The US dollar has lost 85% of its value since the 70s, when the dollar decoupled from gold, and the government seems bent on continuing the tradition.
Charlie Kirk here. From now until after the elections, the government can print as much money as they want. The last time they did that, inflation went up 9%. Gold is the only asset that has proven to withstand inflation. Invest in gold with Noble Gold Investments. You will get a 24-carat, one-fourth of an ounce gold standard coin for free. Just use promo code KIRK. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
That's noblegoldinvestments.com, the only gold company I trust. Hey everybody, happy Monday, Ask Me Anything episode. We ask the question, are men and women brains the same?
Well, we talk about chess as a way to address that question. We also talk about World War I, the hidden history of World War I, and many other important topics, including how healthy is the economy exactly. As always, you can email me your thoughts, freedom at charleykirk.com. Get involved with Turning Point USA today at tpusa.com, that is tpusa.com.
Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com. And also, consider becoming a member, it's members.charleykirk.com. At members.charleykirk.com, you get content with no ads.
You also get exclusive ways to contact me, and so much more that is happening, including exclusive interviews with Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and more. Members.charleykirk.com. And as always, you can email me freedom at charleykirk.com.
Buckle up everybody, here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Brought to you by the loan experts I trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandtodd.com. Let's start here with an unusual story that caught my attention. And by the way, our Ask Me Anything episodes, we usually dive into third or fourth rail topics.
For example, one of the topics that we covered last week is why does classical music bother criminals so much? This is an interesting one. Charlie, did you see the recent news that the International Chess Foundation has barred men who think they are women from competing in women-only chess tournaments? Okay, the International Chess Federation, not foundation, in women-only chess tournaments.
What is behind that? Colton from Grand Island, Nebraska. Well, let's pause for a second. When you think of men competing in female activities, you think of Thomas. You think of the weightlifting. By the way, do we have a clip of the weightlifting in Canada?
That's usually what you think of as cheating. And we shouldn't put up with that. We shouldn't put up with pervy, neurotic men who think they are women, think they are females, being able to destroy female sports. The disintegration of biological standards, the deterioration of truth, the idea that men and women are exactly the same, and that's really what is at the root here. So last week, actually just a couple days ago, there was some huge news in Canada of a man who thinks he was a woman and Andres entered the women's division and crushed all the women in weightlifting. Now that's obvious.
Let's play cut 119. Why is women's bench so bad? I mean, not compared to me. We all know that I'm a training freak, so that doesn't count. And no, we're not talking about Mackenzie Lee. She's got little T-Rex arms and she's like 400 pounds of chest muscle, apparently.
I mean, standard bench in powerlifting competition for women. I literally don't understand why it's so bad. I think what they mean by so bad is that there's no competition. Maybe because men and women are fundamentally different. This is something they resist on college campuses.
If you go to a university, they'll tell you that men and women are absolutely the same. That is the new orthodoxy, the zeitgeist. And so this person just crushes them in the competition. Just crushes them.
And Andres. So that is something that is easy to talk about with your friends in suburban America. Hey, men shouldn't compete in female sports.
And even that is kind of hotly contested because you have people. What's the what's her name yet? Rapinoe or Rapinoe says, oh, it doesn't happen. She's just a gaslighting liar.
Riley Gaines, to her great credit, has been speaking out forcefully and all this. But what is less obvious and what gets down to the fundamental core of it is the question, are men and women exactly the same? Anyone who breathes it is, as the founders would say in the deck, the Constitution, but they would say in the Declaration, we hold these truths to be self-evident.
What do they mean by that? Anyone can figure this out. If you have reason and you're not incapacitated, you're not in a coma or mentally damaged, you could figure it out. You know that men and women are different. But how are we different?
Well, of course, we have different bodies, bone density, testosterone, estrogen, muscle mass. All those things, of course, are obvious. But it goes deeper than that, doesn't it?
