Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

Wait a Minute, NPR is LIBERAL?!?!?

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
April 19, 2024 7:00 pm

Wait a Minute, NPR is LIBERAL?!?!?

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 756 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

April 19, 2024 7:00 pm

Shocking, but true: It turns out those people smugly lecturing all of us on National Public Radio were a bunch of liberals all along. Anti-woke muckraker Chris Rufo joins Charlie to expose the shocking (or not-so-shocking) radicalism of NPR's CEO, and also discusses his recent debate with Curtis Yarvin about whether America needs reform or a revolution. Plus, Kane of Citizen Free Press reacts to the hugely-disappointing news from the House.

Become a member at!

Support the show:

See for privacy information.


Hey everybody, today on The Charlie Kirk Show, what happened to Mike Johnson? We explore with one of our favorite guests, Mr. Kane at, Citizen Kane. Christopher Rufo joins us to talk about the collapse of NPR and more. Consider becoming a member at, that is When you become a member, you can ask us questions directly, you could be involved in our growing community. And also get involved with Turning Point USA at, that is Start a high school or college chapter today at As always, you can email us, freedom at Buckle up everybody, here we go.

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. That is, that is It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to Joining us today is one of our favorite guests, Citizen Kane from Mr. Kane, welcome back to the program. Glad to be here Charlie, let's do it.

You are on fire on the stack right now. We have to get right into the Mike Johnson news. Breaking news, Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Thomas Massie support a motion to vacate, now three people. Now Kane, I believe you're with me here. I was rooting for Mike Johnson. I wanted him to be a conservative, strong speaker. We understood the obstacles he had in front of him.

We understood that the barriers, however, complete capitulation on FISA, Ukraine, lying to us about the border, misleading us on so many different types of legislative fights, zero wins when it comes to spending. Citizen Kane, what does CFP Nation have to say about this? They're angry. I've been trying to keep the sheep corralled for a few weeks. It's tough. This Mike Johnson thing, I'm with you.

Strategically, it doesn't make any sense. President Trump has already told us that he doesn't want the chaos over the next four months of another fight for speaker. And that's a difficult decision for him. He said that last Friday. It was only seven days ago at the Mar-a-Lago event that he had with Mike Johnson, two hours after Johnson had just passed warrantless FISA 702 spying, which Trump wasn't happy with. This is not just difficult for you and me. This has been difficult for everyone, I'm sure, including the president. I hadn't seen the news on Paul Gosar adding his name.

Your original question was about CFP Nation. They're angry. They tend not to think about ramifications. They're not journalists. They're just regular voters.

They've been ready to get rid of Mike Johnson for a while. And probably the thing that angers them most is the Ukraine thing. I have to explain to people because I feel as though it's probably going to pass. All the time in the open thread, people are talking about 61 billion for Ukraine and 61 billion for repeating that. And I have to remind people that part of that is paying Ukraine government salaries, government pensions. I know Johnson and others try to say the majority is going to U.S. weapons manufacturers that will be making the bombs and other things that Zelensky needs. But I feel like that's disingenuous because 5 billion alone going every year to Ukraine government salaries and pensions. It's an affront.

It's an insult. I liked Matt Gaetz's amendment. It probably won't go anywhere, but his amendment yesterday to require the payback of the Ukraine loan used to be billed or finish the wall. But, you know, it's difficult here.

How do we stop this guy? Let me throw it back to you. What do you think we can do to try to keep Ukraine? Yeah, as far as what here's here's the thing is that the machine of D.C. is demanding Ukraine money. And here I did a lot of thinking about this last night and I spoke to Stephen Miller, who I really liked last night.

We had a 30 minute conversation. He's so smart. He's so analytical. The operating thesis that we had is that Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want Ukraine money more than anything else.

