Pelosi Vs. The Populist Music Star with Winston Marshall

Hey, everybody. It's time for The Charlie Kirk Show. Winston Marshall, who debated Nancy Pelosi, joins us on this program.

That's right. He debated Nancy Pelosi, really smart guy, all about populism, oligarchy, and democracy. As always, you can email me, freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast. Get your tickets to the People's Convention just about three weeks away. People's Convention in Detroit, Michigan, tpaction.com slash peoples to get your tickets today. Email us as always freedom at charliekirk.com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com.

It's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com and you are counting on your surrender. If you give up, they win. But what if we look back and we realize we were just inches away from victory?

And that's when we decided to give up. We're going to fight and we're going to win. Charlie Kirk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Governor Kristi Noem, Dr. Ben Carson, Steve Bannon, Candace Owens, Laura Trump, Senator Rick Scott, Congressman Matt Gaetz, Benny Johnson, Jack Posobick, and more.

June 14 through 16. 2024 is our final battle in Detroit, Michigan. The great silent majority is rising like never before. Join us for the People's Convention. This is a new ball game, everybody. You send a message.

We play to win. Register now at tpaction.com slash peoples. A clip has been going viral, and it's more than a clip, was an amazing interaction, you could say, at the Oxford Union involving Winston Marshall and Nancy Pelosi. Well, it was a debate of some sort. And I want to dive into that for the entire hour with a very impressive person, formerly with Mumford & Sons. And he's terrific. Winston Marshall, joins us this hour. Winston, welcome to the program. Hi, Charlie, thanks for having me on your show. You are the co-founder of Dissident Dialogues, also the host of the Winston Marshall show.

Tell us what happened at the Oxford Union. Well, I was invited to talk about the issue of populism. Populism, of course, is something that's been, in my opinion, a big phenomenon, particularly from 2008.

You could probably go further back still, but since the 2008 election, the 2008 crash, and the combination of social media becoming a big thing. Populism has been a worldwide phenomenon. It's something I care about a lot. I particularly care about how ordinary people are written off as populist, as baskets of deplorables, as your viewers will remember.

I think that's all part of the same phenomenon. And I wanted to talk, defend populism. So I agreed to go along. It's a pretty politically incorrect topic, I note. To defend populism in certain circles is a taboo. About a week before the Oxford Union debate, I was informed that Pelosi was my opposition. I didn't know exactly what position she'd take. I didn't know whether she understood what the Oxford Union debate really was. I had a kind of, there would be a, you know, as you could imagine going in, would she be on the, would it be the cliched version of populism, as we've heard time and time again?

Or would it be a more robust attack on populism, which I think that there are intellectually and good attacks on populism that are worth engaging in. But I didn't know. And also, of course, learning that Pelosi was my opposition.

I mean, is there anyone who personifies the elite that the populist movement in America is against better or more so than Nancy Pelosi? So, of course, that changed what I was going to say. I had to address some of her hypocrisies. And so you get the speech that I made. And I mean, I can color in a little bit more about what happened. Please walk us through.

First of all, I'm also just equally fascinated. Did Pelosi realize she was going to a debate? Like, why did she agree to this?

And then please just give us the whole story. Because rarely does someone as articulate and wise as yourself get an opportunity to cross-examine this bitter oligarch named Nancy Pelosi. Well, it starts, so the Oxford Union debate, people who don't know, it's something that's been going on for 200 years. The students come together to debate issues. Some of them, it's kind of academic.

They don't necessarily believe in what they're arguing, but they'll make the position. And usually the people who are in the Oxford Union, the students end up being politicians. If you walk around the rooms of the Oxford Union, as we were guided through, we see photographs of Boris Johnson and other various later to become prime ministers.

Excuse my English, that was a terrible phrase there. And so you have these students who, a lot of them end up being successful politicians. Even the boxes that you see in the video were donated, I think, by Churchill. I think they were actually used in parliament at one point. So there's some prestige to doing it. And I have friends who have done it, have done very well. Constantine Kissinger did a very famous Oxford Union debate against wokeism.

Has wokeism gone too far? I'm sure your viewers will remember that from last year. Pelosi, I didn't know, as I said, what I'd expect. We were all to have dinner beforehand. And I will say, and it's important to add nuance to these things, she was very nice. We had dinner with her, her husband, some of the students, some of the other people debating. And actually, I was directly next to her chief of staff. This was a really interesting insight because firstly, they were clueless about what the debate was.

