. You can't have a nation without a culture and you can't have a culture with 330 individual totally atomized uh automatons. We have to be able to come together and have consensus and have community and have a basis of how we are going to measure what's true and what isn't true. And it's unpopular to point to those things in our incredibly populist moment. Um, but there's nothing virtuous about populism. Populism is a reaction to the abuses of elitism. There's nothing virtuous about elitism. Elitism is a reaction to the uh excesses of populism. America's always been something else. that's been a republic. We believe in republicanism. We believe in elected representatives who have to both represent us but also lead us, have to tell us when we're wrong but not forsake us. That that's an incredible tension uh to maintain over time and it's in disrepair at the moment. But it it is in the genius of that tension that all good government uh over the last 250 years of this country has taken place. It's having people who uh having people in institutions who can both speak with our voice and tell us when we're wrong. How we get back to that is going to I think will be the work the life's work of all of us uh post 2020. I think it'll take the rest of our lives to do anything like it. But I think we have an obligation to do it for our kids and for the future of the country. >> You just said something so important which is having a long-term vision. >> Yes. You know, so I I got engaged in politics 16 years ago or so, and at the time I said, "Well, we need a 40-year plan." That was my view. And we as conservatives are terrible at this. Republicans particularly terrible. We want to win the midterms. >> Yep. >> And then it's we want to win the presidential election. >> I travel all over the country. I've been all 50 states. I've been in the capitals in most. I spent way too much time in Washington DC in my office there. Not one time in 16 years have I had anybody say to me, "Oh, I have a plan to save the republic." Like, here's what we need to do to save the republic. People tell me how we can win a governorship, how we can win the presidency, get a majority in Congress, how we can pass a particular policy. All of those things are important. I'm not denigrating any of them. But people damn well better start thinking about how we save the republic. And I I'm going to pitch my own thing a little bit here, which is that's why I do Convention of States because it's a republic saving project. I'm not going to fix the country tomorrow or next year or the year after. I've been doing this 13 almost 14 years now because I actually care about the institutions, reforming the institutions and saving the republic. I would argue there's a whole swath now. We call some people call the horseshoe, right? >> They're protoanarchists actually. like, well, we can't trust any institution ever. None of it matters. No court is legitimate. No level of government is legitimate. The the medical establishment's no longer legitimate. Industry is no longer legitimate. Well, that's just anarchy. If you believe that, if we believe that, we're gonna lose to the leftists because they love anarchy because that's how you get to ultimate statism >> because what the what the whatever term we want to use, what the uh what this movement on the right is fundamentally is of the left. >> Absolutely. >> Their entire basis of truth is leftwing in its orientation. Correct. >> It's the globalist agenda repackaged for the right. >> Yeah, that's right. And it is it is based on it is based on uh this thing where we we have to hate Israel. And then the other part of that is um isolationism. That's that's what they're pushing. And and you know when I first saw what Candace was doing back in late November, I saw like I was horrified by what was happening. saw this was a psychological operation that she but I even then I had no idea that we were going to dovetail this into you know Tucker Carlson uh you know uh Megan Kelly uh Joe Kent and all these other people and you know what I've been saying since like late December, hey the goal here is to make sure that we lose the midterms. If we lose the midterms, we're most likely going to lose 2028. And then they have a thing, project 2032 is what I've been calling it, where now the Democrats are in power. And now this new right-wing opposition party is going to arise. And it looks like, and I was saying it, it wasn't, but led by Tucker Carlson to where it is this new right that is going to attempt to assurp MAGA in the same way that MAGA really took over the Republican movement. And you know what they want to do is they're going to be pitching, hey, we got to get away from Israel and it's isolationism. And who wins when that happens? Like we can talk about interventionalism. That's dangerous. There is nothing more dangerous for the United States than extreme isolationism. Especially if we let China, Russia, and bricks, for instance, fill that void. And suddenly the US dollar is no longer the standard. We can no longer project not only military might, but definitely not financial might. And people are worried about, you know, $5 gas, wait till it's $20 a gallon. And and and and poverty, everyone is living in poverty in here. And that's the goal. I think that's ultimately this slow transfer of power to the globalists and you can get into plurality, you know, like like whatever you want to call it, communism, socialism, but that is that is where this party, this new woke right wants to take the United