Obvious. I mean, women are much more emotional. Women are more likely to engage in feeling based types of conversation. But this story here is so fascinating that the International Chess Federation says men are no longer allowed to compete against women. So men and women are separate in chess competitions. There's no physical component to chess. You could literally be in a wheelchair. You could be paralyzed and compete in chess.
There is no physical component. It's not like weightlifting. It's not like basketball. Chess is a mind game. Chess is about strategy, about planning, moves and countermoves. If men and women were exactly the same, why does the International Chess Federation have to come in and say that we must not allow, quote unquote, trans women, fake women, men to compete?
Well, now we're finally getting to the truth that we all know. Men and women's brains are different. By the way, these differences we should celebrate. This is not some sort of slight against women. There are things that women do that we men do not do well at all.
We'll talk about that. But what is chess? Now, I'm not very good at chess. I mean, I'm good if you just like pick a random layman off the street.
But Blake could probably beat me drunk and blindfolded, right? I mean, there's some people that are like really, really good at chess. That's not me. But I'm above average in kind of the acceptable spectrum of chess. I love chess. And I think it's really good for young people to engage in chess for multiple reasons. But chess is a micro of war. Chess is about strategy. If I were to say, what is the big difference between a man or a woman's brain?
It's the difference between the micro and the macro. So I will, I'll prove it to you. Any time I go to a Lincoln-Reagan day dinner or I go to any sort of political dinner, and I go to a lot of them, if I am sitting next to a man, he wants to talk about the weather, politics or sports. Always. And that's fine. It's kind of exhausting for me, honestly, because that's what I do for my day job.
Dennis Prager was the one that actually originally pointed this out to me. But if I sit next to a woman, they want to tell me about their kids. They want to tell me about their relationships. They want to tell me about conversations that they had. They want to tell me about how they feel about things. Honestly, it's way more interesting. Recently, I was at a dinner like, yeah, my daughter doesn't speak to me because she's a liberal and my cousin said this. And it was like really actually somewhat entertaining to dig into the different personal dynamics. And then to my right was a man who was like, well, do you think Trump's going to be the nominee? I'm like, bro, just listen to the podcast. Come on. Sweet guy.
Super macro, right? The biggest of all questions. And I'll prove it to you again. I recently have signed up for a series of philosophy courses with the Claremont Institute. We just finished a course on Kierkegaard, all about the tragic hero. This invite for the philosophy course went out to tons of people all across politics. I missed the first one and I went into the zoom call for the the class and I was fascinated.
There were 30 of us and every single one was a man. Macro philosophy. Big questions. What is existence?
Why are we here? Our brains are different. And this gets down, which I think is the ultimate red pill against the trans tyranny, the alphabet mafia, the rainbow jihadis. If you massacre kids, even if you change their parts successfully, which will never happen, but even if you do, how are you going to change their brains? We are wired differently. We want different things. I'm going to keep this up. There's a lot of points I want to make here.
And now the evidence is clear. Men have a competitive advantage in chess. Men think strategically better. They think macro better.
They obsess over the details better. And I'll tell you about that. But don't take my word for it.
The International Chess Federation has now said that men and women's brains are different, which I think is a death blow against this trans insanity that we're living through. All right. You've probably heard me. It's actually now 25 pounds that I have lost.
And I'm sure some of you say, oh, Charlie, I've tried everything. That was me. You know, my first Zoom call with my Ph.D. weight loss, I was kind of skeptical. I was like, come on, guys.
All right. I've learned this whole thing before about about about about. And boy, was I wrong.
They know what they're doing. My Ph.D. weight loss. Look, this is 100 percent legit. And people say, well, Charlie, you've lost so much weight. And I say, yeah, my Ph.D. weight loss. Hello.
But look, they have a different approach. And it's Dr. Ashley Lucas. She's great. I text with her.
She does a really, really good job. Twenty five pounds, I'll tell you. And I have more energy and I'm healthier than ever before. Here's why. The program rids your body of the inflammation that is causing so many health problems. If you look around today, America is the fattest it has ever been. Our families, friends and neighbors are dying of diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer's now called T3 diabetes. Ph.D. has helped so many people who want to have a good active life, play with their grandkids, travel, hike to a waterfall, go for a bike ride.
