The Left is Violent (Part 2) | Change My Mind

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Left is Violent (Part 2) | Change My Mind"

Podcast: Louder with Crowder
Host: Steven Crowder
Date: October 2, 2025
Theme:
A return to the "Change My Mind" format, Crowder sits on a campus with guests, discussing and debating the assertion: "The Left is Violent." Crowder argues that political violence in the U.S. is predominantly driven by the political left, exploring both statistical evidence and cultural observations. The episode features a series of in-depth, mostly civil conversations with participants of varying backgrounds and perspectives.

---

Main Discussions and Insights

Introduction and Context

• Minimal Prior Announcement: Due to safety concerns and past violent incidents during campus events, the return of Change My Mind was conducted discreetly, with significant security measures in place ([00:34]).
• Premise Clarified: Crowder emphasizes the goal is civil, productive discussions, not gotcha moments or "clips for dunks." The hope is genuine viewpoint change on either side ([03:41]).

---

Defining Political Violence ([04:01]–[05:30])

• Definition: Political violence is violence "committed in the name of or as a political means to an end."
  • Both Crowder and the first main guest (Jacob) agree that this includes targeted attacks for political reasons, not merely crimes committed by people who have political beliefs ([05:30]).
  • Example: An assault motivated by the victim's political identity is political violence; an apolitical crime is not.

---

Statistical Claims and Polls

• Crowder’s Claim: The left supports/reports significantly higher tolerance for political violence compared to the right.

  • Cites YouGov polls: "77% of self-identified conservatives said political violence is always unacceptable. Only 38% of leftists said the same—62% on the left answered political violence was 'somewhat to completely acceptable'" ([09:14]).
  • After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, "over 60% of the left said it is somewhat to completely acceptable" ([09:38]).
  • These statistics are met with skepticism by guests, who express a desire to review sources directly (Crowder provides a QR code to poll sources, [10:38], [17:27]).

• Crowder’s Argument: The rhetoric and leadership of the left—them labeling the right as fascists, racists, etc.—fuel both actual violence and justification for it ([15:10], [12:17]).

  Notable Quote:
  “You can't have over 60% in poll after poll after poll supporting some kind of political violence. ... That needs to change for us to be able to find common ground. It needs to come from the left. The left needs to tone down the temperature and they need to take ownership and apologize and they haven't.” —Crowder, [24:14]

---

Discussion with Jacob ([03:40]–[30:27])

Key Topics:

• Jacob is skeptical of the idea that the majority of the left is violent, believing instead it's the work of "a very, very small isolated segment" ([07:33]).

• Crowder challenges this, arguing the polls demonstrate widespread acceptance of violence in the left’s base and the problem is systemic, not merely fringe ([08:01], [09:14]).

• Both agree more violence seems to be coming from the left at present, but Jacob insists condemnation should not target an entire ideological group ([17:28]).

• Role of Leadership: Crowder argues Democratic leadership is complicit by calling political opponents fascists and Hitlerian, thereby stoking justifications for violence ([15:08]).

• Solutions Agreed: Crowder calls for accountability, strong messaging against violence, policy change (particularly on crime and bail reform), and members of the left calling out their own ([24:09]–[30:27]).

  Notable Quote:
  "It's not enough to not condone political violence. You have to be championing that cause in your own ranks because we're not seeing it." —Crowder, [24:59]

---

Conversation with Connor ([30:27]–[55:54])

Key Topics:

• Connor, a self-identified Christian from San Francisco, agrees the left is currently responsible for more violence, but differentiates between left-wing individuals and the ideology as a whole ([31:19]).

• Discussion on "ruthless, lawful violence"—Crowder stresses the right must be prepared to lawfully and ruthlessly defend itself, drawing analogies to hockey enforcers and gun rights ([35:40]).

• Crowder laments a culture of passivity and cites examples from criminal justice (e.g., George Floyd, other repeat offenders) to criticize leftist "soft on crime" policies as enabling violence ([37:31], [41:46]).

• The conversation pivots to how Christian ideas of forgiveness and duty intersect with justifiable self-defense ([52:06]–[53:04]).

  Notable Quote:
  "The most dangerous man is one who's actively avoided violence and has been brought to his front door." —Crowder, [53:04]

---

Atticus: Cultural & Policy Roots ([55:54]–[66:09])

Key Topics:

• Atticus, a single father, asks about the roots of violence and cultural shifts within "white" America—expanding the topic to broader sociological and policy changes, including the welfare state and voting reforms ([59:19]–[60:54]).
• Criticism of modern left-leaning policies as "Marxist" and detrimental to traditional family structures, particularly the influence of "liberal white women" in education and policy.
• The importance of strong, present fathers and the cultural failure to teach women how to treat men ("Are women taught how to treat men? Most are not." —Crowder, [65:06]).
• Crowder supports equal accountability and restoring strong, traditional values.

---

Harrison: Violence as Policy, Not Only Action ([66:58]–[82:27])

Key Topics:

• Harrison challenges the framing of "The Left is Violent" as too simplistic, preferring to address the violence embedded in left-wing policies: abortion, transgender support, multiculturalism, and cancel culture ([68:05]).

• Argues leftist ideology is inherently anti-Christian and oriented toward replacing God with government ([69:40]).

• Both agree the right should stand firm, not be silenced by accusations of bigotry or violence, but respond with truth and legal self-defense ([76:36]–[79:23]).

• Debate over the possibility of real change without spiritual revival: Harrison argues only a Christian revival could reverse current trends ([80:06]).

  Notable Quotes:

  • "I'm not advocating that people go out into the streets and commit violence. I'm saying it's an inevitability unless what the left needed to do when Charlie Kirk was assassinated and they would have to do this within weeks is not only condemning his go. Whoa, whoa, whoa. We have labeled those in the right ... We need to tone it down. We need to do better." —Crowder, [76:59]
  • "Toleration of evil is the same as atheism." —Harrison, [79:41]
  • "If they say you can't do this, tone it down—where do I tone it down?" —Crowder, [79:36]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes with Timestamps

• “[T]he conversation was highly productive.” —Crowder ([00:34])
• “Name me one member of the Democratic party in a national position of leadership…who hasn’t accused our side of being fascist, of comparing us to Hitler.” —Crowder ([00:00], repeated at [19:18])
• “If you’re convicted of a violent crime, then you should be convicted according to…whatever the state’s penal code is.” —Jacob ([28:21])
• “We need the left, these judges, these DA's, to go back to punishing crime.” —Crowder ([29:07])
• “I want them to be deathly afraid of coming into our group and assaulting our own. I feel like a shepherd…who didn’t do his best to protect his flock.” —Crowder ([37:02])
• "[T]he left wants you scared, dependent, dumb and numb." —Crowder ([45:24])
• “They don’t want America. They want something else. If you’re not entitled to protect your family and your own, that’s not American.” —Crowder ([47:04])
• “If everything is nuanced, and nothing is true, then we don’t know up from down.” —Crowder ([50:52])
• “The only way to tone it down further is silence…That’s the reason I’m back here.” —Crowder ([55:10])
• “Liberal white women are the worst. That’s why I have a Latina at home now.” —Crowder ([63:36])
• “We have labeled these people fascist, Nazis, racists, homophobe, sexist, transphobe, genocidist… And you know what? You can’t deal with a fascist at the ballot box.” —Crowder ([76:59])
• “The most dangerous man is one who’s actively avoided violence and has been brought to his front door.” —Crowder ([53:04])
• “Toleration of evil is the same as atheism.” —Harrison ([79:41])

---

Notable Segments & Timestamps

• Crowder’s Opening Challenge: “Name me one Democratic leader who hasn’t used fascist/Hitler rhetoric” ([00:00]; [19:18]).
• Discussion on Polls and Public Attitudes ([08:01]–[10:38]; [21:25]–[22:34])
• Personal Security Experiences and Rationale ([11:09]; [35:40])
• Rhetoric and Political Leaders’ Responsibility ([15:08]; [16:09])
• Crime & Justice System Critiques ([26:09]; [41:46])
• Defining and Addressing Solutions ([24:09]–[29:07]; [76:59]–[77:59])
• Christian Perspective & Duty to Protect ([52:06]–[53:04])
• Cultural Critique: Feminization, Welfare, Academia ([59:19]–[63:36])
• Policy Origins of Violence / "Inherent Violence" in Leftist Policy ([66:58]–[68:53]; [69:40])
• Christian Revival as the Only Solution ([80:06]–[82:15])

---

Tone and Style of Discussion

• Crowder maintains a combative yet respectful style, committed to open debate but unwavering in his convictions.
• Most guests are civil, inquisitive, and occasionally skeptical; there is a repeated motif of wanting better, more honest conversations.
• The overall mood is intense, at times personal and philosophical, with appeals to data, principle, and anecdote.

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Crowder contends that not only is political violence presently far more common from the left, but that the left's leaders and rhetoric actively encourage and excuse it.
• The episode repeatedly stresses that true change requires the left to take responsibility, leaders to condemn violence, and the justice system to enforce consequences for offenders.
• There is consensus with most guests that violence today is imbalanced toward the left, but disagreement as to the causes, the scope, and the best approach to stopping it.
• Crowder argues the only way to further "tone down" right-wing speech or self-defense at this point would be silence, and he refuses to yield ground ([55:10]; [79:36]).

Final Note from Crowder ([84:27]):

“Genuine, raw, unedited, unfiltered, non-performative conversations where ideas can be challenged, people can respectfully engage, and a conversation can take place. While we don’t have to compromise on our principles or frankly find common ground based on a lie, I think you can be respectful and still be bold. You can be civil and still be steadfast.”

---

For Listeners

This episode delivers a sharply opinionated but substantive exploration of left-wing violence claims in America, blending statistics, personal experiences, cultural criticism, and philosophical debate. Crowder’s approach is to force a reckoning on the issue, insisting that rhetoric matters and that silence in the face of escalating violence, or the pretense of neutrality, is no longer defensible. The guests, while mostly agreeing violence from the left is a problem, offer nuance on its scope and origin, and challenge Crowder to distinguish between the fringe and the mainstream left.

Transcript

[A]

Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about all of it. Okay, then you say it might be a fringe minority who say fascists, for example, who say racist. Here would be my challenge to you. Name me one member of the Democratic party in a national position of leadership, one who's run for office, either been president, vice president, or ran for the office, who hasn't accused our side of being fascist, of comparing us to Hitler. Name me one.

[B]

My fans, I have arrived.

[A]

Me too. Welcome to part two of this installment of Change My Mind. The premise the left is violent. Click the link in the description to see the entire hour and a half first installment from yesterday. Now before these, it had been more than a few moons years since I was last on campus. And for obvious reasons, it was an ever increasing risk that required more security. And a lot of students were carrying this on and doing it themselves on campus. But as a lot of that stopped as a semi reluctant participant felt compelled to bring this back. Luckily, this go around the team around me was top notch. I can't thank them enough. Was basically a small army. We were able to do it in this climate with minimal risk. That means no prior announcement. That means really no interaction with the crowd that can get riled up. And in a lot of ways that's what Change My Mind was originally meant to be. It's two people sitting at a table having a genuine conversation where hopefully no one feels pressured to be performative. The true goal by the end of this is that someone maybe actually changes their mind. Maybe me. Usually not, but maybe. And the good news is the pop up crowd was respectful and the conversation was highly productive.