Right, Kane? That the thing they want the most is Ukraine money. What we what we didn't realize is that Mike Johnson also wants Ukraine money more than anything else. So our negotiator is in harmony with Schumer and Biden. And that's what if you do a little bit of research, Mike Johnson is a neocon. He is a cheerleader for the Ukrainian war effort, for the war machine.

So what Mike Johnson should have done, this is leverage 101. It doesn't matter if you have a one seat majority or 100 seat majority on this topic, is that they're telling you, Joe Biden, the regime, they're telling you that they need Ukraine money. Now, my theory, Kane, as to why they want the Ukraine money so badly, is that last night, breaking news, I think you had it in the stack. I'm not sure that top intel chief says that without the Ukraine money, that Kiev will fall by August. They're worried that that will be a political disaster for Joe Biden. So there's politics involved in this, that they want to try to get as much cluster bombs, as many missiles, as much heavy artillery as possible. To at the very least, slow down Putin so that there is not a August or September surprise of the Russian Federation taking over Kiev, because they could do everything they possibly can to blame that on Trump. But that will be solely on Joe Biden. And it will show it will show that they were unable to broker a peace deal that was 600 miles to the east and they would have gotten near Kiev. So my personal opinion is that they want that money to go to Ukraine, not because they think Ukraine's gonna win the war, but that it will it will prolong the slaughters that Joe Biden can have a better chance of reelection. But I just want to throw it back to you here, Kane. We thought that we had a negotiator who wanted southern border security more than Ukrainian border security. And what now we have all realized is Mike Johnson is just as much of a warmonger and neoconservative, a globalist when it comes to foreign policy as Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden.

Your thoughts, Kane? Well, it's a sad thing to say. I think you're you know, you're right. Look, I feel like I saw it months ago when Zelensky made his last visit to Congress and he had the one on one meetings with with Mike Johnson. I felt like then because I was watching Johnson's comments very closely in the day or two after and I felt like then that he had fallen prey, that he falls prey to this argument of, you know, that that everything relies on you. That this is the West standing up to evil and and it's God's time. And I think it's a false argument in terms of it falling apart before the election.

That's a great thought. I had a little, you know, that that occurred to me about a month ago when I heard when I heard a Democrat, it was after J.D. Vance said, look, this is good money after bad.

This is, you know, the point J.D. Vance was saying, look, if Ukraine were winning, if Zelensky were showing progress, if Russia could possibly be moved back, then he might have a different attitude. But this is throwing good money after bad. And then there was a Democrat comment in a political argument where they said, well, let's just give them one more year, one more year. And there was another side comment about politics.

So that's when it first popped into my head that you're exactly right. They don't want this to fall apart. They if it is going to fall apart, they would rather blame Trump.

Yes. And and they don't care about about another 60 billion of treasuries having to be sold. So it's it's a horrible state of affairs. I'm not sure what we can do because because I mean, look, did you see where they slipped in? They're slipping in the tick tock bill into the House. Yep. So they're trying all different kinds of angles here to get votes. And it'll probably end up being Democrats who who passed this. Well, no, we already know that.

So let me just read this to you. Breaking news update this morning. Breaking foreign aid package was rescued by Democrats on the House floor as they supplied enough votes to start debate on the supplemental setting legislation on track for passion.

The speaker on a slippery path. So the Democrats have now bailed it out. Can the Democrats have now come in and they bailed out the rule with zero border security?

I'm sorry. No, there is border security. The Ukrainian Border Patrol gets three hundred million dollars.

Our Border Patrol gets nothing. Yeah. I have that story in political from the stack, actually, how it how it got moved by the by the rules committee. So now, you know, these next 48 hours is going to be all kinds of votes. We're going to have Senate voting on FISA with Rand Paul attempt and others.

Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, trying to at least require warrants and also just to strike that provision that was thrown in at the end from the House that would greatly broaden NSA spying capabilities. So that's one thing we're going to have that vote vote in the Senate. And then the House is going to be voting on four separate aid bills that will then be merged back into one. Republicans probably half the party will support it and most of the Democrats will. So that's where we are.