But their weight was holding them hostage. They don't want any of you on experimental drugs for your brain degeneration from Alzheimer's or homebound with an oxygen tank for heart failure. My Ph.D. weight loss knows that losing weight is the best thing for overall health. We are way too fat as a society. And here's the thing.
If you're listening to this and you say, boy, I'm a little overweight, it's perfectly fine. Do something about it. Use your free will, your agency, say, you know what, I'm just not where I want to be.
This is an empowerment tool for you. All of these things can be prevented. You look at heart disease, what they now call diabesity. By the way, there's a great new book by Dr. Peter Attia about longevity.
You want to live long? Lose weight. Look, Dr. Ashley Lucas, she is the master of this and she is the genius behind my Ph.D. weight loss. So you can call them today at 864-644-1900.
That is 864-644-1900. By the way, this is not like a sign up and you're automatically going to lose weight. You've got to do some work. You've got to apply yourself. It's not a too good to be true thing. But if you have motivation, they will channel that motivation towards a very positive, measurable and real outcome. Find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
Tell them Charlie Kirk sent you. That is myphdweightloss.com. Ph.D. weight loss and nutrition. Physician and dietitian developed individually delivered. Again, I lost 25 pounds and I feel great.
If you think you've tried everything, you're wrong until you say you've tried my Ph.D. weight loss. They map you as a whole person. It's not like, hey, just read this book.
No, no, no, no. It's a deep dive. It's personalized. It's going to get results for you. My Ph.D. weight loss dot com. I'm going to stay on this story.
I'm telling you, this is the ultimate red pill on the trans issue. The sports stuff. Super important.
I'm not diminishing it. I think that you could see in real time these massive men that are just how much did they beat the bench press record by? By the way, it was something ridiculous, like 150, 200 pounds or something. It's just so 500 pounds. Are you kidding me? Five hundred pounds.
Four hundred pounds over the competition across three lifts. It's just beyond comprehension that we're putting up with this. But chess. If you have a female sitting down to play chess and a male sitting down to play chess. It should be an equal playing field, right? Why would we have sex separate competitive categories for chess? Well, there's a lot of evidence that men are more extreme. They're more likely to be deeply obsessed with something, and chess is a game that rewards obsession. They're more competitive, too. Men have more power to focus incredible intensely on something, incredibly intensely on something.
And here's a fun fact. In a chess tournament, competitors think so hard they can burn as many calories as an athlete playing a sport. It's been proven time and time again.
The evidence is clear. Men have a competitive advantage in chess. There are women-only tournaments because if there weren't, women would almost never win major tournaments. Not because anybody is stronger, anybody is bigger. Do you ever see a chess champion, you know, a gust of wind will blow them over sometimes.
They're like 5'3 and 112 pounds. It doesn't matter. If you have a male brain versus a female brain in chess, you have a competitive advantage.
The data is clear. It's not a patriarchy, it's not systemic sexism. Men spend hours and hours and hours memorizing hundreds of openings and moves and countermoves. The first five, six moves of chess unfold like a book, and top players have them all memorized. Chess is very similar, by the way, to why women do not get into coding.
Some do, but most do not. Why women don't get into science, technology, engineering, and math. Because in some ways, chess is an algorithm. This is why it's so hard to beat the best computers in chess. Because eventually you can game out the first five moves and then the first ten moves on top of it. It becomes kind of a building formula. And it's such intense brain power.
If you ever watch the top chess masters, how fast they move, the margin for error is nothing. I'm going to connect all these dots together. Women are notorious for still remembering the details of arguments that they had from years ago. And Dennis, to his credit, has been doing male and female hour for years, and now it's just one of the most popular things you can do. You can see this difference, by the way, in how trans people, male to female, have a sex fetish.
Their idea of women is really sexualized, reflecting how men think, while female to male trans people are fleeing from sexuality in many cases. By the way, women tend to be more sensitive, compassionate. If you were to say, Charlie, what is your ideal elementary school education teacher?