They hadn't given it any prep. I think she'd done the whole day meeting various politicians and political activists, all of whom no one would have criticized her. But the insight was interesting was that talking to her team, they would use words like equity without blinking.

They would have dogmatic positions on the environment that they would just dish out without second thought. And even at one point, I brought up RFK and the immediate kickback from the chief of staff was, what's his real agenda? Why is he really running?

Now, RFK, sorry, yeah, RFK Jr. is worth bringing up because I consider him a populist. For him, the elite is the pharmaceutical industry, big pharma. It's lobbyists in DC. And that's his elite that he's been targeting, as well as Democratic and, well, I guess the uni-party elites. Part of that is in his rhetoric or in his discourse.

So firstly, I got a sense coming into this bubble of a people, but here's the biggest takeaway. They were so convinced that this election was democracy itself on the table, that if Trump was to win this election, and they never used the word Trump, they couldn't even say his name like Voldemort, he who must not be named, they couldn't say his name. But they talked about Trump, without using his name, in such a way that anyone to even challenge, it was like they'd never heard the other side of the argument. It was like they'd never, they couldn't even engage with maybe something that Trump had got right. They were convinced that they had to defeat Trump to save democracy.

And this is, I'm sure your viewers and yourself will have been paying close attention to this. They've literally been undermining democracy in order to, in their mind, save democracy. The famous example, as I mentioned in my speech, is taking or trying to take off Trump from the ballot in both Maine and Colorado. And all of this, and in my speech as well, talk about how they undermine free speech, all in the name of democracy.

Of course, democracy about free speech, Charlie, is not democracy. So that was a very interesting insight. But the nuance I want to give to it is they were actually very nice. Nancy did photographs with us. They were very courteous and very courteous of all the students. They did photographs. There was no airs.

There was no arrogance. And I know I say that because I've seen in the perspective, there's a real dislike of what Pelosi represents. And I really dislike a lot of her politics and a lot of her political hypocrisies. But it's important to remember these people are human, too.

And it's an interesting insight. I think that's good. I mean, I'm curious, just super quick, since she's so nice, did you give any stock tips?

That's a good question. And I actually avoided bringing up the stock tips in my speech for a reason. I wanted to get her just on her political hypocrisy, of which there are many, so many in fact. Of course.

I agree. Ten minutes speech time wouldn't be enough. I would have loved to have—and I totally get the—you want to try to yield towards being polite and trying to be magnanimous and saying, and Ms. Pelosi, you are the oracle of D.C. You outperform Warren Buffett, outperform the biggest names in finance. How do you do it, Nancy Pelosi?

How do you always know what stocks to pick? I'm a huge fan of Hillsdale College. Their students are at the top, and they're receiving the best educational available today. It's America's greatest college, period. Hillsdale's educational outreach program on behalf of Liberty are just tremendous. I've taken so many of their online courses.

I plan to complete them all. Now you can help Hillsdale understand the views of mainstream Americans on the critical issue of presidential selection, which will help Hillsdale and its future work defending Liberty. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start your national survey on presidential selection.

Charlieforhillsdale.com. I'm actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment. Today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment. I suppose for Ms. Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she'd be arguing herself out of a job.

Winston, brilliant analysis. Just in your private and also the public dialogues, I haven't had a chance to listen to Nancy Pelosi's response, which I believe is all just that Trump is a threat to democracy. Can they actually define very crisply what democracy is? Because every time they say democracy, they truly mean oligarchy.

Winston Marshall. Well, it's really worth watching her speech in full, although it's kind of a hate watch. It's very frustrating. So firstly, she cannot define democracy, as you rightly point out. She tries to, but she seems to, she goes on a long ramble about all the things that are key to democracy, like free speech, free media, a lot of things that I happen to think Democrats have been deliberately undermining. But she isn't able to define democracy as representative.

I can't actually remember the exact Oxford English Dictionary definition of democracy, but representative government. She isn't able to do that. Her video or rather her speech is pretty shocking if you watch it. Firstly, she uses the word ethno-nationalist five times. And the cherry on top is a new word she'd created called ethnic negativity.