States. and and this is this is what's going to implement that >> isolationism has always led to the same place like this is not a new thing Jefferson fought the Barbarie pilot pirates and he didn't want to like he was an isolationist at first >> but the violence will come to us the chaos will come to us this and especially in the modern era when it comes on a jet and it gets here in a couple of hours or comes across the Mexican border or the Canadian border if we believe that the world will leave us alone if we just leave them alone that's just a fantasy It really is. >> Yeah. >> No, I mean and also like what what country what global empire has done better after giving up its empire? Like how are the Portuguese doing? How are the Spanish doing? How are the British doing? They do you think their like standard of living really improved? I mean maybe they were forced to give up their empire ultimately because they lost a major war and so they just couldn't keep it together. But voluntarily handing it over and seeding it to China. I mean I don't I don't think people have fully understood that, right? the people I remember it's like the Joe Kent of the world who are saying things like we should just unilaterally withdraw from the Middle East almost entirely. It's like well what are the knock on consequences of that? What happens to what do the Gulf nations do in response to that? Well, they say well we need a protector. We can't just be a we can't deal with Iran alone. Can we we're going to go to Beijing? >> And then what happens when anything we want to do in the Middle East or anything we want to do with oil, anything we any some sort of project we're trying to accomplish anywhere in the world and that country says, "Well, that's great. we really like what you're saying, but we have to talk to Beijing before we talk to you and we need their consent. Um because that's the that's the way the world works inverse right now, right? And China wants to do something. Most of these countries will say, well, we have to talk to Washington first. What is this a better world for the com normal American? I feel like this is this is where that sort of pure is is just extraordinarily naive and it doesn't require adopting like this democracy promotion nonsense that we need to like build new democracies in the Middle East to just say no actually we have as a nationalist we have significant national interests that are implicated by these in foreign countries and we need to resolve them in a way that furthers our national interest which is basically the Trump foreign policy in a nutshell actually. >> Yeah. Well, gentlemen, I appreciate you spending a good day with me. Um, you know, a lot of great things have happened for for me today. One of them, my uh my show, The Pin Dragon Cycle, opened in the UK on Amazon Prime today and it opened as a top 10 show. >> Congratulations. >> So, it's a huge a huge day in that regard. And then also, I was able to today buy back Jeremy's razors from the Daily Wire. Uh, you know, it was four years ago when I got to look into a camera with a flamethrower and burn down a box of Harry's razors because Harry's had said that basic conservative ideas were uh were reprehensible. The co-CEO of Harry's said that we had values misalignment and pulled all of his ads on our shows after we had been a great partner to Harry's for a number of years and extended them our personal credibility and endorsing their product. It was a great product and we were happy to do it. But I think people don't really appreciate how big of a betrayal that is. When you say to your audience, I like this product. They believe you because they believe you about other things, right? >> You talk to them about politics, they believe what you say. You talk to them about the news, they believe what you say. You've won their trust by being trustworthy. And so then when you say this is a good product, they're that's a very valuable thing that you're doing. Uh so when you when you engage in that with an advertising partner, the least you can uh hope for from them is that they won't say that you're bad publicly. You're saying publicly you're good. They are saying publicly you're bad. That is a complete and total betrayal. Of course advertisers come and go on shows. Uh that's just business. An advertiser has the right to leave for any reason. But for years, the advertisers leveraged this power over particularly conservative host Rush Limbbo on Hannity, Ben Shapiro to say, "If you do what we don't like, we will signal to the marketplace that you're bad." When Ben appeared at the March for Life, we lost millions of dollars of advertisers overnight. And I went to our ad agency and said, "Hey, we can't have this. We can't be betrayed this way where they not only take their money, but but denounce us on the way out the door. Tell their audience that we're not a good product. uh tell other advertisers who might be skittish that they shouldn't be advertising with us. It cannot be this way. And so from now on, if an advertiser does that, I just want you to know we're going to use the same energy that we were using to tell the audience that this company wanted their business to tell the audience that this company does not want their business. And the advertising agency said, "You cannot do this. You just this is the way the world works. You have to accept the way that the world works." And I said, "Well, we don't we don't accept that this is the way the world works. I don't care if we lose all of our advertisers. We're going