It takes remarkable patience, compassion, emotion. It's a motherly type role. And that's why 80 to 90 percent of all kindergarten, first and second grade teachers are women, and it should be that way. That's a beautiful thing. Let's know our differences. Chess is like war.
It's very similar. This is why I've said that women should not be in frontline combat roles in the military, and the media hates it when I say that, but it's true. It's not to say that women don't have a role to play in trying to win the war or win a war.
But this is so much of a deeper red pill than any normal sport can be. Modern liberalism orders us to deny reality and pretend that women are just like men. Or even weirder, it asks us to pretend that they are defective men, and they are not. They are different from men. Our differences are beautiful.
We should celebrate them. We should not send women into the front lines of a conflict, nor should we send men into the front lines of educating our preschoolers. Let's understand our differences, and the denial of them creates moral chaos, panic, and confusion. We should not send men into ruin women's spaces.
Our differences keep us free. My favorite male-female difference, some college had a test. They put some college boys and then college girls alone. They could just stare out and think.
That's all they could do. So they asked the males, what did you think about? And they asked the females, individually, what did you think about? So the males, to no one's shock, thought about sex and sports. What was revelatory to me was the female answer.
It was revelatory. They reviewed conversations. Just for the record, there isn't a man alive who has ever reviewed a conversation. I always tell wives, when you ask your husband, what are you thinking? And he says, nothing really. He is not lying to you. He is not lying to you. He is not lying to you. He is not lying to you.
He is not lying to you. Charlie, I've been reading about World War I recently to better understand why 20th century unfolded as it did. I'll be honest, I don't think America joining World War I was a good idea. It got over 100,000 Americans killed and we gained almost nothing from it.
And it was a good idea. And the answer is, peace would have been made with Germany. And there would have been no collapse in Russia leading to communism. No breakdown of government in Italy followed by fascism and Nazism never would have gained ascendancy in Germany. And the answer is, peace would have been made with Germany. And the answer is, peace would have gained ascendancy in Germany.
And the answer is, peace would have gained ascendancy in Germany. This is despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson, bad president, campaigned in 1916 to keep us out of war. Woodrow Wilson made repeated proclamations and promises saying, we are not going to get involved in war. He of course broke that promise. You see, Woodrow Wilson had a plan. Whether or not the modern historian is willing to admit it or acknowledge it is besides the point.
You see, this is actually it. Wilson's reelection slogan had engineered through the quote, he kept us out of war. That was literally his reelection slogan in 1916. He then completely reversed it when the propaganda was instituted. Woodrow Wilson's dream was globalism.
It's a fact. Who was the original World Economic Forum designer? Who was the original guy that wanted to see the recreation of the city of Babel? Who was the original guy who wanted to see the erosion of borders and the deterioration of sovereignty? It was Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson entered us into World War I. And as soon as we entered into World War I, almost everything went haywire. At the same time, while there was some justification potentially because German U-boats fired on American ships, but then we lost 100,000 lives. There's this amazing quote that I have here in this document which is that, World War I did not end with the Treaty of Versailles. It was simply a suspension, a temporary suspension in hostilities. Meaning, the conflict was never actually resolved.
If you want a thought crime, this is a thought crime. Would have Nazi Germany ever existed if America would not have entered into World War I? I'm not even challenging World War II. That was a necessary conflict, unfortunately, for how many people died and the suffering.
But it was the morally right thing to do. Russia might not have turned communist if America did not get involved in World War I. There might not have been Bolsheviks, and you might not have 20 million to 40 million dead Russians. Now, you probably know about the Bolshevik Revolution. But do you know about the Red Revolution? The Red Revolution was a failed communist revolution of 1905, where the working class tried to take over the czars, and they failed. So there was no guarantee that Russia was going to go communist.
They thwarted an agrarian-based communist revolution. In fact, if you want to go even deeper, that the West was involved, how involved we do not know. There are some documents that show that the West was involved in the release of Lenin from prison with a train of gold, that's a fact, going to Russia to spur on the Bolshevik Revolution.