[C]

What part of progressivism do you think comes with that?

[A]

I mean like racial division, Racial division, gender division, classist division.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I mean you don't see the right saying, hey, these people are fascist and they want to genocide you? No. Okay.

[B]

Well, mostly when Marx wrote his communist.

[C]

Ideologies, it was conservative based.

[A]

Now I know out of context that may seem pretty bad, but if you click the link in the description to yesterday's full hour and a half installment, you'll see that in context it's worse. But I do appreciate her willingness to sit down and talk and I was hoping that part two would be just as productive. And in a lot of ways it was. And in some ways it was. It was not.

[C]

It seems like it's a higher percentage of these parties on both sides which have these extreme abuse. I don't think, I don't think that's the case.

[A]

But Assuming I'm not lying, right? What? All those polls are lying.

[C]

I don't think you're.

[A]

But I'm assuming I'm not lying. So sit back, perhaps, grab a tasty beverage if you will, and enjoy what was mostly a constructive Change My Mind. And of course, you can tune in to the Daily show live streamed on Rumble every weekday at 11am Eastern. That's really my bread and butter. And it's the first comeback of Change My Mind. Do you want to see more of these? It's up to you. Let me know in the comments. First up, here's Jacob. Hey, Jake. Nice to meet you, sir. Grab a seat. And do you mind moving in so I can hear you a little bit? I don't mind doing that. Don't get cozy. Get cozy. Come on, move on in. So Jacob, you prefer Jake?

[C]

Jacob's good.

[A]

Okay. I don't know how familiar you are with this segment or this kind of piece of content, what we do. Let me explain to you first. What it's not. And I mean, it's general. It's not gotcha. It's not designed for reels, clips, dunks owned. Our conversation will be uploaded in its entirety. The ideal scenario is that we actually have a productive civil discussion. That's not always possible.

[C]

I mean, that's. That's what I would like.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, good. And the premise today is, and I would assert that predominantly the left is responsible for a large portion of the political violence in this country and the tenor and tone to a point that I think needs to be dealt with or certainly at least conversationally. That's not to say that there isn't political violence across the board, but again, predominantly coming from the left. And if you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to change my mind, if you wouldn't mind. Just when we start, I just want to make sure that we go through right here the definition and just if you agree to the definitions of political violence from the Economist and Cato. So in effect, the idea.

[C]

I'm not sure if I understand this definition.

[A]

Okay, let me. Yeah. And this reason is because these are often the numbers that are being cited right now from the Economist, the TPP Project and Cato. Basically, violence committed in the name of or as a political means to an end. Right.

[C]

Even if it's just a complaint or an indictment, it hasn't been. They haven't been convicted or it hasn't been confirmed.

[A]

Yeah. Political violence, acts of violence being committed. Right. I understand too, if there are charges, convictions of different. But we agree as far as, in principle, political violence, for example, I don't know how you vote, but let's say you vote Democrat and you hit and run today. That's not political violence just because you vote Democrat. Right, of course. But if you were to go run someone over because they are a Republican or vice versa, that would be political. Do we agree?

[C]

I agree with that.

[A]

Okay. And on that premise, I believe it's predominantly coming from the left. And you are welcome to change my mind or tell me where you disagree.

[C]

Sure. So I guess I just want to first ask, obviously, the Charlie Kirk thing.

[A]

Yeah, it's massive.

[C]

I'm not super familiar with what other acts of political violence have occurred recently. Maybe you could tell me, like, because other than the Charlie Kirk, I don't.

[A]

Know what else is right up the road here. Ice. People were shot, three were shot, one was killed at an ICE facility done in the name of anti fascism. There were bomb threats at another ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas.

[C]

Well, that's why I asked about the complaint. So is it political violence to threaten something? If there were bomb threats, like, does that count as political violence?

[A]

We would have to. Well, I would say this. We'd have to apply the same standard to both. Right. So I'm just using examples according to the standard where right wing political violence has been included. I understand in the ideal, right, you'd be going through a conviction. But for example, let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say that someone walked up to somebody in the street and said, are you a Trump voter? And the person said, yes, said, you're a Trump voter. Are you sure? Bang, bang, shot him, killed him point blank, and then said, I got him, I got the Trump voter, and then was shot by the police. We would still consider that political violence if there's documentation of that. Right? On camera. Okay, so you would agree with that?

[C]

Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, I'm just.

[A]

Okay, I want you to watch this because this is. It's in Portland.

[C]

That's obviously terrible.

[A]

Yeah. That was Aaron Danielson and that was a Mr. Michael Rhino in Portland. That wasn't listed, according to the current stats, as political violence because the police shot him before there was a guilty conviction. We would agree, though, that's political violence. Right?

[C]

I would agree based on what you're telling me. Again, I just want to clarify. What you're saying is these acts of political violence are done disproportionately by the.

[A]

Left compared to the right As a method? Yes.

[C]

Okay. I mean, maybe I don't disagree with that. I mean the sign out front just said the left is violent. Sure, I don't agree with especially as a whole. I mean I think there are a lot more incidents of peaceful protest and moderate and people who are on the left too. It's a very, very small isolated segment and we're talking about.

[A]

But what if you were wrong about that?

[C]

What if I was wrong that most people who lean left or are on.

[A]

The left are peaceful? What if I were to tell you that a majority of today's political left view violence against either political adversaries, people of political persuasions as acceptable as somewhat to complete. What if it's over 62% somewhat to completely acceptable? What if those on the left actually support political violence at a ratio of 5 to 8 to 12 to 1 to conservatives? What if that was a fact? It doesn't mean that you are but it again would be reflective of the whole of the left much more so than the right.

[C]

If that was a fact. It would support what you're saying. And I don't not trying to hear, not trying to say that that doesn't exist. I mean I would be skeptical if I saw something as to what you said. I think 62% I think there's no way that 62% of people who vote left who believe left support violence. Have I seen instances?

[A]

You know, so It's a recent YouGov poll. YouGov, not a conservative poll. 77% of self identified conservatives said political violence is unacceptable always.

[C]

Okay, only 77.

[A]

77. Only 38% of leftists, 62% answered somewhat too completely acceptable. Some answered I don't know. And then there was another snap poll before that that had a again at a ratio of 6 to 1. Self identified liberals supporting political violence in comparison to conservatives. It doesn't mean you or all but if we're comparing those demographics it is stark, it is consistent. I could point you to another one. After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, over 60% of the left said it is somewhat too completely acceptable.

[C]

I mean again I'd love to see these polls and if those are representative, I totally agree with you. I don't think it's okay to support political violence. I'm honestly a little shocked at how low the conservative like only 70, 70%. I would have think it'd be like 99.

[A]

You think it'd be 99% of the left according to your premise. Right, but it's 38.

[C]

Well that, that is what I would think and it's not been My experience that most people who are on the left do support political violence. I will say, and this has troubled me is I have seen members of the left support, for example, Hamas. I have seen members of the left not condemn Charlie Kirk assassination or spoken out as being happy about it. I just don't think that that is a majority of the population. I would be very curious to see these polls. But matter of fact, do we have my experience.

[A]

So someone once. Can we have the qr, because we actually have a QR code so you can see all the sources.

[C]

That'd be great.

[A]

Yeah. Great. They should have had that earlier.

[C]

I can look at this later. I mean, we're just here.

[A]

No, but I want to give it to you so you can access it. And by the way, I do think, just to be clear, I think that your heart is in the right place. And I think you're. I think you're honest in that this is your perspective because you probably think it's abhorrent, as I do political violence. And here's why we're having this conversation. Okay. For example, see, we have bulletproof glass and basically a small platoon here.

[C]

Scary.

[A]

I can imagine it is. But before this last event, people would have argued it's unnecessary. And we've had to take increasing security measures. I can tell you that the reason I stopped doing this for years is because every single time, every single time, there was some serious violent action carried out. There were rocks thrown, concrete milkshakes, people trying to slash tires, Molotov cocktails, and no one would listen. There's a reason that Charlie Kirk had security before. He was a snasslite. Right. There are a lot of close calls, and you saw the one that got through. And the rhetoric was always, you're fine, you're fine until you. It's like. Until you shed blood.

[C]

Look, I completely agree. I mean, there's definitely extreme political violence. I've seen it happen.

[D]

We just.

[C]

The whole country just saw it happen. I just think to.

[A]

Can I just finish that one point?

[C]

That the entire left.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Is.

[A]

No, the left is violent as an ideology and as a majority, which you'll see with the stats that I present to you. But here's the thing, and this is a genuine concern. There's no off ramp here. Let me explain to you what I mean. I think we both want to avoid any type of civil war or serious conflict. Right? Right. We both.

[C]

I don't think we're close to that.

[A]

I'll tell you why. I think it could be in the cards within the next decade. Okay, And I've not said this before these last two years, there was only one off ramp. When the left, a member of the left, assassinated Charlie Kirk in cold blood in the name of political leftism of radical trans ideology. Leftism, right, justified it through Charlie Kirk being hateful, which he's not. Him being prejudiced, which he's not. The only off ramp would have been if the leadership on the left and if a majority of the left said, hey, look, this has gone too far. We've labeled these people fascists, Nazis, racists, genocidists because of their trans policy and my God, some people out there actually believing it. We're sorry, let's tone it down. Instead, there was a very surprising gleeful celebration thereafter. And you can say not all the left, but every single vigil, every single memorial, every single mural that was put up was desecrated, spit on. There were assaults from the left when people on our side, and by that I mean conservative Christian America by and large have one of ours attacked and then they pursue our spaces to honor the dead and celebrate. That tells us, oh, there are too many.

[C]

So you think because of this, you think we're trending towards some kind of civil war, civil conflict?

[A]

I can tell you this. I have a pretty large sample size and this would be anecdotal in addition to the empirical. Since COVID I would say that's number two. I never saw more people change their political persuasion outside of COVID in my lifetime. People who were self identified liberals who couldn't send their kids to school. Right. They thought, okay, it's going too far. I've never had more people reach out and say, I was so shocked at the celebration and justification the assassination of Charlie Kirk from my, who I thought were moderate liberal friends that I've had to delete them from social media. I can't be included amongst them. There's an exodus taking place because of the reaction. And you can't point me to one of an example like that on the right. It doesn't exist.

[C]

I mean, you're making good points. I don't see how this is leading to civil war. But I totally agree with what you're saying. I've seen people have the exact reaction that you're discussing. I, I think it's wrong. I just, in my experience, from anecdotal evidence, that's why I'm curious to see the empirical studies. I don't think that represents a majority of the left. The instance you're talking about, about memorials being desecrated this is.

[A]

And you've seen it, right?

[C]

I've seen it. But this isn't coming from. From like the Democratic leaders. Like, this isn't coming from the majority of.

[A]

Sure it is.

[C]

I wouldn't say Democratic leaders.