to change this paradigm. And then of course the day came when my bluff got called and it was Harry's. Harry's reacted to a tweet that had I'm not kidding about this. It had two followers. The the Twitter account had two followers. And they told Harry's that they should be ashamed of themselves for advertising uh on a network that says that fundamentally boys are boys and girls are girls. It was over the trans issue. And so Harry's pulled their money, denounced us on the way out the door, called it values misalignment, said we were reprehensible, and I called the ad agency and said, "Of course you know this means war." And they said, "Nope, don't do it. We told you don't do it. You can't do it. Uh you you cannot say that Harry's doesn't want conservative business." And I said, "Well, I'll do you one better. I'm just going to launch a razor company." Because our fundamental mantra at Daily Wire was it's not enough to critique culture, you have to build culture. uh it's not enough to lament loss and then fund raise off of losing. Nope, you only win by winning and we're going to win. And so we started an alternative. We thought we're going to tell our audience uh these razor companies don't want your business. Our razor company does want your business. Proctor and Gamble spends almost 10 billion dollars a year just advertising. And as far as I know, they don't spend any of that money with conservative hosts or conservative podcasts or conservative shows or conservative platforms or conservative networks. All of that money goes to fund broadly left-wing shows and leftwing hosts and leftwing. Now, they might call it mainstream, but the rules we we know how that game gets played. The rules that define mainstream are specifically exclusionary of any ideas held by traditional conservatives in this country. We have to build the institutions that can spend $10 billion. Sometimes people say, "Why a razor? What what's conservative about fundamentally about a razor company?" I said, "Well, we're conservative and it's our razor company. It represents our values. It loves our audience." And in success, those organizations uh and institutions as they ascend will spend more and more money trying to speak to audiences that are aligned with it and therefore do what the left has been doing for years, which is funding their media ecosystems through product marketing. Uh and so Jeremy's razors in that way was a very missional thing from the very beginning. What we were trying to accomplish was uh yes making a great product and you know that's not easy. Our first razor wasn't great. Uh and so we failed and we learned and we rolled out our second gen Razor and it's unbelievable. It's a fabulous product and people have been using it now for years. In fact uh I would say that Jeremy's Razor was not only a success out of the gate but an enormous success. That commercial the >> best ever. Well, we we called it the world's greatest commercial. >> I think that's true. >> The greatest commercial of all time. Uh we sold 40,000 Razor subscriptions in the first week. 40,000 not products, but subscri recurring subscriptions in one week off of that commercial because the audience knows that you cannot stand for this. You can't stand for the status quo of giving your money to corporations that openly hate you. We did $10 million worth of razor sales in the first year of Jeremy's razors. We did $19 million of razor sales the second year of Jeremy's Razors. The second year of Jeremy's Razors, uh Jeremy's Razors represented 10% of all of Daily Wire's total revenue for that year. Uh to date, I think we've sold over a million order. We fulfilled over a million orders, done over $55 million uh of revenue since launching the company some four years ago. Uh and when the Daily Wire said that I could buy it a few weeks ago, we began negotiations was a huge moment for me. Obviously, I lost Jeremy's razors when I lost the Daily Wire 16 months ago. And losing sucks. Losing is incredibly hard. Uh losing a company that you've poured yourself into for a decade that has sort of been your way of projecting your values and your worldview into the culture. Um for a decade, an incredible loss. It's a losing a company that's allowed you to create so much great content, to be a part of helping to elevate so many great hosts, be a part of so many great political wins is incredibly devastating. But there's something especially devastating about losing a company that has your name written on every single [laughter] product and that has your face, you know, on the on every single bottle. That's a real blow. Um, and so in many ways, I feel like, um, having this opportunity to once again own Jeremy's Razors and once again be CEO of Jeremy's Razors is just a first step in reclaiming a lot of the things that that I've lost over the last year and a half. And, you know, of course, we've been doing that with this show, too. This show was the first thing that I was able to do after leaving Daily Wire, and I've been proud to do it. It's given me the opportunity to have my voice back in the public discourse, which has been an enormous blessing. Uh but today I get to be a businessman again and I get to be reunited with the brand that bears my name and I get to re uh re-engage in the battle to actually build the future to build institutions. Um and I don't think that Jeremy's razors will be the only one uh that we launch or the only one that we build but I am convinced that it is the right first one. Um, it's it's a real honor to have brought back on the