And she does this deliberately. It's the same as calling everyone racist. Now, this, in my opinion, is demagoguery. Demagoguery, of course, we are told Trump is a demagogue playing to the prejudice of ordinary people.

But in her speech, Pelosi is practicing demagoguery and I'll explain. Demagoguery playing to the prejudices. In this case, Pelosi is playing to the prejudices of ordinary progressive Americans, of even the elites. The prejudice is that if you are a transporter, if you are MAGA, if you are even conservative or would dare consider voting Republican, you must be a racist. You must be an ethno-nationalist.

That is a prejudice, a prejudice that is so obviously ridiculous, not least because of CNN's poll last month when they showed that the black vote for Trump has gone from something like 12 percent to something like 28 percent, that Hispanic vote for Trump has gone up to 48 percent. So unless Pelosi thinks these are ethno-nationalists, this whole argument is ridiculous. But it's a continuation of Hillary's deplorables.

It's it's it's writing off half the country as racist and everyone's fed up with that dialogue. So that's not the worst thing in her speech, by the way. The worst thing is she says she uses the word blocked. She says that these people who, I guess, don't vote Democrat, are blocked, she used the word blocked, from making good decisions and choosing democratic policy by, and she uses, I'll quote here, God, gays and guns.

Well, more specifically, it's a muddle of words, but essentially she's saying God and their culture. Yes, she thinks that God and the culture of half of Americans is stopping them from voting Democrat. What is so frustrating for me or frustrating about hearing that is that she is completely unreconstructed from 2016. When Trump won, instead of some much needed self-reflection about why he won, why their policy wasn't working, she still is of the assumption that people are too uneducated. They're too stupid. This is another thing we hear all the time. And she said in the speech, the uneducated, as if as if they're not smart enough, they're not educated enough to see the the the correct choices between them.

It's such arrogance and it's it's really sickening. It's a very important point. Very important. I totally agree. I want to play cut 105 quickly here.

Let's play cut 105. Of these poor souls who are looking for some answers. We've given them to them, but they're blocked by some of their views on guns. They have the three G's guns, gays, God.

That would be a woman's right to choose. And and the cultural issues cloud some of their reception, reception of an argument that really is in their interest. I mean, I hear this and I get optimistic. This is the intellectual, like how shallow intellectually they are. I mean, all they know is political power.

And I want to make a point here before we have to take a break. Democracy at this point, or what they call democracy, is just the protection racket of the powerful. That's essentially what it's become.

I want to play this tape here. This is very, very important, which is the amount of corporate power that is being consolidated at the top level of the ruling class. You would think the left is involved in an unsustainable political strategy. And Winston, I want to compliment you.

You did excellent. And it is very similar to something I said to a far lower profile individual, a college student at University of Utah, where he said, Charlie, the right conservatives are all about the rich and the powerful. And he never heard the argument that the wealthiest counties in Washington, D.C., around the country, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat Party. The wealthiest counties are around Washington, D.C. You highlight this talking about the biggest companies are in cahoots with big government. They're not there to actually regulate these companies or break them apart, but instead to protect them.

Play cut 100. U.S. corporations spent over two billion dollars a year lobbying in D.C. Two thirds of Congress received funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent 11 million dollars in 2021. They made over 10 billion dollars in profits. No wonder then that 66 percent of Americans think the economy economy is rigged against them for the rich and the powerful.

And by the way. We used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots. And I think any students here of early 20th century Italian history know what I'm talking about. That's the F word.

The F word you're not allowed to say. Winston Marshall. Yeah. Well, so the point I'm trying to make here, I'm sure everyone's already picked up on, is that, well, how can if you're supposed to represent the people, how exactly are you supposed to represent the people and also take money from these giant corporations? These corporations wouldn't give you money if it wouldn't pay off. So how can you represent the people and simultaneously these corporations?

It's impossible. And I have to add this important note is that half of Congress are also in the pocket of the gun lobby. So this isn't this isn't just a democratic problem. I think it's left and right. And I, I, I, I really think that the populist movement, which we've seen, isn't a right wing populist movement.

It's at the moment appears right. Well, no, I think that's a smart point, Winston. I do want to challenge one part about the gun issue, that the difference is that there are tens of millions of gun owners that represent the gun lobby. There are not tens of millions of enthusiastic Pfizer supporters in the country.