Let me read. Trotsky had an American passport. On his way to go back to assist Lenin in the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, he was stopped in Canada.
Many people don't know this. He was stopped in Canada and arrested and put in prison. The Canadian government was worried that if Trotsky was able to go all the way back to Russia, it was going to be able to foment, rage domestically in Russia, the troops would then be able to be transferred to the Eastern Front, the Western Front, where they could then end up killing Canadians. So Trotsky cooled his heels in a Canadian prison, quote, for five days. And then something happened. Americans called up the Canadian government and in so many words said, let Trotsky go. And then with an American passport, Trotsky went back to meet Lenin. They joined up and by November, through bribery, cunning, brutality and deception, they were able to hire enough thugs, make deals and take over the Russian government.
Now, there's many takeaways here, but one of them is this. When you see a supposed grassroots movement, BLM is a perfect example of this. When you see an alleged grassroots revolt, there's almost always a financier or an oligarch behind it.
If there actually ever is a legit grassroots movement, then the oligarchs, the financiers, will interject themselves to try to purchase that movement and to control that movement. I believe that America's entrance into World War One started this cascade of interventions of neoliberal, neoconservative thought that has led even to our involvement in Ukraine today. Dare I say that American central planning, to an overextend in the West, has led to a domino theory of war after war after war.
You don't hear that very often. World War Two gets positioned as a moral war and it is and it was. It's terrible, evil, inexplicable and despicable what Nazi Germany was doing and obviously Pearl Harbor. But are we at all to blame for setting the table for the pressure cooker that led to World War Two? What's the point? Why am I saying this? For any of the neocons out there, be very careful acting as if you have thought out all of the different ramifications of getting involved in foreign wars.
You have to game this out and you're not even able to exhaust all your options properly. So that's our little, let's just say, entry into history today. World War One, a brutal, terrible war, according to Winston Churchill, could have been resolved if America never entered. Ask yourself the question, what are we involved in today? We're 30, 40, 50, 80 years from now we'll say, boy, that could have been avoided if we did not finance the proxy war in Ukraine. Let's get to an economic question. Charlie, I hear from all my Democrat low IQ friends there with me that the economy is just great. Can you help me out here?
I do not know how to properly respond. Yeah, this is a new kind of Operation Mockingbird double speak talking point. Have you noticed this? All of a sudden out of nowhere, with ultimate aggression and ferocity, the regime is telling you the economy is the best it's ever been.
Play cut 58, please. It's going to take persistence, and this is what I say to my fellow Democrats in the Senate. We've got to keep at this week after week after week. Every week a new thing happens, and it will by the year from now people will know. They will know the economy is strong. You know, Joe, you mentioned the economy is strong, but it's often a lagging indicator. People still remember six, eight months ago where things are at, but by next summer they won't. You will see just the things that you have, and the economy will be a strong suit for us.
Okay, let me be very clear. I want Chuck Schumer to be right. I am not one of those partisans that cheers for a bad economy.
I think that's one of the sickest things that I've seen in modern media. Bill Maher and many others hoping and cheering for a recession, hoping and cheering for economic anxiety, which of course then comes with higher alcoholism, domestic abuse, suicide, all that stuff, increases as the economy declines. The economy is trash right now, unless you're rich.
If you're rich, you can navigate it. You go talk to regular, everyday people, inflation is crushing people. The price of living, the lack of being able to buy a home, we now have 30-year mortgage rates have hit, I think, a 25-year high.
I think it's 25 years. Consider the following. 3.2%, which is core inflation in July, despite the Fed already sky high interest rate. By the way, they lie about inflation.
Inflation is way higher. $33,300, the amount in real wealth the average middle-class household has lost over the past year, they have become $33,000 poorer. $862 billion, the amount of personal savings held by Americans. 46% Americans who could cover an unexpected $400 bill. 67% of Biden voters who say the economy is worse than it was in 2020.