[A]

Yeah. Let me explain to you. Charlie Kirk was killed because people actually believed that he was a fascist. And Gavin Newsom just said it about the Republican Party and Stephen Miller not more than 24 hours ago.

[C]

So you would blame the leaders for saying.

[A]

I would. I would say they're responsible if they are going to say that Donald Trump's rhetoric is responsible for Black Lives Matter, which proceeds him by two to three years under Barack Obama. I certainly would say the ongoing rhetoric from the left that Republicans and Donald Trump are racist, that they are fascist, comparing them to Nazis, Hitler, that they are genocidists because they don't believe that children should. I think that that rhetoric. Because let me ask you this. The people who've committed this violence, for example, right here at ice, Charlie Kirk, right ant for this man you just saw, they believe that I. That Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump are fascist. If that's true, how do you deal with fascists? If half the country believes that we're fascist, how do you deal with fascists? You can't do it at the ballot box.

[C]

Let me break this down one at a time, because that was a lot.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

First thing, I think people have. I think you can't 100% blame people for the things that they say. Inciting. For inciting violence. People have their own agencies in their own decision making.

[A]

Well, they campaign on them. It's the DNC campaign platform. Fascism. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom. You can't name one. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, fascism, Comparisons to Hitler. They say that we want to oppress blacks. They say we want to erase trans people.

[C]

I mean, I, I've seen it happen. It happens occasionally. I don't think the majority of Democratic leaders say this or believe this, and even some of the ones who do maybe not believe it, but if we're just talking about rhetoric.

[A]

But what if they all do? What if they all do?

[C]

If we're talking about rhetoric being dangerous and inciting violence? I mean, I think the right shares some blame in that, too. I don't think the right is completely without blame for speaking, for speaking poorly of the other side. I mean, Donald Trump is certainly not the, you know, the idol or the model of manners or, you know, not.

[A]

Being manners are different from labeling your opposition as fascists who won't relinquish the rules, reins of power. Ergo, you need a violent revolution.

[C]

But here's my point.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

My point is, yes, some Democratic leaders have said things, have called other people fascists. I've called them racist. Some people on the right as well have said things about members on the left. You know, called them communists, I've called them socialists. Similar type of rhetoric. I don't think.

[A]

I don't think it's similar.

[C]

I don't think it's right to blame the leaders for violent acts that a small minority of extreme supporters commit. I don't think that means the entire party is violent. I don't think that means that the leadership is violent. I think there are simply a small group of extremes. And is it. I agree with you. Is it. Are we seeing it more from the left than from the right? I think we are. I think if, I think if I were to do some research, I'm sure I would be able to find some acts of political violence.

[A]

Absolutely right. I'm not disagreeing with that.

[C]

But maybe there are more from the left. And that is what I've seen. And I agree with you there.

[A]

I appreciate your.

[C]

But I, I do not agree that it is the entire Democratic Party that is the leadership of the left, that is the belief of the majority of the left, that these acts are okay. I know there is a higher percentage of.

[A]

Sorry, I know this bug keeps going. It's a, It's a bitch, isn't it?

[C]

I've definitely seen people from the left and Democrats who have not condemned what happened to Charlie Clark and have not condemned these political acts of violence, who have not condemned what's going on in Israel. No, but I don't think, I don't think the majority.

[A]

Okay, but what if. Let's assume I'm not lying to you. Okay. Let's assume that there's a YouGov poll. Let's assume there's a Reuters poll. Let's assume that you've got 62% somewhat to. Okay. Okay. Let's assume that you have a 6 to 1 ratio of political violence being okay from the left. Let's assume that after Donald Trump's the attempted assassination that over 60% of the left said that violence against Donald Trump would be somewhat to completely justify. Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about after the Tesla bombings, that a majority of the left said it would be somewhat to completely justified. In contrast to Republic. Let's assume that I'm not lying to you about all of it. Okay, then you Say it might be a fringe minority who say fascist, for example, who say racist. Here would be my challenge to you. Name me one member of the Democratic Party in a national position of leadership, one who's run for office, either been president, vice president, or ran for the office who hasn't accused our side of being fascist, of comparing us to Hitler. Name me one.

[C]

I mean this is tough for me to answer because I'm not like super familiar. I couldn't even name that many, just political leaders. But I'm very certain if I looked hard enough I would find Democratic leaders who have not called other people fascists, who have not called other people racist. I have seen a lot of them and again I've seen on social media and like obviously I've seen the usual.

[A]

Suspects doing it, but like Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Wimmer, every single one of them has lobbed the fascism accusation against Donald Trump and his voters.

[C]

I agree with you and I've seen that. I'm just saying they're fascinating. 530 something members of Congress. I am 100% sure that there is a Democratic one there. That I'm sure there is one. Well, right. I just don't know their name because I have.

[A]

But you can't point me to a single person in the right go Donald Trump, Vance all, all the way down who've said hey, by the way, they're never going to relinquish power. The enemies are fascists who can't be dealt with at the ballot box. You can hear Donald Trump say shitty.

[C]

Things specifically but I've seen comparable things, things said from Donald Trump like I can't remember off the top of my head but he, I, he has definitely not been the model of rhetoric. And again part of this rhetoric, I mean it's politics, it's people appealing to their base, people appealing to some of the extreme members. Because also you got to remember that most people don't even come out and vote. It's like they're 30 something percent of people who come out and vote.

[A]

It depends on the year.

[C]

It depends on the year.

[A]

I think it's been closer to 50 in recent years.

[C]

The people who vote are usually tend to be, feel very strongly and are tend to be more extreme.

[A]

Sure.

[C]

These leaders, they from a practical perspective have to appeal to these more extreme voters which is why it seems like it's a higher percentage of these parties on both sides which have these extreme abuse. I don't think, I don't think that's the case.

[A]

But assuming I'm not lying. Right. Would all those polls are lying?

[C]

I don't think you're lying, but I'm.

[A]

Assuming I'm not lying. But. But let's assume that those polls exist. Right? Let's assume that you take this QR.

[C]

Code and you go, I assume they do exist. Don't know if you're representative difference between that. You know, you could poll 100 people and you can pull a different 100 people.

[A]

Well, how many polls would you need of self identified liberals versus self identified from left leaning polling sources? How many would you need to go? And I think you've already agreed that it's predominantly coming from the left. I guess at this point what we're talking about is okay, if we both agree that there is more violence coming from the left right now. Right. Right now. And I think we agree on that. It's the more political. More political violence from the left. Yes, right now. I think we agree on that. It begs the question why. Right. And I don't think that it's productive to kind of both sides that. Because it's not on both sides. It's a disproportionate percentage on one side. Also, I think, you know, if we both forget example, you and I can find common ground. I think this has been hopefully respectful. You seem like a very nice gentleman. This right here not listed in the stats. Right. Because right now the media also goes out and said there's more violence on the right wing, which obviously you don't seen that. I'm not. That's not registered as.

[C]

Not like watching.

[A]

No, but that's not registered as political violence. Isn't that crazy to you?

[C]

Cato, if what you say is true, then yes, it is true. That should be registered as political violence.

[A]

I assume it's not. Nor the Summer of Love, the George Floyd riots, none of those deaths, none of the arsons, the January 20th protests where people were arrested right after Donald Trump became president, none of those included as political violence. The problem is, and you say, and I hope, I hope that we can find comfort and I hope we have an off ramp to some kind of civil upheaval, genuinely. But when one side gets backed into a corner where they need security to go out and express their opinion for sitting at a table when one side says, hey, hold on a second, we are effectively being targeted and hunted. If we are public figures, or for example, even if we're not public figures, if we're working at an ICE facility, we're working at a police precinct and something needs to be done. And people go, ah, no, no, no, it's both sides. And then you have the media saying, actually it's the right who's more politically violent. You back them into a corner and I think they're, you know what the end game is they there. And so I hope that you do spend time.

[C]

I don't know what the end game is there.

[A]

The end game there is if people are at the receiving end of political violence and it's gleefully celebrated thereafter and then they are accused of committing the political violence, they're going to start not just defending themselves, they're going to start fighting back. And I hope it doesn't come to that.

[C]

I hope, I hope that, I hope they fight back peacefully or in the proper channels.

[A]

You can't ask them to fight back peacefully if they're being killed in record numbers. That's the issue. If they're being killed and assaulted in record numbers. And that's, that's the reason for this, is we need to deal with this problem. We need an off ramp.

[C]

So what's, what's your solution to the political violence coming from, seemingly coming from the left?

[A]

Well, I can tell you this. There, there is no solution until there's a, a structural changes to the makeup of the Democrat Party. In other words, you can't have over 60% in poll after poll after poll supporting some kind of political violence. You can't have the Summer of Love in those riots. You can't have the Tesla bombings. You can't have Charlie Kirk and people coming out and people in the Democratic Party saying, well, even though I condemn the violence, he was hateful, he wasn't his rhetoric. That needs to change for us to be able to find common ground. It needs to come from the left. The left needs to tone down the temperature and they need to take ownership and apologize and they haven't. That means the leadership and that means anyone who went out there and justified or celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. There needs to be such a chorus from, let's say, let's assume that you're more left leaning. It's not enough to not condone political violence. You have to be championing that cause in your own ranks because we're not seeing it. That's the only way.

[C]

So you would like to see from the Democratic leaders some sort of everyone, condemnation, apology, accountability.

[A]

Okay, yeah.

[C]

And then how do we, so how do we stop this, I guess violent rhetoric or the kind of rhetoric that's inciting silence?

[A]

Well, that would be the Left, the left needs to stop it. Right. And then we need the leaders can.

[C]

Come out and they can condemn it and they can apologize. But assuming these polls are correct, how does that, how do we change the 62% who are okay, well right now.

[A]

Again, this is why the why matters. The reason you have 62 and some polls, 60 and some polls more is because of the leadership and the temperature in the Democrat party. So that alone maybe brings it down to 50, doesn't bring it down to conservative levels, but it brings it down pretty low. And then the left needs to be on board with such harsh on crime policies and realities. For example, before Charlie Kirk, we had Irina Zaruska right there in North Carolina. The woman who was stabbed, I don't know about that. White woman who was stabbed by a black man who was released 14 times, stabbed her on a subway, she bled to death.

[C]

Was that political violence you're saying?

[A]

No, what I'm saying is political violence thrives in blue districts where you have catch and release and iou, no cash bail policies. This guy was released on an IOU deemed mentally unfit to stand trial by a leftist judge, by a leftist court system. 14 times. You know the average amount of times that a murderer has been released before they commit a murder?

[C]

I do not.

[A]

11:11.

[C]

I would have to see something on that.

[A]

Again, the QR code will make all of it available. So the left not only foments violence through rhetoric, but then they also facilitate it by soft on crime policies with the same rhetoric. Because keeping people behind bars, having actual bail needed to be post is considered racism. Every single proposal that comes from the right is racist, it's fascist, it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's transphobic. And now we have people dying. So those two things need to change crime policy and the rhetoric from the top down. Do you think that would make a difference?

[C]

I mean, I personally support some of the crime changes you're discussing. I, I guess I do have a follow up question which is you mentioned.

[A]

And there's a QR Code by the.