So I totally understand the connection you're trying to make there. I'm part of the gun lobby because I own a lot of guns and I want to see not a lot of second amendment restrictions. However, I will say, though, that there really is not a populist movement on the left as it used to be. The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party has been muted. They are pro-war, they're pro-funding the defense contractors, pro-mandatory vaccine.

And they vote for Pelosi time and time again. So let me, and I don't want to spend too much time on that, but let me ask you a question. Populism at its best, what does it look like, Winston? Because some people would say populism is a means to mob rule and really bad ideas being accelerated just because the majority wants them.

How would you respond to that? I will respond. Can we just go to the left wing populism point? Because I think it's an important one.

Yes, please. So Bernie was the left wing populist movement and he was snubbed out by the elite DNC, the elites in the DNC. And they were very successful in getting rid of them. And it's very important to note that 25 percent of Bernie supporters did not support Hillary and half of that 25 percent voted for Trump. So the point being is that the populist movement isn't a left right thing.

It's an up down thing. And it was the case that they got rid of Bernie. But I would say that Occupy Wall Street was a left wing populist movement. You can actually go back all the way to 1999 and the battle for Seattle, which was very much the start of the left wing populist movement.

And it was actually anti-globalization. So there's aspects of that movement that have come across the right wing population, because there's a lot of people, whether they think that these solutions are left or right wing economically, they might agree on what the problem is, which is what the populism is. That's the populism which comes to answering your second question about the good aspects and the negative aspects of populism. I address some of the negative aspects of populism. I make the point in my speech that all political movements, whether they are populist or not, are susceptible to violence.

Who could forget the insurrection of June and July 2020 at the Portland Federal Courthouse, something I challenged Pelosi on. I didn't mention in my speech that one of the common attacks on populism is that it's against pluralism. It's against pluralistic society. But then I would say that all political movements are a danger to pluralism. And the very recent example of that is the 2023, I think it was early this year, when the Supreme Court judged that Harvard were breaking the Constitution by not allowing or by how they treated Asian applicants to their university.

Harvard and other universities. So and that's democratic policy. That's democratic ideology that that certain groups should be treated differently. So that and that's not populist. So my point being that all political movements have the ability of the tyranny of the majority to use de Tocqueville's language. What is populism at its best? Well, in simple terms, and again, this is what I argue in my speech, what is the point in universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check?

What is the point in universal suffrage is that if not to keep our political leaders accountable? I'm not against elites. We need someone to run countries.

We need someone to run businesses. I'm not against people being wealthy. A lot of the time, maybe even most of the time, they've earned that money and it's and it's fair enough that it's theirs. But we want a fair society. We want everyone to feel like they can play and they can be a part of society. And that's why we even have democracy, I think.

So even though technically or semantically populism is not equal to democracy, I would say that they're pretty damn close. Hey, everybody, Charlie Kirk here. Another day, another breaking news story buried. They'd rather talk about everything else than what's really going on. It's not because they don't know what's happening. The media pundits and talking heads just don't want you paying attention. The real stories, you have to look behind the headlines for them.

You know, the truth is being covered up. Prepare for what is coming at My Patriot Supply. Since 2008, My Patriot Supply has helped millions of Americans get ready for the worst. Today, their best selling three month emergency food kit are flying off the shelves. Get yours right now at my Web site, My Patriot Supply dot com. This food kit offers over two thousand calories every single day.

Order all the kits you need for two hundred dollars off free shipping included. You've been warned about what can happen. Don't live in fear. Take back control of your future because this isn't just food.

It is freedom. Stock up on those food kits at my patriot supply dot com. That is my patriot supply dot com. You've been warned about what can happen. Get over two hundred dollars off free shipping included. You are nine meals away from anarchy.

My patriot supply dot com. So the the contention, I suppose, from people like Pelosi and I want to give her an opportunity to defend herself again so people can hear this. She says democracy itself is on the ballot in America. Well, it's funny. Donald Trump, who I'm obviously an enthusiastic supporter of, running for office and going through the means of trying to win the election again is the most small d democratic thing one can do.