Mike Johnson is going to rail Ukraine aid through on the back of Hakeem Jeffries and Democrat support. You might have heard Mike Lindell and MyPillow no longer have the support of their box stores or shopping channels the way they used to. They've been part of this cancel culture, so they want to pass the savings directly on to you by having a twenty five dollar extravaganza. When Mike started MyPillow, it was just a one product company with the help of his dedicated employees.

They now have hundreds of products and some of you may not even know about it. To get the word out, I want to invite my listeners to check out their twenty five dollar extravaganza. Two pack multi use MyPillows, just twenty five dollars. MyPillow sandals, twenty five dollars. Their six pack tile set, twenty five dollars.

Brand new four pack dish towels. You guessed it, just twenty five dollars. For the first time ever, their premium MyPillows with the all new Giza fabric, just twenty five dollars.

Orders over seventy five dollars will receive free shipping too. This amazing offer won't last long. Go to and use promo code KIRK or call 800-875-0425 today.

That is promo code KIRK at, promo code KIRK. Align yourself with somebody who's obviously a one term mayor. If he even makes it that far, you better be worrying about your job.

You better be worrying about your longevity. Because we're going to vote and we're going to get you out because you ain't doing right by us. That's what time it is. That's what time it is. Welcome back everybody.

Charlie Kirk here. We have Citizen Kane from Mr. Kane, I want to just comment on this, how anti-fragile, bulletproof Trump's poll numbers are. Again, we don't know about the accuracy of the polls, but the trend is the key. When you have multiple different polls, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, Fox News, all across the board that have the same trend line that show that Trump in trial does not take a hit.

In fact, he's doing better in certain states. Kane, we've never seen anything like this. No, and we didn't expect it. And I just pulled up a bunch of the polls. So the first thing people, I don't know if you talked about it in the first second of your show, but Robert Kennedy is officially on the ballot in Michigan.

Oh yeah, no, we did a whole hour on, no Kane, sorry to interrupt you Kane. We also made an announcement, I'm going to send it to you, maybe you want to put it in the stack. We're now doing our ballot chasing in Michigan.

That's how big of a deal it is. We are now officially going to ballot chase in the state of Michigan, hiring up. We're bullish on the state of Michigan. Please continue. Yeah, that's great news.

I hadn't seen that, that TP Action was doing that. So with Kennedy in the race officially in Michigan, you know, Kennedy's campaign has said, has promised that they're going to be in all 50 states on all 50 ballots. So I'm going to take them at their word for that. But with them in Michigan, so there's two polls out there actually. New York Post is quoting a poll that shows Trump leading, it's not the Fox News poll, shows Trump leading by three points over Biden in Michigan. And then the Fox News poll, which I assume is the one that you're referring to, Trump is leading, he increased his lead by a percentage point in March over February. And it includes, and he's winning in a five person race in Michigan as well as just a two person race.

So, you know, it is the Nelson Mandela effect. You know something interesting Charlie, we forget polls from a year ago. But it was talking about the poll evolution of Trump versus DeSantis. And I didn't realize this, but the Trump-DeSantis polls were very, very close before the first indictment of President Trump. And they said that apparently a week before that first indictment in Miami, where the vague flew down, was the only one who spoke publicly in Miami. With that first indictment, Trump's lead went from about five points over DeSantis to 20 points over DeSantis within a week.