team, to have brought back on the product, to be able to engage with customers once again. You know, the conservative movement for most of my life has been powered almost exclusively by nonprofits. And while there are many very good conservative nonprofits, the the sort of overarching premise of the conservative nonprofit in my lifetime has largely, but not exclusively, been a cycle of what I call lose, fund raise. And in that environment, you win by losing. >> Yeah. >> The best thing that can happen to you is you get cancelled off of some platform or you uh lose some election or you uh face some sort of opposition uh from the government or from some cultural institution. That's the best thing that can happen to you because now everybody's upset and you can go and fund raise off of them being upset. Well, that's a recipe for defeat. Even by the conservatives own standards, we're the ones who believe in the market and yet we use uh as the primary vehicle of promulgating for promulgating our worldview the nonprofit mechanism instead of the one that we actually believe is more efficient. What I love about business, what I love about forprofit business, what I love about Jeremy's razors, we only win by winning. We have to make something that you want. It has to be at a quality level that you expect. We have to fulfill our promises to you and only then do you give us your money. You give it to us in exchange for a good. you give it to us in exchange for a service that you believe in. That means that in order for us to win, we have to succeed. On this show, we talk about agency a lot. Agency is the cure to all of the problems that hail our country. What all of the merchants of despair on the left and the right want you to believe is that you are powerless. That there is nothing that you can do. This country was built by people who believe that they could and who then did. That's what freedom is. Freedom ultimately is the freedom to try and the freedom to fail. And our founders gave it to us the gave it to us in the law. Christ gave it to us in the spirit. It is for freedom that Christ has made us free. The apostle tells us. What does that mean? Well, it means you have the freedom to lose. You have the you have the freedom to fail. You have the freedom to miss the mark. You don't have absolute understanding. You don't have absolute information. You don't have absolute discipline. But because you're free to fail, you're free to try. You'd have no freedom to do anything if you don't have freedom to fail. And in this country, we have an enormous opportunity to fail. Harry's had an opportunity to fail and they took it. We had an opportunity to try and we took it. That's what Jeremy's razors is. That's what every one of us as as Americans have as our birthright. It's the opportunity to try. We take it for granted. We think everyone has the opportunity to try and it isn't true. It is ours almost uniquely. Certainly in the measure that we have it, it is ours uniquely. I've absorbed a lot of loss in my life. Almost every businessman has absorbed a lot of loss in their life. You know, Henry Ford started three car companies. The first two failed. In fact, the second one didn't fail. It became Cadillac. He failed and they kicked him out. Can you imagine losing your second car company? It goes on to be Cadillac and you must think that you're totally finished. Not Henry Ford. He was stupid enough to try a third time and he started the Ford Motor Company and he pioneered the moving assembly line and he put the entire country on wheels. One of the great success stories in American or human history. I don't think that failure is what stands between us and the future. In fact, I think failure is a feature, not a bug. You should try and you should fail and you should try again. I'm not ashamed of my failures. I'm proud of my failures because they teach me. They give me the opportunities to grow, the opportunities to try again. I think that what every uh builder, what every doer has in common is our willingness to face failure and get back up and keep on trying. And so that's what we're going to do with Jeremy's razors. That's why I'm so excited uh to be back in control of it. And it's what I want every single person watching to do. Not start a razor company. I don't need the competition. >> I want you to do I want you to believe that you can do. I want you to believe that you can do in your own personal life. In your in our politics, I want you to believe that you can do in your family. I want you to believe that you can do I want you not to see yourself as a victim. I don't want you to see yourself even in failure as a failure. I want you to see in failure that you're just a person learning as you go. I want you to make corrections and try again. I don't know how we're going to defeat the despair emergence. Um except I know there's a lot of failure between here and there and it's only our capacity to get back up that's going to allow us to do it. That starts with our fundamental belief that we can make a difference, that we can accomplish something great if we just try and then we try. The future belongs to those who build it. So, what I'll say to you about Jeremy's Razors is that Jeremy's Razors is a razor for people who believe that they can and who do. If you're a person who believes that you can and who and who then will, we would love to have your business. If you're a person who believes that you're a victim, go buy one of those other shitty razors. Thank you guys for hanging out with us tonight