We have now passed $1 trillion in privately held credit card debt. 37% of Americans approve of Biden's handling of the economy. I wish Chuck Schumer was right. When it comes to the economy, it comes to people's livelihoods, I don't unnecessarily spin. Like, oh, it's actually bad when it's good.
If it was good, I would tell you it was good. It's dangerously bad right now. On the verge of collapse. And I'm not here to give investment advice.
But here's my two cents. The market is overpriced right now. The market is overpriced.
The earning to valuations? Be careful. That's all I'm going to say.
Play cut 113, please. Bobby Kennedy and Mike Pompeo in Vegas at dinner. He said, you know, when I was at the CIA, I did not do what I should have done to fix that agency. And then he turned to me and looked me dead in the eye, and he said, the entire upper echelon of that agency is made up of individuals who do not believe in the democratic institutions of the United States of America.
That's a quote. So what Bobby Kennedy Jr., he was recalling a conversation that he had with Mike Pompeo, where Mike Pompeo said, I didn't do enough to purge the CIA. Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s run for the, I have to say this every time, I'm disappointed in Bobby Kennedy Jr.
In some things, he did come to our Turning Point Action Booth, by the way, in Iowa, which is great. Come on the show, Bobby, I want to talk to you, man. Calling Moms for Liberty a hate group, unacceptable. I'm going to be the most gay president, pro-gay president, I'll be specific, the most pro-gay president ever. Ridiculous. I mean, come on, Bobby.
You're better than that. However, his crusade against the administrative state, 10 out of 10, so you've got to be fair. If nothing else, RFK Jr., talking about the question, can the CIA overthrow a president? And yes, of course they can. One of the red pills that is happening, just through rank and file talking to people, is realizing this Constitution right now is not a complete document. It's complete in its form, but it's not complete in its function.
What do I mean by that? Meaning, this is not the law of the land currently. There's a super government that exists over the Constitution right now.
There's a shadow government, there's a Leviathan that supersedes all our constitutional norms and practices. Woodrow Wilson was the driver of this, the administrative state. FDR helped put this forward. John Dewey put this forward in an educational realm. J. Edgar Hoover put this forward via the police state, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. George Herbert Walker Bush, who was one of the first heads of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA used to be called OSS, and it switched to the CIA. And all of this connects through a globalist, neoliberal mindset because the internationalists, the bankers, the people could not help themselves to design this whole different system. This is why people say, Charlie, what does Turning Point USA stand for? We stand for the promise of the declaration of the Constitution, period, hard stop.
We want this back. We want this form back, we want the structure back, we want the consent to the governed, we want checks and balances. It's not even a question of whether or not there's a shadow government. The question now has pivoted in the conservative movement of how do we assail or restrain this shadow government. Restrain is probably a better word. How do we restrict their power?
Because there's nothing that stops them currently. There's a shadow government that calls the shots. And Trump is such a unique figure because other politicians used to just step out of the way.
So let me give you an example. The man from Yorba Linda, California, Richard Nixon, was elected in one of the most triumphant elections ever, 1972, I think it was, yes, 1972 against McGovern from South Dakota. I think he won like every state, basically. 49 states and didn't win D.C. and Massachusetts.
I think it was D.C., Massachusetts, whatever. Nixon was not as ballsy as Trump. When Nixon was confronted with a deep state coup, he backed off and resigned.
Trump, to his great credit, he just doubles down and triples down and realizes the unfair attacks from the administrative state. They tried it with Nixon. Nixon was too popular, too many mandates. He was getting rid of all this nonsense. He wasn't a perfect president. But Nixon saw some big problems and he went about fixing them. And Richard Nixon was removed.
They used the same playbook time and time again. Nixon was a threat to the system and they took him out. It's that simple. Same way they took out JFK. And they're trying to do it again to Donald J. Trump. The administrative state is afraid of you the people having a voice.
They have some sort of silly politician that does what the administrative state wants. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your thoughts. As always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. Thank you.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-09-01 06:07:30 / 2023-09-01 06:20:59 / 13