And so that was the first demonstration, the first manifestation of the Nelson Mandela effect, where you persecute the guy and people are going to notice and they're going to get behind him. So, you know, now as you know, because you read this stuff as closely as I do, the media promised as soon as he was indicted that his poll numbers would go down. And then when the second indictment happened in the third and the fourth, and so now they pushed that off and said when he's convicted. When he's first convicted, that's when he's finally going to take a dive in the polls. So that's what they're preying on with this Alvin Bragg case, that they'll get a conviction from a biased New York jury and they'll be able to test out. But, hey, I put up an ABC poll earlier this week that showed two-thirds, it was actually a little bit more than two-thirds, 68 percent of people think Trump did nothing criminal in New York City regarding Stormy Daniels. That it's essentially, it's a campaign FEC violation misdemeanor that they bootstrapped to a felony, as Jonathan Turley says. So I'm not so sure the Democrats and the media complex are going to be thrilled if they do get a conviction of Trump pending appeal. Of course there will be appeals, but if they do get that conviction, I'm not sure there's going to be any change in the polls, at least to the detriment of Trump.

So it's the whole ride, right? You and I have been talking about this on your show for over 12 months, trying to anticipate what the reaction would be. And we really didn't quite see it coming. But now that it's here, it's strong. It's remained for how many months now?

Six months that his polling has been strong through indictment. So I'm not too worried. Do you think a conviction could jeopardize that? It could. It possibly could.

But I don't think so. And you know why, Charlie, is because the same polls said an indictment would jeopardize it. Right.

And it was almost the exact same numbers that it was. An indictment is going to do this. All they'll have to do is indict.

And it didn't happen. So that's why I don't really believe these conviction polls. You've seen my headlines in the stacks saying we're finally going to get a test of this conviction poll. So I really don't think so. There's a slight chance.

But look, he'll have plenty of time to recover. And it's going to be turnout. You and I know it. It's turnout, baby.

This is a margin of error election in seven states and 19 counties. And with what TP Action is doing, we can get this done. Amen. Citizen Kane from

We'll have you back on soon. Man, he rates really well. The audience loves him.

Kane, thanks so much. Herzog Foundation is part of an education revolution. For those of you worried about the best educational path to your kids and grandkids, I'm pleased to announce our new partnership with the folks at the Herzog Foundation. They are the trusted source for American K through 12 education with a remarkable suite of different options. So check it out from their online publication, The Lion. Through the new podcast, Making the Leap, the Herzog Foundation offers a wide range of advice and information for Christian parents.

We work with them at Turning Point Academy. To learn more about how your family, faith, and community can flourish through a quality Christian education, go to That is So check it out right now. offers a wide range of advice and information for Christian parents to make the best decision for your kids.

So check it out right now. Portions of the Charlie Kirk show brought to you in part by the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation. Joining us now is Christopher Rufo. His book is America's Cultural Revolution, How the Radical Left Conquered Everything.

Christopher, welcome back to the program. You broke really a lot of this NPR story, a lot of these clips on social media. For our audience that hasn't been tracking this NPR story, let's start at the relative beginning recently.

Walk us through it. Yeah, so there was a longtime 25-year veteran of NPR named Yuri Berliner who posted this devastating critique in Barry Weiss's sub-stack, The Free Press, saying what we've already known as conservatives for many years, that NPR is biased, it's left wing, it's a monolithic ideological construction rather than a reflection of a broad variety of views representing the American people. And so in the wake of this reporting, I did a little bit of digging and I found that NPR's CEO, a woman named Catherine Mar, explicitly in her public statements has said she's against the idea of truth, she's against free expression, she's against the open and free internet, and that she has worked with governments to censor content online. And so as I was surfacing all of these views, they made contact with the public, they really exploded into the discourse, and I think provide a window not just into NPR but into the soul of America's managerial class. That is perfectly said.

I want to talk about that because I'm going to play the piece of tape here that you helped surface and popularize, is that the people in the managerial class, post-managerial revolution, they believe this way. This is cut 148. Catherine Mar says that she abandoned a free and open internet when she was running Wikipedia, which is a whole other problem, by the way. The capturing of Wikipedia is a whole different issue.