Play cut 106. We think democracy is on the ballot in America. It's a victory that we must win because it will only make matters worse if they have another stay at what they're doing to the courts in our country. The fear that they're instilling in Joris in our country, the suppression of the vote in our country, the role of their big, dark, rich billionaire donors who don't want to pay taxes, suffocating the airways from the fossil fuel industry and the gun industry and the rest of that. So money and populism sadly have gone together with this ethno nationalist, anti what they call elite, which we call education, free press and the rest.

There is a lot there, Winston. That was just a lot of little soundbites that she combines together to try to make herself seem intellectual. Let's focus on one thing. She says, well, the billionaires running ads, the wealthiest people absent Elon Musk in America are all behind the Democrat Party, Winston Marshall.

Yeah, absolutely. And not only that, I think Biden is the biggest recipient of dark billionaire money in American politics today. What happened after 2016 is that, and it's continuing today, the Democrats seem to have given up on the fact that they can persuade people and they've mobilized all of the institutions which they run. So that's everything from the media, mainstream media. The perfect example of that is how they snuffed out. No one reported on the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was about a month before the 2020 presidential election.

The only people to do so with a New York Post. And that's just one example of how the mainstream media not only showed their contempt for democracy, but also the people. But that story continues with everything we saw through the Twitter files about how big tech are responding. So all of tech was mobilized against the people. We only have an insight, really, apart from little bits here and there, into what happened at Twitter because of Elon Musk's purchase of the company. We saw through the Twitter files, then continued, how intelligence were contacting big Twitter and others to try and snuff out stories, snuff out anyone who went against government narrative on Covid. That was one example.

But also we saw exposed, Matt Taibbi did a fantastic exposing of the Hamilton 68 project and Russiagate, how they had to bring into question the legitimacy of Trump's 2016 victory. So that's just the start of it. Winston, what can be done to unite than the populist instincts of the left and the right to better our societies in the West? What can be done? What can we agree on to try and have a successful movement against these corrupt and less than desirable elites and our, let's say, infected ruling class?

Winston? Well, you'd be better equipped to answer that for your great country, a country, of course, that I love very deeply. I think one thing that can be done is to stop being politically correct, stop worrying about telling the uncomfortable truths. And that even means addressing mistakes made on whatever side you happen to be on, right or left, populist or anti-populist.

I think a bit more honesty would go a long way. But honestly, the real problem lies with the blinkered world view of these elites who are desperately clinging to power. And I'm not sure exactly what can be done for people like Madam Pelosi. I don't think that they are prepared to engage.

We saw only last week she recommended that Biden not get on stage with Trump for the debates before the election. These people don't even want discourse. There's no there's no honour or dignity in that. And it's very frustrating. I just hope that the new generation of young people. I'll tell you one thing. It's very important when we see corruption like we see in these elites. It's tempting to become anti that.

And of course, I'm against that. But we don't want to become what they are. We want to be the example that they're not. Which means engaging with political opponents, which means assuming whenever possible the best or having good faith conversations with people who might have completely different visions of the future. And finding common ground, because I think the populists of right and left in your country and mine often agree on what the problems are.

I know this what I'm talking about seems very idealistic and and utopian. But what can I possibly say? So in closing here, Winston, final impressions from your dialogue with Nancy Pelosi and did they determine a winner? Well, we got absolutely whooped in the room.

I think we lost like something 170 to 60. You could tell that the room is what at one point she starts during my speech, she starts ranting about January 6th and the room applaud her. That's not to say the one people in the room who were on my side at the end of the debate, maybe a dozen young lads, maybe some of them listen to your podcast, Charlie, came up and were grateful that I said the uncomfortable stuff. But if you look at the response online, it's been pretty impressive.

I've had the displeasure of viral moments before. And I would say that this one has been almost 100 percent positive because I think there's truth in what I'm saying. I think that people are resonating with the basics of my argument. And there hasn't really been a huge attack on the content of what my saying from from the other side. Maybe it's been covered in alternative media. And I've done Piers Morgan and Rogan mentioned it and you're talking about it. But it's been completely ignored in mainstream media, despite its massive virality online.

That tells us a lot about what's going on in mainstream media at least. But I guess, yeah, I think that's well, I yeah, I think it's been a positive moment anyway. Winston Marshall, excellent work. Thank you for your time.

And check out the Winston Marshall show. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me on, Charlie. And congratulations on your new child. I send blessings to you and your wife. Thank you.

That is the best news. Thank you, Winston. Appreciate it. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always. Freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.