[C]

Way, with the sources that average murderers released 11 times. Is there like do those murders commit more, you know, acts of violence when they're released? Is there some kind of statistics on that? Because like does that actually.

[A]

Well, I mean they've been brought in for serious crimes 11 times.

[C]

Are they when they're released, are they under house arrest? Are they under like, like they're not committing more crimes when they're on trial?

[A]

Well, I would imagine between crime six and seven and between crime seven and eight, they're committing more crimes all the way up to 11. I think we can agree on that. Right? That's pretty self explanatory. This guy was released 14 times, including already committing armed robbery. And this, this is not the only example. You know, George Floyd, nine times he robbed the woman at gunpoint with her daughter in the house. This was a serial violent criminal.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Who had no business being on the streets. I'm just picking it because it's an example of someone you would know.

[C]

Right. I mean, I. Look, I, I'm totally with, you know, the justice system and locking them up.

[A]

If they commit violent crimes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

[C]

If you're convicted of a violent crime, then you should be convicted according to, you know, whatever the state's penal code is.

[A]

And the problem is the states where leftists are in charge is very soft. You don't need to have any.

[C]

But you think the solution to political violence and the problem with the left right now.

[A]

Yes.

[C]

Is we need the left and the right to work together on crime policies. No, you don't.

[A]

No, not on the. Well, first, on the crime policies. Here's what needs to happen before that, the rhetoric. The left needs to take full ownership and accountability. Okay. And not just the leadership, but people like you, who seem like decent people. We need to see you calling out your own the same way you would see conservatives call out their own here. If someone were to be violent. We need to see that that rhetoric be toned down and changed completely. We're not fascist, we're not racist, we're not transphobic. We have disagreements of opinions.

[C]

I agree with you.

[A]

And then as far as crime, we need to go back to the crime policies that we had that worked and the left altered. We don't need to work together. We need the left, these judges, these DA's, to go back to punishing crime.

[C]

Isn't crime sort of a state issue? I mean, you have state judges, you have state penal codes. These state judges are elected by popular vote. What does the federal government. What can the left even do? What is, what can you even do.

[A]

That would need to come from those in charge? In these blue districts, for example, these judges who let people go 10, 15 times. For example, in New York, where DA's, there's no cash bail, there's catch and release. It's literally an iou. Hey, will you come back to court even though you committed armed robbery? Yeah, yeah, I promise I will. Free to go. And they murder somebody. The left needs to fix this. We can't. Because you don't have the same political violence on the right and you don't have the same revolving door of crime in red districts. These are facts and it's not working and people are getting tired of it. So those would be the two solutions. But here's a QR code if you'd like to look that up. And Jacob, I really do appreciate you sitting down and having a civil discussion.

[C]

Appreciate you having me on.

[A]

And please, please do go. Anytime you see it, condemn it, and let people see you condemning those kinds of actions. Because I think, I think you can make a. At least you can make a big impact in your circle of friends. I mean it. All right.

[C]

I mean, thank you. Thanks for having me on.

[A]

Thank you, brother. Appreciate it. Be well.

[D]

You know what?

[A]

Jacob's all right by me. That was a solid conversation. Even though we didn't agree on every detail or maybe even most details, you can tell that he sat down in good faith, has a good head on his shoulders, heart seems like it's in the right place, we were able to engage. And up next was this strapping young gentleman, Connor from San Francisco. I know, I know what you're thinking, but it's not entirely that. Hear him out. So the premise that I'm asserting today, discussing is, of course there's violence that takes place on all sides. But the tenor, tone, temperature today, the increasing, we haven't gone more than three days with serious violent attacks.

[B]

I agree.

[A]

Is predominantly coming from the left. That's not by accident and it's becoming unsustainable for us. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to change my mind.

[B]

So I guess just to quickly clarify, I can agree that there's been significantly more, at least from my perspective, violence on the left as of late, 100%. But throughout history, I think there's been violence that has occurred from right wing ideology, left wing ideology. And so I wonder, what's the line? Just to kind of clarify before I get into my main claim of what's the difference between there being violence on the left and then the left as a whole being violent. I guess that's where I want to understand the line.

[A]

Well, that's fair. And, and before you get to a claim, because we have a lot of people make claims outside of the topic, I do want to try and stay on the topic today. An act of violence would be, for example, someone on the left, Charlie Kirk being assassinated. Would we agree? Left as files. Okay, here's the reason that this is such a boiling point is because not only a non elected official, Charlie Kirk was assassinated in cold blood, publicly, directly inspired by the rhetoric of the leadership from the left. The mainstream leadership from the left. To be clear, fascist, Nazi, right. If he's a fascist and a Nazi, then I'm Himmler because he was much more moderate than I am. Don't let the demeanor fool you. I will say down and talk with anyone, but I am not moderate by any means. And then the. So the gleeful celebration thereafter, I can tell you I've never seen more people leave the left. Covid would be number two. People said I didn't realize that my friends would celebrate this kind of bloodlust. And then poll after poll. For example, after the assassination and cold blood of Charlie Kirk, the YouGov poll showed that 77% of self identified conservatives opposed political violence and all forms only 38% of liberals. And there were other snapshot polls that show that the left supports political violence in one degree from varying degrees, at a ratio of 6 to 1 to conservatives. And after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, over 60% of those on the left said that it was somewhat to completely acceptable. You do not find an equivalent on the right. Does that answer your question?

[B]

To an extent. I think. I guess where I want to further clarify is. So I can agree that the current climate and the current rhetoric has definitely pushed people towards violence. But we can, I think we can agree that certain ideas can exist outside of the current climate. Right. Like certain, maybe things in the left.

[A]

Are like, like higher marginal tax rates.

[B]

Higher marginal tax rates. Or maybe like someone being like let's say pro gay marriage or just something some traditionally left wing policies.

[A]

Sure. I would say that progressivism and leftism is inherently violent as an ideology because seizing the means of production and distribution requires force in comparison to traditional conservatism. But yes, the ideals for example can exist outside of violence. Yes.

[B]

Okay, I guess that clarifies it. And I guess then I want to ask because I'm a Christian myself. I know you are as well. Yeah, I saw watch your show and I was really, really frustrated with the whole Charlie situation. I was kind of distraught about it and I didn't know how to kind of move forward. And I know you said on your show that as the right we need to have, correct me if I'm wrong, righteous. What awful violence against the, against people who want to perpetrate, you know, events like this. And I guess I just wonder how do we deal with that? To be firm and call a spade a spade, but then also not inside.

[D]

Our own rhetoric back.

[B]

Because I think that I see how. I'm from San Francisco, so I'm sorry. It's okay.

[A]

First flip, how many poop piles have you had to physically avoid? Are you far away from downtown? Just the Bay Area.

[B]

I'm in the city, but I'm not close to, so I'm a little bit away from it. But actually, the first political video ever watched was your video over here at smu.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I didn't even know. But. So.

[A]

All right.

[B]

But I guess what I'm trying to say is. I guess. Yeah. Where is that line? Because I do worry, again, as someone who wants to be Christian, who wants to, you know, evangelize and bring people to my point of view.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

How do I do that without, again, being, like, ostracizing, I guess.

[A]

Sure. You know, I'll tell you where the line is right now. It's the law.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And what I mean is. And I've talked to people about this quite a bit, you know, and Charlie did his own thing in his own version, which was very different, you know, but I started this in 2016, 2017. There are really only two people who know what it's like to be in that chair, even though they're different. But I'm saying it's the most comparable thing. And this is not the first time we've had to have this kind of security. I don't know if you saw. We had a highlight reel of the attacks, the rocks, the punches, the milkshakes. And here's the thing. There have been times in the past where I have put myself and my team at risk when I would have been well within my lawful rights to not. And what I'm saying is. So you may not be super familiar with hockey.

[B]

A little bit. I've seen a few games.

[A]

So let me draw an analogy for you. What I'm talking about is within the bounds of the law and the term I use. I believe my words were ruthless, lawful, violence in defense of our own, righteous on accident. No, it was worse. I said ruthless. And I don't run from it. And I stand by changing the temperature and tone. So the last time we were at smu, or that first time, I should say, one of the camp.

[B]

There are two genders. Changed my mind. Is that that one?

[A]

I believe so. SMU was one of the first ones. That was some of the first ones. I was with a sandwich board in a morph suit. Because it didn't start on camera.

[B]

I remember you'd walk around.

[A]

Yeah. And then and then I had someone shove me. And I was like, oh, I can't defend myself. I'm basically a mascot. There was someone who worked there at SMU who said, why do these guys. This was back then. Why do these guys need all this kind of security? My dad was my security back then. He said, maya Angelou spoke here. She didn't need that. And my dad said to him, he said, and why do you think that is? And you could see his face change. And he got it. And he said, we'll get you what you need. Then unfortunately, we had four faculty and we had people in the administration who made us move that put us at risk. We had the right to be there. We had people come up and commit acts of violence. We had people pick up rocks. I don't know if it's smu, tcu unt try and hit me over the head with it. And what we did was we said, hey, hey, hey, please stop. We would move locations, and I've had members of my team assaulted as a result. And what I'm saying is we need to change the tenor and tone. Let me really clarify this. Hopefully this helps. I hope that people out there, like, what's his name, Destiny. I hope that he's able to do his copycat change my mind with no security, as he does now for the rest of his life. And I have never called anyone to go commit acts of violence. I want them to be deathly afraid of coming into our group and assaulting our own. I feel like a shepherd, an unwilling shepherd who didn't do his best to protect his flock.

[B]

Right. And would you sort of lean on. I know I try to talk to the rest of the. With a commandment of it's not thou shalt not kill, it's thou shalt not murder. And so are you saying that we should, again, be able to use the law? Just. You're just saying to defend.

[A]

What I'm saying is today, if someone lifts a rock to come hit me over the head, he won't be asked to put it down. He'll be tackled. And if there are enough of those, there'll be less rocks being thrown, for the same reason that we see lower gun crime in areas where we have higher gun ownership. Let me use an example before you. Hockey. So. So I don't know if you know this, but in hockey, there were people who were called enforcers for a long time. They didn't score any goals their entire career. They just fought. And it was very important. Here's why. Because let's say Wayne Gretzky, he wouldn't allow himself to be traded unless he had Dave Simenco. And I believe McSorley traded with him because they protected him. The reason why these guys just fought is because a penalty from the ref, the government putting you in a penalty box is worth it for a player on the other team. If he breaks Wayne Gretzky's knee and he can't play in the playoffs, right. The consequence was Simenko or McSorley is going to come out and beat the shit out of you. Right. They're going to enforce it. So what happened is there were fewer injuries. There's a player named Crosby who had more concussions in one season when they changed those rules. And Gretzky had his entire career having those enforcers on the bench as rarely as they had to fight set the tone where there was self enforcement. And we do have laws that'll allow us to protect ourselves. And unfortunately we've forgone them to the point where now you have liberal prosecutors, DAs and judges, where you have someone like Decarlos Brown Jr. Who was let out 14 times before he killed Zarutska on the subway. And you know what else? The culture of passivity is why no one helped her. And she died in public, but she died alone. And I don't think that's empathy. I hope that clarifies. It's changing the temperature where they, they don't think we're sitting ducks.