Let's play cut 148. I have come to the opinion and the perspective that free and open was a way of looking at the world that was inherently limited relative to what we were trying to achieve. Free and open has the best of intentionality, but in the end, what free and open often ended up doing, particularly in the case of Wikipedia, was really recapitulating many of the same power structures and dynamics that exist offline prior to the advent of the internet. The ways in which we ascribe notability often really comes from sort of this white male westernized construct around who matters in societies and who is elevated in whose voices. And so some of these ideas of sort of this radical openness really did not end up with the intention, really did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.

Westernized what? Christopher, make sense of this for us. So let's just break it down into its simplest terms. I can translate left-wing academic language for the normal person who may not have caught what she's saying. She's saying that when Wikipedia was free and open, those were the principles on which the website was established. She saw that white men were the most successful in publishing articles and establishing the facts and the pursuit of truth.

And as, of course, for left-wingers, if white men succeed in a system, that system has to be destroyed. And so she says explicitly that she abandoned the idea that Wikipedia should be a free and open system. And I actually went and interviewed the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, yesterday, and he said his jaw was on the floor. He said this is a total corruption of Wikipedia led by Catherine Mar. And now she's CEO of NPR, the kind of perfect place, the apotheosis of left-wing conventional thought.

And Larry Sanger, the former co-founder of Wikipedia said, if NPR wants to have a shred of credibility, it should fire Catherine Mar immediately. So, so, Christopher, I want to play now Cut 93, but before I do, just remind our audience, they are taxpayer funded. This is a project of the federal government. How much of our money does NPR receive? So there is this myth that NPR somehow only receives one percent of its funding from the federal government. That actually is technically true, but what happens is that the federal government, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, sends hundreds of millions of dollars to local NPR stations. And then those local NPR stations send just shy of approximately a hundred million dollars a year back to NPR. And so if you actually count the money as a pass-through, in the same way that, you know, when you're trying to launder money, you pass it through various organizations, federal taxpayer dollars cover roughly a third of NPR's budget all in. And so if we're going to defund NPR, it would cripple NPR's central organization and cripple all of NPR's affiliates, which are just the government's way of pushing left-wing propaganda into not only, you know, Berkeley and Brooklyn and Minneapolis, but even in all those red states and red cities around the country. I want to just, they contradict themselves because they say it's only one percent of their budget. And they say, OK, well, then let's cut it. No, no, no, you're going to destroy NPR.

I said, wait, but it's only one percent of the budget, I thought. So it's obviously more than one percent of the budget that is getting to them through taxpayer funding, because anytime we want to cut it from the federal budget, they say that you're going to destroy all public radio. And it's not public radio. We have to understand they have huge reach on podcasting as well. In fact, they're dominant on podcasting and they've diversified successfully into that. So it's not just terrestrial radio, which we love, we're on terrestrial radio right now, but it is podcasting as well. Let's play cut 93 where the new taxpayer funded CEO of National Public Radio, Catherine Mar says her number one challenge is the First Amendment to the United States.

Play cut 93. The number one challenge here that we see is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly robust protection of rights. And that is a protection of rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very important that platforms have those rights to be able to regulate what kind of content they want on their sites. But it also means that it is a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where does bad information come from and sort of the influence peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.

Chris, it's incredible what she's saying. Again, I'll translate is that the First Amendment is valuable to the extent that it gives media and social media corporations the ability to censor dissent, to censor content that people like Catherine Mar do not like. But then she says that it's an impediment.

It's a challenge. It's a problem for her because it protects the individual's right to free speech. And so she wants to sanitize the information ecosystem of all dissenting opinion, whether it's on COVID, whether it's on the election integrity, whether it's on other kind of counter narratives that have emerged on the right.

And she says, you know, the First Amendment, when I wake up every day hoping to sanitize the Internet of bad opinion, is really my number one challenge. It is shocking that the CEO of a taxpayer funded supposedly national, supposedly public and admittedly radio is an actual avowed self-described enemy of the First Amendment. If this doesn't get congressional Republicans committing right now to defunding NPR, defunding CPB, defunding the propaganda network that was established by Congress many years ago, I'm not really sure what purpose Republicans in Congress serve. If Trump wins, if Republicans have a majority of the House and the Senate, we need everyone to commit a total defunding of NPR. Let them sell tote bags.

Let them do whatever they do. But they have to survive without taxpayer dollars. Well, Christopher, you've been amazing at successfully lobbying legislators and governors. So I'm going to let you take the lead on that.

I think you could be really I'll help you any way I can. We'll give you the platform, defund NPR. But so I want to tell you, I was recently at a fundraiser for Turning Point USA in Palm Springs, very wealthy people. And during the dinner conversation, one of our donors was like, yeah, I've been so shocked to learn that NPR is liberal these last couple of days.

I said, what? They said, oh, yeah, we give fifty thousand dollars a year to NPR and we love them and we never knew they were liberal. We thought they were fair and balanced. And this new open letter, Christopher, it's important to remember that most Americans don't think of them as liberal because they do such a good job of calmly talking into the mic with the beautiful little piano music and the perfectly curated audio.

It's very subtle, the vocal fry. This is opening people's eyes. I was shocked. I, like you, they're a repulsive left wing super PAC. They've been for quite some time. But millions of Americans are finally waking up to that, I suppose.

I think that is right, unfortunately. But I think it's also changing. Look, I've talked with many conservative donors who also used to give money to Harvard, used to give money to NPR, used to give money to other Ivy League alma maters. And that is changing and it's changing rapidly. Look, when we ran the campaign against Harvard, one small note that people didn't realize is that Harvard had to float a 1.5 billion dollar bond.

Well, why is that? Well, Harvard couldn't draw on its 50 billion dollar endowment, which is tied up in long term investments. And because we actually successfully rallied donors to stop giving money to Harvard, they had an immediate cash crunch, an immediate liquidity problem.

So they had to float a bond. And so this signals to me that donors are waking up. They're getting smarter. We have to teach them what Harvard is doing. We have to teach them what NPR is doing. And then we have to tell them to stop giving money to these institutions that hate them. And they would like nothing more than to destroy the country that they would like to see in the future. So can you just also brag on the great work that you've been able to accomplish in Florida, the closing of the DEI offices, specifically University of Florida?

That's right. We have successfully abolished the DEI departments in all public universities in Florida, Texas, just today in Iowa, six states, six states in total. And really the most beautiful kind of culmination of these moments is when university system presidents released the PR statements that they have fired the bureaucrats that were compromising the intellectual integrity of these institutions. They fired everyone at University of Florida's DEI department. They fired everyone at University of Texas's DEI department.

This is the opening gambit in what I hope is a pink slip revolution. We need to fire the left wing bureaucrats that are ruining our institutions, whether it's the universities, the corporations or the federal government. And we need to send them back to the private sector. And, you know, out of the graciousness of our hearts, we should teach them to code. And if that doesn't work, we should teach them how to mine cobalt and other rare earth metals. Cultural revolution.

I want to make sure I get this right. America's cultural revolution. Christopher Rupo is special. I am all for that. I think that getting DEI folks to mine cobalt, it's the only way you have to. It's the circle of electric vehicles. It's the only way it works.

You've got to make sure that the batteries come from somewhere. Three-star general Michael J. Flynn, head of the Pentagon Intelligence Agency, knew all the government's dirty secrets. He was one of the most respected generals in the military. Flynn knew what the intel world had been up to. He understood its funding.

He ordered the first audit of the use of contractors. This set off alarm bells. The explosive new documentary, Flynn, delivered the truth, whatever the cost, and covers the facts behind this scandal. Flynn told the truth he was the most dangerous person for Donald Trump to hire. I find out the worst enemy that I'm going to face in my life is right here in America. They took my assessment and they wanted me to change it.

I was like, I'm not changing it. They had to get rid of Flynn. With in-depth interviews, archival footage, and never-before-seen personal record to the man behind the headlines.