[B]

Yeah, no, I can agree on that. I think you've changed my mind on the understanding of that. I guess where I'm still like my minor disagreement is again, I know people who are maybe more classical, liberal or moderate to San Francisco standards. So take that as you will who did mourn the death of Charlie Kurt but won't change their mind and go to the right. But I still wouldn't call those people are violent even though they're on the left. I could agree maybe extreme leftism is violent. I could, you know.

[A]

No, I'm not calling them violent.

[B]

So I understand that. But I guess my concern is then with the. Again, I think you're a very intelligent person. I think you're very thoughtful and I think you think about things, have your sources, but I know a lot of people aren't.

[A]

You give me too much credit, sir, but thank you.

[B]

But let's just say again, I know people on campus who will quote, you know, I don't want to name drop these influencers, you know, who say things online and they have far less credibility, haven't done their research and then they take some of this and run with it to an extent that I think could then backfire.

[A]

And that's why I agree with you on that. And I think I'm, I will say intelligent. I don't know. I'm smart enough. I'm very careful with my language and I'm very meticulous in my sourcing.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

This show. And by the way, guy who deserves credit is there are people back here we make so you can scan the QR code. We make all of our references available for every show because I'm trying to be as responsible as possible. And the reason I try and be clear as response and as responsible as possible is because I also don't want to soft walk it. I also want to. When I say righteous, ruthless, lawful violence. I am not saying that those people are violent. But here's the thing. And I've talked to. Sorry, I do have with this bulletproof vest. It causes belching. Yeah. Is that what it is? Oh, you are San Francisco sir. If you're a heterosexual, you must, it must be annoying in San Francisco code because you must get, you must get people making pass at you all the time. I. Come on, you're a young guy. We all know. Let's not act like we don't know what we're talking about here. I agree with you. I think there's a real problem and we call out clickbait culture quite a bit and people will say things to get clicks. I think that you will see with us we're remarkably consistent. And I am consistent in this. I'm saying predominantly the left and I don't think there's an off ramp. Here's why you can't point me to a single example on the right at all recently. Comparable to Charlie Kirk, meaning a non elected official being assassinated as an act of terrorism in cold blood and every single vigil memorial afterwards being desecrated by the people on the left. Well, people from us.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So the left collectively killed one of our guys and then came into our. They're so unafraid. Came into our spaces and committed more crimes. That temperature needs to change. And here's the thing. If your friends are truly peaceful, if those. They would have no problem with it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Just like I have no problem with someone else owning a gun.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I want, I hope that everyone, everyone here who can lawfully carry is caring because I'm not concerned with them.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That's actually something you changed my mind on when I was from San Francisco. So you can imagine where my default.

[A]

I was raised in Canada, where we didn't have. It was the magical closet of mystery. And it was a disassembled shotgun. Yeah, I get it.

[B]

I guess. I guess that. I guess so do you think that inherent to the left, this idea of no guns. No. You know, kind of self defense is sort of like looked down upon. In San Francisco, we had a family friend of ours who I won't go into it because I want to give their information away, but they out of self defense. This is when Kamala was in charge and she wanted to persecute this man for beating up somebody. Not with a gun, with a force flashlight. Who came in his house, who was escaped from. Or not escaped, just got released from San Quentin. Who had a history of violence, sexual violence. And he was in his house looking at his daughter's room and Kamala tried to persecute her prosecutor. And so I can see where that line is dangerous. But I guess again, how do we.

[C]

If they.

[B]

I don't see a world where we can change that ideology fully. So how do we get them to maybe agree on like, we need to uphold the law.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

On our own as well as, again, change people's minds how you're doing.

[A]

Sure. They won't agree. Now, it's funny that you bring that up because there's an example of. And I have dual citizenship. I was born in Detroit, but raised in Canada. From 3 to 18, a man beat a home intruder at 3am in his house. No, in Canada. Beat him. And then he was brought up on charges because I said it was excessive. In my opinion, killing an intruder in Your house at 3am who was there to cause harm is not to. Is not extreme. I don't even think it's immoral. He beat him up. So this is not an accident. When you mentioned in San Francisco Kamala Harris, that's by design. The man was released 14 times before killing Zaruska on that subway. Not only that, you know who else we could say that about? George Floyd. George Floyd. I can't remember. Sixes and nines. I have like this weird dyslexia. It was either six or nine times that he was caught and released. He robbed the woman at gunpoint point with her child present. And so the left disarms people. She wasn't pregnant. That was misinformation that a lot of people put out there and we clarified. And that's part of the problem that we're discussing. Right, people? The truth is enough. It was a three or four year Old toddler there, that's awful. It's sexier to say she was pregnant. And so people believe a lie. And then when you go out, not you, but when people go out and argue a lie, someone on the left goes, see, you believe the fake news.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Which is why we try and be accurate. But systemically, the left needs to take accountability of their rhetoric. Your friends need to call out their ranks the same way that we do on the right. And we also need to change the systemic soft on crime policy that we have seen. And the reason for that is because if you keep someone in jail, it's racism. If you, for example, force them to post bail, it's classism. So we have repeat offenders committing crimes to the left will say they're peaceful.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But invariably they always enable crime and violence.

[B]

Yeah. So is the issue that the policy enables it or is it. That is inherent to it? Because I can see, not that I agree with, but I can see the perspective of, okay, you know, you can even stand on a veiled Christian argument here. We say, oh well, everyone's worth redeeming, everyone's worth redemption.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

So therefore, maybe we'd be a little bit softer because we want people to be in society and want people to reform. I don't, I agree with not working, but do you think that that idea.

[A]

I think there's nothing Christian about it.

[B]

Can you explain that?

[A]

I don't think there's anything Christian about someone committing a violent crime and not facing justice. We serve a God of justice. And I don't think that you'll find anything in the Bible, Old Testament or New that justifies Kid Glove's treatment of violent criminals. I will say this. The left wants you scared, dependent, dumb and numb. That's what they want. If they could have their policy because it's a people more easily controlled. That sound like a good portion of San Francisco. Really. It doesn't. Considering that we've enabled drug culture in San Francisco. Needle exchange. You're a criminal. You know, we're going to punish the person who protects their house. I'm saying San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, you see what the left wants and they want that for the rest of the country.

[B]

Do you think they do want that? I guess that's where I'm struggling. So I, I think possibly that there are certain politicians who I can name or I think that are doing that. I think want, genuinely want the what was worse for America. I don't think Ilhan Omar wants something good for America, but I do think there are people Who I meet. Like, I've, I've seen the mayor of San Francisco around. I don't think that person, Daniel Lurie wants those things to happen. But I think he comes from a place of this sounds nice. Oh, like let's be nice on crime. And then it leads to an extremist view that isn't again inherent with the left, but it's because it sounds like a nice idea. It sounds to me, at least it sounds like. I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying it sounds, oh, sure, at a cocktail party. Oh, like why don't we, why don't, why doesn't everybody just get out of jail and be kabaya and swing around. That sounds nice, but I guess that's where I'm wondering. Like, I do think some people in their heart of hearts believe that that is what they're trying to advocate for. But it leads to more extreme people who do have maybe nefarious.

[A]

I don't think it's extreme. I think it's mainstream leftism. And here's where I, here's where I think. Because I used to be more like you. I will tell you the difference between the difference between 2008 me where you can see with the blue bed sheet on YouTube. There were no Christians on YouTube. There were no conservatives in 2012. Me. 2015 me. Today it's gotten worse. And I'm willing to have conversations, but I think it's important to separate those who actually want to have conversations and those who simply want chaos and violence. And I will say that is a fundamental precept of the left. You say you think they want what's good for America. They don't want America. They want something else. If you're not entitled to protect your family and your own, that's not American. If you're not allowed to raise your child as you see fit, barring abuse, that's not American. The idea. Let's look at hey Joe Biden. He said it's an act of evil to not affirm your child's transaction. Transition. Does that seem like we just have a difference of opinion? He said it's evil. Let's look at Kamala Harris, transgender inmates, taxpayer funded sex surgery as well as disarming the populace walls. His state is a sanctuary state where if you have a nine year old wants to transition, you say no, they can flee to his state in Minnesota and they will hide your child from. They will hide your child from you to protect them because of the abuse of not allowing their child. Does that seem like these people want America. They want a farm, fundamentally different country. Yeah, they don't, they don't want what's good for America. They want something other than America. And that's why you need to be disarmed and that's why you need to be made passive.

[B]

Do you think that the.

[A]

Does that make sense?

[B]

Yeah, it does. It does. It's a really good point. I didn't know anything about some walls.

[A]

Oh, it's evil. It's evil.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

It's not even the only state.

[B]

So do you think that again, I wonder. I often think I want to again. See, okay, you have these left winning policies or views around whatever you want to call it, if you're not a policy or use. If you're not a politician. And let's say, you know, you're very like pro transgenderism. I sometimes argue that. Well, it's very difficult to have that stance because if I can't say 100% of the time that you're a man, then how am I going to say how I can treat a man or how can I treat a woman? Because we need to have a society that can first observe a universal truth and then therefore. So do you think those maybe like secondary ideologies are coming in place?

[A]

I don't think they're secondary or.

[B]

Sorry. They come maybe come in first. Like you start with something like a Medicare or Medicaid and then gay marriage and then now it's. Now it's where it is today. Do you think that.

[C]

The point of.

[B]

That is to get to a place where we can't say anything is wrong and that we can kind of, you know, do what we want or I guess. What are your thoughts?

[A]

No, I think you're on the right track. I think they want to replace, and I see the crucifix that you have replace God with a state because God says men are men and women are women. God says that he made women woman from man's rib because it was not good for man to be alone. And he says that men have a role and women have a role. The left in this country says there's no such thing as men or women and we're equal in all facets. By the way. Let's get rid of pull ups from the military. That's how extreme they go. God says that you were fearfully, wonderfully created and he knew every hair on your head before you were born. The left says it's not a life until it leaves the vaginal lips. And I don't say that to be shocking. I say it because they're not just talking about in utero, they're not just talking about the uterus. Literally about a nine month old baby. You have not found one Democrat on a national platform who would put any limits on abortion whatsoever. When asked, hey, is nine months too late? They always say we won't give a definitive answer. They'll give a definitive answer though. On your right to own a firearm, I think it's. Here's how you deal with it. Here's how I deal with it. People who are willing to sit down and have a conversation, great. I try and be respectful, polite. But I think that bluntness is a more valuable tool at this point because we've allowed it to go too far. And anyone who raises a hand in violence needs to be dealt with within the fullness of our lawful right to self defense. I think it's an A or B. There's a gray area, but not everything is as nuanced as the left wants you to believe. Because if everything is nuanced and nothing is true, then we don't know up from down.

[B]

Yeah, I agree.

[A]

I don't want to see you. I don't know what you're studying, but you understand. Charlie Kirk was hunted just as I have been hunted, just as my father has been hunted. There's a reason he's not. He used to be my security. He's not here because he's too recognizable and people have taken shots at him. You're one viral X post or one good video where you make a good point away from being hunted as well. That's not America. That's not America.

[B]

I guess last question. I don't disagree enough to honestly have.

[A]

No, it's okay to go on.

[B]

But as someone who I think again like I think the most fun, one of the most fundamental values to like my Christian beliefs are that every human is equal and created in the image of God. So I guess I have something in again if I. Someone broke into my house and I had to commit violence because if something against and within myself is a bit scared of that possibility, a bit like sad for that possibility. And so I guess again like how do you. From a biblical or from a spiritual. I would say biblical but some people say spiritual perspective.

[A]

Yeah. The San Francisco white ladies. I'm not religious. I'm very spiritual. Oh I am just as a demographic. It's okay.

[B]

I don't wanna, I don't wanna point a fingers. Someone watch this. I might know a few of those.

[A]

But all Right, I'll point them.

[B]

How do you. How do you. How do you deal with that? And how do you.

[A]

I'm not sad at all.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know why? Because I have a child sleeping in that house.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's my duty. Let's separate this into feelings and duty. If you have a wife, if you have children, if you have a flock, is it your duty as a shepherd to protect that flock? Go fulfill your duty. Don't feel bad about it. That doesn't mean that you go out and kill other flocks. It's your duty to protect that flock. I had a Christian, someone who spoke Christianese, very close to me. Now, I don't want to point fingers who said, you know what? And I watched my dad have his conversation. Dad's the best man I've ever known. I use him as an example because I grew up and he always had these conversations. He said, I wouldn't be able to. I wouldn't be able to take a life if that man was in my house. My dad said, yeah, what if he's currently mounting your wife? He said, well, my dad said, what kind of a man are you? He said, because I don't count you amongst us. And that's what I believe. I don't think that you go out and you seek violence.

[B]

Absolutely not.

[A]

The most dangerous, dangerous man is one who's actively avoided violence and has been brought to his front door. I think, Charlie boy, this certainly qualifies. I'm not saying that in the reference to Charlie Kirk. That's a quote from the film the Edge. This certainly qualifies where we are. And as long as no one comes here and tries to eradicate us, attack us, they can sit down just as you have. But the thing is, Charlie Kirk and myself, we've managed to avoid all kinds of violence. People like us sat down at a table and would talk with anyone who would listen. They took his life anyway, and they've tried to take mine. Yeah. So I'm not playing that game anymore.

[B]

What? I mean, I know you stopped for a little bit, but why seems a little bit illogical. Someone gets assassinated, then you go back. What gave you the courage to do that?

[A]

I'm different from people, funnily enough. People like Charlie and I have friends. For example, I have a friend, Andrew Wilson, who goes out and debates. His head pops off the. It's like, who can I debate today? Yeah, I don't like it. I'm a very unwilling participant.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I did it because I felt that it was necessary. And honestly, I'LL tell you, it was kind of a relief when it got to the point where it was so expensive because of security risks, where I kind of alleviated myself. Like, you know what? Okay, it doesn't make sense. And I always wanted students to do. Was always taking. It was always designed to highlight the failure of the institutions. In other words, having these conversations. Yeah. Because I would ask students, why do you think this is the first time that you're hearing this, considering that they're going to these great schools? Right. And then, unfortunately, a lot of people, and I'm not talking about Charlie Crook, who did his own thing that was separate, but there are a lot of other people who copied it and morphed it. And it became about dunking and it became about making fun of uneducated students. Whereas I actually have a heart for them because they've been failed. And so because the security risks, I kind of thought, you know what? I don't need to do it anymore. People have taken it on themselves. I can do what I'm best at, which is a daily show that's largely comedy. It's important now that the left knows we're not afraid. Because when they say tone down the temperature to us, I said, do you mean like sitting down at a table and having a conversation? Because the only way to tone it down further is silence. That's the reason I'm back here. For better or worse, when I do.

[B]

Think when you see Destiny or Hasan bike or one of these guys going out, have a harder time doing. For some reason, I don't know what it is, maybe, but they have a hard time holding a conversation with being.

[A]

So calm and with no security or very little. They don't need the same kind of safety measures that we do. And that needs to change. That needs to change. Well, thank. Was it. What was your name? Connor.

[B]

I have a mug.

[A]

Oh.

[B]

Do you mind if I get a.

[A]

Picture really quick with you? No, absolutely, that's fine. Just slow motion so that the security guys, you know, you don't want them to jump. Absolutely.

[B]

I'm a really big fan here, so thank you, Connor.

[A]

I appreciate it. You think you're going to settle in Texas or go back to California?

[B]

Depends. I mean, I really like tech and like AI, so I'm drawn to that for the job purposes. But I like living here a little bit better.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Few reasons.

[A]

Well, maybe split the difference in Austin and live on the outskirts.

[B]

Austin? I don't want to live in Austin.

[A]

No, I know. It's gross, too. Thank you, brother. I Appreciate it. Thank you. Be well. You know, at San Francisco aside, I'd vote for Connor for governor of California. There'd probably be fewer piles of human feces requiring an app to track up next. And this one's a little bit of a flyer, but we thought we should include it anyway because why not? Atticus. Atticus, nice to meet you, sir. Good strong name, Atticus. Thank you. Thank you today. And the reason for all the security that you see here? Out of necessity, predominantly, the left is responsible for the tenor and tone and political violence to the point that discourse may be irretrievable, which is why we're sitting down here. You disagree? You're welcome to change my mind, actually.

[E]

I don't know if the gentleman told you. I was actually here to try to have a more nuanced conversation about agreeing with.

[A]

Okay, that was possible. Okay.

[E]

I was actually going to say I'd like to have a conversation in the spirit of like Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder, of where your ethnicity is more important and your culture is more important. And that is not a race issue. Race is more of a construct socially. Sure, you can end up controlling that.

[A]

The old black rednecks and white liberals.

[E]

Book so on and so forth. And even in America, it's a microcosm inside your ethnicity. Even regionally deep south to Connecticut, etc.

[A]

Even looking at where the term like crackers or honkies come from. From certain areas and rule, for example, Ireland or the uk. I know Seoul is. Is brilliant on that. Where I was like, hey, I guess cracker's not all that offensive. I can. We can use cracker. Yeah.

[E]

So more or less the conversation I'm trying to have with you is as white gentlemen. What is it?

[A]

A very white gentleman. Very, very.

[E]

I'm reflecting.

[A]

You give Larry Bird a run for his money. I come from a family of gingers. I don't know. I get so some of it in my beard.

[E]

But the three pointer, you know, type of thing. But I'm just wondering inside white culture if we can call it out. Like when we celebrate Larry Elder calling out systemic things that have happened in the past that have caused, you know, the crime rate, etc. What would you say are white culture is the taking the father out of the home, the putting everybody on welfare for substitution of marriage, etc. Violence in music and entertainment. What can white people look back on culturally or historically that's made it since even J. Edgar Hoover's time, where white people are conditioning the Marxism that's leading to all the violence I mean, Charlie Kirk is the example that this is a Marxism hive. Violence comes out and droves. And when you break it down, statistically, 80% of academia is controlled by white people.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

And I'm not trying to be a. I voted Trump three times. This isn't something.

[A]

No, I get it.

[E]

Trying to have you into a pointless race conversation.

[A]

No. And I can't spend too much time on it because we do need to have the discussion about. Is your, is your question. Just make sure that I understand this correctly. What is the white equivalent in, you know, for example, our culture, taking accountability, like the black community for pulling fathers out of the home, like, what should we take account for that maybe has veered us on the wrong track? More.

[E]

More causation than correlation.

[A]

Okay. Well, I would say actually funny enough, one of them would be taking, taking fathers out of the black home because that goes back to Lyndon Johnson and model cities, the model, you know, great societies program. Great society program where we changed the modern welfare state. I would also say it goes back to the 19th Amendment. And I don't mean women voting, but a big change in this country. A lot of people don't realize because if you say that, they say you're saying women shouldn't vote. That's not what I'm saying. Before that not all men, very few men had the right to vote. You had to be a landowner, you had to pay taxes. You had to obviously be. There was mandatory enlistment or selective service, the draft, mandatory bucket duty, which is voluntary firefighter service. So voting was actually a duty that came along with responsibilities and basically under the guise of hate equality. But actually there was a socialist movement saying, women, you're going to get the vote. I think a lot of people don't realize most women didn't want the vote. There's over 90%. You can find all kinds of pamphlets from anti suffragettes. And the reason why women didn't want the vote is because they were saying, well, we don't want to have to. We don't have to be eligible for the draft. We don't want to have to pay taxes. And basically those in power that they said, no, no, you're not going to have to do any of those things. You'll still get the vote. And there was a period of time in this country where women had the vote without having to fulfill those obligations, and men still did. And so I think that was a big turning point in voting from someone else and your own self interest. And that opened the door for people who, for example, never Work, never contribute, never serve their country. Voting to take from other people and you know, that's effectively a slow march towards socialism. I think that's a big part of it. Where do you, would you agree with that?

[E]

Absolutely, I would agree with that. I would also put back on you. Where do you, where do you see the systemic cause of the, how would you call it, the, the empathy, the detriment inside white society. Also because I'm a single father, my daughter, she's 16 now, been just me and her life.

[A]

God bless you. I know that's tough. Appreciate that.

[E]

And I see, if I may be so bold, I see very unhappy, childless, angry white women controlling all the narratives inside the school system. She is now starting to be homeschooled starting Thursday because I just can't deal with it any longer. So I'm just wondering where that comes in.

[A]

I agree with you. I know where you're going and I agree with you. I agree with you completely. If only men voted, and again, it's not women shouldn't vote. If only men voted, we would not have men and women's sports, we would not have cash and release on crime, we would not have cashless bail, we would not have these, I guess you could say Marxist policies based on empathy, which by the way also ends up foregoing the necessary empathy for the real victim. Right. Soft on crime victimizes real people. Yeah. And that is because I think that a lot of people. Look, it is white suburban women who elect Democrats in this country. What's crazy to me is I assume you're a God fearing man to whatever degree.

[E]

Yes.

[A]

You look around your church. Okay. You look at the women in your church and assuming it's even a conservative church, there are still more women in your church who vote Democrat than atheist men in most municipalities. It is a real problem. There's been a demonization of the church that has failed men. I would also say Ronald Reagan knew it was one of his biggest mistakes. No fault divorce and the custody laws that we have something you may want to look into and that we may play an active role in pushing in Texas in a way to fix it. Kentucky changed divorce laws to automatic 55th custody. Divorce rate. Divorce dropped by 20 something percent. I believe it was 27 last time I checked. Saw that that was overwhelmingly popular in the Texas state legislature. Someone punted it. We're working to find out who and I think we'd be on this. Yeah, there's, there's a lot there that we need to take ownership of and, and if we're going to say what, quote, unquote, white people. Yeah.

[E]

Race isn't adjacent to ethnicity, culture, and even that's regional, but still ends up creating everybody in academia leaning towards. Towards Marxist progressive. And now they've. Even if you go on Brock and ask how they identify, there's even a new identifier which is radical progressive, radical leftist. And this is at 30%.

[A]

Do you know I had a girl who sat down here, Madison today. Yeah, that's my daughter's name. Oh, okay. Well, hopefully yours is much better. She said that the CCP of China. She said that was conservative violence. She said communism is conservative because. Because Karl Marx was a conservative. I tried to get out of that conversation as quickly as possible because you're not going to make any headway with that. She said that and there was nothing I could say. And that person's gonna vote. That person's likely to become a professor. Yes. You said your daughter's 16. Yes. And you've been. She's with you? She's with me. That's a real blessing. I hope, you know, like a lot of. A lot of dads don't end up with. Yeah, a lot of dads don't end up with that. And I think, I think here's what I would say to you on a personal level. Liberal white women are the worst. That's why I have a Latina at home now. She's. I don't know if you know this, but Cuban immigrants are hardcore anti communist. She's as right wing as you get. Yes, yeah, exactly. But you can do. I can deal with aggressive. Aggressive over passive aggressive, because you know where you stand. Yes, she hates communists.

[E]

Plus passive aggressive always comes with a knife.

[A]

Yes, exactly. It does. Yeah. Where you could be cutting. You walk in, we're cutting up your wedding dress in the walk in closet. It's fatal attraction. Boil a pet rabbit. But yeah, I will say, we're often taught, and I can see in your mannerisms, how respectful you are. You're probably a gentleman. We all have flaws. We're taught how to treat women and we always get a little bit nervous. Yeah, but are women taught how to treat men? Most are not. And so in your individual life, especially if you're close with your daughter and you're a man who she respects, you do have a real opportunity there to be one of the few fathers saying, hey, look, if you want a successful relationship, I want a man who treats you well, but you need to learn how to treat a man, because that's something that We've lost.

[E]

That is, that's something I definitely tell her. I tell her that what she just said, the world will tell your brother how to treat his wife, but no one's going to tell you how to treat your husband. And I reiterate to her, her that you are not an independent woman. What are you independent from? You need to be self sufficient. But independent from what? Nobody's independent from responsibilities or bills. So when a woman says I'm independent, what are you meaning? Because you're not talking about your dad, obviously you're talking about men.

[A]

They mean the holy union that God put forth that we are not designed to be independent from. That's often what they're bragging about. But, Atticus, I know, I hate to move you along because I do want to talk to people about political violence.

[E]

But I just wanted to. That question's been bothering me for a.

[A]

While, I think, and I think, look, a single dad with a young girl, you can do a lot more good than I think, maybe even you realize, just having that foothold, being a good man who she admires, that's a rarity. It's a rarity that you, you are in charge of her and you're. That's a blessing. Yeah. Obviously I don't know you that well, but seem like a good man. She'll listen to you. That can make a huge difference in a ripple effect. So I appreciate you sitting down, brother. God bless you, brother. Go shoot some threes. Thanks, Atticus. I really do appreciate people bearing some personal issues like that. And sometimes that's what's great about this series. You never know where it's going to go. Speaking of which, here's the next guy, Harrison. He didn't want to talk about what we were talking about, but then we did talk about what we were there to talk about. Nice to meet you, sir. What's your name?

[D]

Harrison.

[A]

Harrison, do you mind scooting in? It'll be a little bit intimate. Yeah, that's okay. Okay. So the premise today is that by and large, the tone, tenor, temperature in this country is being set by overwhelming political violence that is coming by and large from the left. And I'm concerned that it would reach a boiling point from which we can't come back. That's a big reason for sitting down, having conversation. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to change my mind.

[D]

See, I agree, I agree that the left is fine. I agree immensely with that fact. However, I disagree with the question in itself. So for me, which question? They say the Left is a violent nature. It's a group.

[A]

Well, I just, that's why I just described it like, by and large, of course, there's political violence across the spectrum, but it's not proportionate. Right.

[D]

And so my thing, the reason I came here.

[A]

You disagree with that, that it's not proportionate?

[D]

No, I do. I think it's. I think it is disproportionate left.

[A]

Okay.

[D]

But my thing is, I think if you had to look at the policies of the left, I think when you have policies, obviously there's events like the BLM riots, LA riots, you have Charlie Kirk, of course. But I think when you get to the actual policies of the left, like abortion, that's an inherently violent act. That's an evil act. 1.2 billion babies were killed since 1980. That's evil act.

[A]

I agree with you.

[D]

I think if you look at the LGBT community Q Things pushed by the left, there's higher rates of pedophilia, domestic violence, suicide, abuse, mental health. That's obviously a very violent culture. And even. And for me, I'm very religious, so I see it as a sin. I think God views as abomination. But in a secular sense, there's are these secular measurements that point it being violent. I think if you look at multiculturalism, you can look in Europe and see how that has caused a lot of violence in Europe, in the West Europe, and also cancel culture. You know, censorship that can a lot of top down censorship, I think cause for violence. And so, yes, I think the left is disproportionately violent.

[A]

And can I just, just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding you. What you're kind of saying, and I agree with, is that leftism, progressivism is inherently violent because of the means of enforcement.

[D]

Yes.

[A]

And also the policies.

[D]

And so my thing is, instead of saying, okay, the inflammatory sense like the left is violent, I think the left would disagree with that. The right opposite would agree with that. I think we should say, you know what? Instead of saying this group is violent, let's address the policies. I think would be more beneficial if you had a son says, I think abortion is violent. Change my mind. I think LGBTQ is change my mind. That's where it comes.

[A]

Well, and I've done that to the tune of several billion plays.

[D]

Right?

[A]

Yeah. The reason we're discussing this today is because we haven't gone. Well, no, we haven't gone more than three days without an act of leftist political violence.

[D]

Really?

[A]

Yeah. I mean, you know, the ICE attack just down the street from here. And so my question is so, so, so what you're saying would be more productive is what I've done since 2016. And we get killed anyway. And so now I'm addressing the root cause for that. The reasoning, which is the left, as you and I both agree, is inherently predicated on a violent means of enforcement.

[D]

I think it's predicated on an anti Christian thing. I think if you look at the left, I think Christ, I think they try to renounce. They're trying to make government God, trying to make social policies God. And that's what ultimately causes it. But at the same time I think there are.

[A]

It's interesting that you say that because there was actually a girl who said down here earlier, Madison, who said that the communist China, the CCP was right wing violence, should. It was conservative. She said that Karl Marx was conservative. So that's right wing violence. And I tried, yeah, and I tried to explain to her that Marxism, right, the root cause of not only communism but socialism is replacing God with the state. Of course she wouldn't hear it. So I agree with you that that is the root cause and that's why we do multiple change of minds on the individual topics, addressing them as we go. We have another topic specifically addressing antifa. So I guess I'm not hearing disagreement, not too much, but maybe just came the wrong day because you would have rather seen the abortion or second Amendment.

[D]

I think also that I think the mainstream conservative movements also have some violent tendencies, violent policies as well. I think when you look at how the support of Israel and Palestine, obviously Hamas, I condemn them completely.

[A]

Sure.

[D]

I don't think it's either, I don't think it's an either or subject where okay, I don't support Israel, so I support Hamas. Saying that's backwards. I don't.

[A]

No, I don't think so either.

[D]

I don't support Hamas or Israel, but I don't, I do not support Israel saying Hamas on October 7 committed a heinous act. So it's okay for me to go carpet bomb all of Gaza.

[A]

I understand that that's a very reasonable position.

[D]

And also I think the way is we talk about censorship a lot. You talk about censorship from the left and I really support that. We don't need to have, we don't need censorship. But if you look at things like Palantir used by the Trump administration, that is setting the framework for massive censorship. And so I think those things on the right, we have the also recognize there are issues on the right with, of course, violence as well. But.

[A]

Yeah, it's not. Not the same, though. Not the same as far as, I mean, censorship. I agree. And censorship. Ultimately the means of enforcement is violent. And I would even go to the TikTok policy where you see the bank make a flip flop policy. Right. Where they realize that it was a threat and then all of a sudden they're pro. And then now there's an American company.

[D]

I'm sure you're banned on multiple things, aren't you?

[A]

Yeah, well, I was. I was the first one demonetized on YouTube and then I've been banned from TikTok.

[D]

Yeah, you nick T. Those people face censorship all the time. I think that's very.

[A]

Yeah, I think what we're addressing today is the, the temperature, culture and those. Look, let me ask you this. Yeah. Because this is what we're talking about today. And I understand you're saying you'd rather discuss one of those other topics, but this is what we understand. No, no, no, I appreciate it. And I don't disagree with your fundamental premises on any of those. Actually, the issue, like why. Let me ask you this, because I asked someone, the most liberal person who sat down today, I asked her, why do we have crime support statistics? Why do we record them?

[D]

To track trends.

[A]

Right. Risk assessment.

[D]

Exactly.

[A]

To prevent it in the future. Right. To see who's most at risk of violence. Yeah. And so if we look at that, then we have to look at. Okay, who is most at risk of political violence. It is absolutely those on the right today. And she said, well, no, we don't want to finger point. So the reason for this conversation is because most people sit down and say both sides or try and take it to a different conversation. And I'm not going to let her do it or you do it. Nope. Right now we're being hunted. And I don't care if it's you, Nick Fuentes, Charlie Kirk. I know that they have disagreements. I am further to the right of Charlie Kirk. I don't care who it is. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh. When he was alive, Charlie Kirk was hunted. He was hunted because of the inspiration of the rhetoric from the left, just as I have been hunted. And we have to have all the security which no one now argues is unnecessary. And so we need to deal with that problem. It's the reason we have crime statistics. That's why we're discussing this.

[D]

I think you can see that the left is attacking. I think Charlie Kirk was attacked also for his Christian faith as well, as conservatism, you can see that. I mean, what really upset me is on that Minneapolis, I think it was Minnesota, that church was attacked. Was it Minnesota?

[A]

Michigan?

[D]

Michigan. And the BBC said we don't know the reason. Clearly there's an anti Christian attack, obviously.

[A]

Well, it was a Mormon church and it seems like the guy was pretty upset. It doesn't seem like political violence because he may have been a Trump voter. As far as we know, he was a Marine veteran and seem to really hate the Mormon church. So the target are conservatives though, and that's one thing too. For example, when they accuse it, if you look at these crime stats out there, and that's why we give these to you, like do you remember? So to give you an idea, and I think we're actually kind of coming to the crux of this here. Truth is really important, I think.

[D]

So I think you have to call it out when you see it.

[A]

Yes. And I'm sure that you've heard from the left and probably here in these circles, people saying actually there's more violence coming from the right wing. That's a talking point right now.

[D]

Now, I don't think the stats back that up.

[A]

No, well, stats do back it up. The problem is the stats come from two sources. Three, if you want to be generous. It comes from the prosecution project, which is what was cited at the. That's why. How do you read these definitions? These are from the left.

[D]

Okay.

[A]

And all my sources are largely from the left because the last thing I want is for someone to say fake news. And Cato. Cato is domestic terrorism deaths. The TPP is, is overall political violence. So when they assassinate Charlie Kerr, when they shoot at an ICE facility, when they attack an ABC affiliate for not having Jimmy Kimmel. Right. When I have people try and firebomb my car, hit me with acid and concrete milkshakes, and then they gleefully celebrate the violence. Then they come to the vigils, they come to the memorials and desecrate it and then say, hey, your side is more violent. And they cite some stats. That's pretty important because this. You. How old are you?

[D]

I'm 18.

[A]

Okay, 18. So you may not remember. Do you remember the Summer of Love, George Floyd Rats.

[D]

Yeah, I was about in middle school, so I wasn't super tuned in by the.

[A]

No, no, that's okay. Again, we both agree on the term political violence. Let me show you what's not listed as left wing violence. This was a famous death. A man named Aaron Danielson killed BY A guy, Mr. Rinal in Portland, Oregon, on camera because he was a Trump supporter. Watch this. It's not graphic.

[D]

That's political violence.

[A]

It's not listed in any of them.

[D]

See, that's why I think that is awful. My question is to you.

[A]

Why do you think it isn't?

[D]

Because it doesn't fit the agenda.

[A]

Right. It doesn't fit the agenda. And that's the reason for the topic today.

[D]

And that's where my question to you is. You say the left is more violent. I agree.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

How would you. Would you say that the right is to turn it up with finger pointing? Or do you think they need to. How do you plan on solving that? That's where I thought that's the two avenues.

[A]

So it's not finger pointing, it's identifying the problem. It's is my view. I don't think it's finger pointing. If it's an overwhelming problem and then especially you can't be accused of finger pointing. When the left goes, you commit more violence. Sorry for this. I'm just making a point. And you go, but wait, you didn't list that. The Waukesha, remember the man running over those at the parade? Black supremacists. That's not political violence. All of the damage from the Summer of Love, not less, just political violence. 37 people died. Right. There are $2 billion in damages. Not political violence. Would, would you believe that the person in charge, the author at the Prosecution Project that is cited and disseminated by the Economist and Newsweek, he was actually arrested on January 20th with the anti Trump protests because there are about 200 something people arrested for committing acts of political violence. And he didn't include that either. That's the author of this study.

[D]

It's very skewed. I don't disagree with that.

[A]

But my point is their finger pointing and using it as a justification for continued attack attacks. So what's the solution? Well, identifying the problem. Identifying the problem. And then the only way we get out of this. And I think we would both agree that we want to avoid some kind of civil conflict war. Right.

[D]

I think Christ says like not, not to turn about. Obviously stand up what you believe in. But as a Christian, I think we shouldn't turn to violent measures unless that your family or something like that is being. Is being.

[A]

Yeah. Shepherd needs to protect their flock. Right? Yeah. And I'm not advocating that people go out into the streets and commit violence. Right. I'm saying it's an inevitability. Unless what the left needed to do when Charlie Kirk was assassinated and they would have to do this within weeks.

[D]

Is condemn it immensely.

[A]

Is. Yeah. Is not only condemning his go. Whoa, whoa, whoa. We have labeled those in the right. Charlie Kirk and I understand you said you're a Nick Fuentes fan. My God, what would they say about him? Right. We have labeled these people fascist Nazis, racists, homophobe, sexist, transphobe. Genocide is right. All that and people out there believe it. And you know what? You can't deal with a fascist at the ballot box. And my God. We've also said that Donald Trump will never relinquish power. And we've tarred and feathered half of this country because it's the voting public. We're sorry. We need to tone it down. We need to do better. And then combine that with reversing all the soft on crime policies that we see from the left.

[D]

I think we.

[A]

Because that enables it.

[D]

The Ukrainian girl. I don't know her name.

[A]

So Rutska.

[D]

Yeah but that man should have been in jail for life. 10 fell needs to go.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

The fact that.

[A]

But you know I'll show him. George Floyd.

[D]

Yeah he's. He was a. He was a career fellow.

[A]

Yeah. And I agree with you.

[D]

And so the thing is like I.

[A]

Think but those are the two solutions. Those are the only two. And by the way, I think that the. The right needs to be ruthless in exercising their lawful right to self defense.

[D]

I think so too. I think you should have our defenders.

[A]

So.

[D]

But also and we haven't. I think the right. You said not finger pointed but stand up for the truth. Like we have to recognize that the DEI standards of justice are. Are not appropriate. I mean I understand it.

[A]

We do though and things.

[D]

But it has to be more intense because that girl died for a felon. I mean and when you say well the justice system is unfair. Well per capita African Americans commit 40 times more violent crime than whites per capita on a sheer number basis it's like violent crimes.

[A]

Yeah. I'm not familiar with that step but I do know that that a white person is 12 times as likely to be killed by a black person and vice versa. As far as the murder stat, if.

[D]

You point those things out they say okay, well you're a race, you're racist. Right. I think the right has to be like if you call us that, we don't care if you call us. It doesn't matter. Stand for what.

[A]

It's true.

[D]

But my question, my question is you.

[A]

Said what does that. Does that. Do you agree with those solutions? The accountability the changing the tone, the reversing the soft on crime policy, I think it's. And the right. Taking the approach of lawful self defense where we've afforded grace before, those are, that's a three pronged approach.

[D]

I think, think it's partial, probable, but I think it's unrealistic. I don't think the law enough will condemn it. I don't.

[A]

I think you're right.

[D]

I said the question to me is while it's ideal and that's great, if they do condemn it, if they don't, what's your next step? What's the next point?

[A]

I'm doing it.

[D]

Just condemn it.

[A]

Continue.

[D]

Just continue.

[A]

I'm continuing.

[D]

I agree with that.

[A]

Because when they say tone it down from what? From sitting down at a table and talking with anyone who will listen. The only way to tone it down from here is silence. Right. I think I, I know that you're an energetic guy. I think you've been respectful, hopefully. You think I've been.

[D]

Yeah. That's a great conversation.

[A]

This is what I've been doing. They've tried to kill me anyway and they did. The one that you saw that got through killed Charlie Kirk.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So when they say tone it down, what they mean is shut the up, don't they?

[D]

I don't agree. I don't agree with that. At some point, no.

[A]

I mean you don't agree with them but you agree with the sentiment. That's. In other words, if they say you can't do this, tone it down. Where do I tone it down?

[D]

And as Christian men, we're not called to sit there and tolerate everything. I think as Christian men, obviously we're supposed to be, maybe supposed to be gentle, but also Christ calls us to be aligned for our faith. I think one of the popes said toleration of all religious, toleration of evil is the same as atheism. So I agree with your take, like we have. I know it's probably not entertaining for the viewers because no stuff and so.

[A]

No.

[D]

But I appreciate it. I think really what I think is, I think it has to come to through a spiritual. I think it's a spiritual battle.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And I think honestly the left is very atheistic and I think the only way you won't get them to condemn because I don't think they feel so sorry for. I think the only way to really make the lasting change is through a Christian revival, which I think is happening. I mean if you look at Gen Z, orthodox Catholicism, Christianity, it's all on the Rise. I think that's the only way to really stop it.

[A]

And are you Catholic?

[D]

I'm Orthodox. I actually switched from Methodist this summer.

[A]

So, you know, it's funny, I've actually been, I'm not saying that I've converted, but I have a friend, Andrew Wilson, and he's Orthodox. And I've been going to actually an Armenian Orthodox church. Not that I'm saying I'm there yet, but because I do think that the sort of whitewashed Protestant church in this country has become feminized and has found failed.

[D]

It's weak, it's gentle, it's too weak.

[A]

It's, it's, yeah, it's failed its constituents and it's led us like lambs to the slaughter. And so I do understand, you know, like, look, it doesn't mean that I'm there yet and agree with everything, but the truth is if there's so many factions, that means even if one individual, one church isn't completely. It means one is more. Right. And I do understand too with Gen Z, like when I started this in 2008, there were no Christians on YouTube. There were no conservatives. Right. I literally got the lineal age was.

[D]

Not, was not a Christian.

[A]

And my first 10,000 subscribers, I literally found someone who did gun reviews. And I direct messaged my first 10,000 saying like, Hey, I noticed that you like the Second Amendment. I think maybe you might like some of my content. And I did Crazy Pete's Abortion Barn where with a blue bed sheet, I did a used car salesman selling abortions reading from Planned Parent. The second was a Quran challenge. I got a fatwa on me right away. But back then there were none. And I didn't, what I didn't expect was to see this kind of a swing. Although I've always been pretty consistent where I always said when you whitewash Christianity, it's too easy for someone to come back with an arm and go like, well, God killed millions of people. Well, that's true. It's not just a God of agape love, it's also a God of justice.

[D]

Sodom and Gomorrah do exist.

[A]

Yep. And I saw, I've seen that change with Gen Z where they're not just more conservative, they're more aggressive, aggressively Christian conservative and steadfast in it where they don't want this sanitized version version that they know is not truthful. And I appreciate that about a lot of young Gen Z men. I'm glad to see it because there, there was, you know, pre baby boom and then There was Babymoon through Gen X where everyone was just a. Yeah. And I appreciate whether we agree on everything or not. I appreciate your generation picking it up.

[D]

Not to finger point. Like I feel very strong my belief. So like I'm saying, you have to stand firm what you believe in. If you don't stand for anything, you don't. It doesn't matter because those, these people do not play by the same rules that we had played for the last time, 30 years.

[A]

Yep.

[D]

They're violent, they have mobs, they have that attack. And so unless Republicans can serve, say, you know what, like you want to play by those rules, we'll play by those rules. That's the only way to win.

[C]

Obviously.

[D]

Not violence. Of course.

[A]

No, I agree. Be righteous, live consistently. And by the way, I'm a horrible example as a Christian. I just tell people that like that's why I also don't preach though. We do a Friday apologetics episode with Gerald. Yeah, we're all working. Yeah. Be righteous and, and also don't lose your spine and protect your own.

[D]

Be a man.

[A]

Be a shepherd. Thank you so much, Mr. What was your name again?

[D]

Harrison.

[A]

Harrison. Thank you, Harrison. Be well, brother. Well, there you have it. After years long hiatus on this series, the first comeback stop of Change My Mind is in the books. And like I said, you can tune into the Daily show on Rumble at 11am Eastern weekdays along with all the references publicly available. But if you want more Change My Mind, which is a labor intensive endeavor, comment below what you'd like to see next and where. And I'll level with you. As someone who's hesitant to sit in that chair, I was reminded of what makes Change My Mind so special and what I want to continue to promote. Genuine, raw, unedited, unfiltered, non performative conversations where ideas can be challenged, people can respectfully engage, and a conversation can take place place. While we don't have to compromise on our principles or frankly find common ground based on a lie, I think you can be respectful and still be bold. You can be civil and still be steadfast. Identifying the difference between people discussing a good faith versus those who are not is a valuable skill in and of itself to have. But you tell me, what was your favorite conversation in this latest series and what is it that means most to you about this kind of format? And most important importantly, please remember above all else that the only way for people of our beliefs to tone down the temperature more from sitting down at a table and talking with anyone who will listen is silence. And we need to show those who want us to resign ourselves to that that that dog won't hunt. So until next time, genuinely appreciate your support. This has been change my mind.

[B]

Thank you so much.

[A]

Thank you, guys. God bless.