I just felt like I was drowning. Flynn, deliver the truth, whatever the cost. Available now. Watch it today. Go to Christopher, you recently had a written debate with Curtis Yarvin, who's come on this program, and he's a friend. Don't agree with him.

Obviously an everything but really smart guy. Where you were going back and forth and can you just frame this debate for the audience that hasn't read it or is not going to have the time to read it? So I thought it's a very interesting tension point. He believes that we should go more in a direction of traditional monarchy. You're a defender of the American founding, the American classical project, and the promise of this great country.

Explain to our audience. So yeah, this debate was between me representing the opinion that we should return to the founding principles of this country. We should continue to be a constitutional republic and that we should recapture our institutions and change our laws to more closely reflect that original vision. Curtis's point of view is that we should accelerate the decomposition of this country. And from the chaos, he believes that a CEO tech monarch will emerge with absolute power to reign over the American people in the same way that George III reigned over us 250 years ago.

And so I think that Curtis is kind of interesting as a literary figure, as a provocative wielder of metaphors and concepts. But his idea that we're going to have a benevolent monarch with absolute power is absolutely preposterous. And so I tried to really explain why this is such a dead end ideology.

And in fact, it's nothing more than just a literary fantasy that he has concocted on his blog that has really no practical implications for American life as it has really lived. And you said something important. You said you are a radical in the sense you want to go back to the root that you do not want necessarily marginal change. You want fundamental restoration of this republic. You just do not want obliteration.

Yeah, that's right. And so, you know, we can have radical changes. We actually need radical counterrevolutionary changes in this country. And I think that I'm on the record.

My accomplishments speak for themselves of moving politics towards that vision. You know, but but Curtis has a fantasy that through some catastrophic blow up of the United States, something better will emerge with absolute power. I think that's absolutely preposterous. If history teaches us anything is that when you centralize power in the hands of one person, it is almost invariably worse than when you have something along the lines of a republic. You know, I think it's doubtful that, you know, if Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, was the dictator of the United States, that it would be better than what we have today. I'll take Trump.

I'll take DeSantis. I'll take a whole host of other people who I think would do a better job. Well, and I just want to ask, you know, do you see where the Curtis-Yarvin group gets their energy from? They are dissatisfied with the current slow motion collapse of the country. And I think we have to acknowledge their position as far as or at least the attitude of how they see things. But revolution is very risky. Things can get worse. Look at Russia. The Russian revolution started a decoupling from, yes, the agrarian model was bad and the czars were not great, but they got something far worse. Revolution can usher in a dystopia.

Yeah, that's right. But I think even more than that, psychologically, the kind of Yarvin model is, you know, functions as an intellectual opium den. You go into this dark fantasy about how the country is collapsing. The regime is ruling over American life in a kind of pitiless, endless, nihilistic political rule. And then if you follow his fantasy, his literary fantasy, that somehow you can shield yourself against these forces.

I'm telling you, no. Actually, the responsible and the prudent thing to do is to get up and fight to improve it. And even if you are a kind of Yarvinite in your diagnosis, simply retreating from the world of real life and real politics is not going to make you a stronger person, a stronger man.

It leads you on the path to nihilism and substitutes fantasy for real politics. I like Curtis. I've spent some time with him in person. He's always admirable.

I'm skeptical that he'd be able to wield absolute power. I saw him in New York, actually, a few weeks before our written debate. He shuffled up to me with his head looking down at the floor, was very apologetic. He apologized for attacking me in print.

And I would say for someone who thinks he has the pretension to absolute power, but has difficulty making eye contact, it's very hard to take that seriously. I will let you guys settle that score. But that's why the Internet exists. Christopher, thank you so much. Thanks, Charlie. People should read that debate.

I found it to be profound. And by the way, we're going to have Curtis on the show next week and he can respond in his words. Thanks so much for listening. Everybody email us, as always, freedom at Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-04-19 20:28:09 / 2024-04-19 20:42:37 / 14

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime