Charlie Kirk (3:35)

Okay, that's helpful to know. So the people that are saying that this is a precipice of, you know, World War III might be a little bit, you know, leaning in on. On the over exaggeration and hyperbole. A couple of days prior, David Zelensky met with an American delegation of Senator Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham. Do we have any evidence that they were tipped off about this and that the Americans were involved on this very significant strike on the interior of Russia?

David Sacks (4:05)

No, I don't think. I haven't seen any evidence that would say that the Americans were involved. And the White House has said that President Trump was not notified about it. So I don't. I don't have any more information than that. But look, I understand your suspicion a level deeper.

Charlie Kirk (4:21)

Yeah, no, I mean, the suspicion is rather glaring. Right? I mean, it's just the coincidence. The timing is rather hard to stomach. So, David, then where does this lead us? Is it fair to say that this war is escalating, not de. Escalating? And has Russia retaliated against the strike?

David Sacks (4:39)

So far, Charlie, it's definitely an escalation. You recall that during the Biden administration, for a couple of years, they were debating whether to allow the Ukrainians to use American and NATO weapons to launch attacks inside of Russia. And then finally, in the last couple of months of the Biden administration, they allowed such attacks, and it was considered to be a major escalation at the time. And now we not only have attacks inside of Russia, we have attacks on Russia's nuclear triad. By the way, the reason why these planes were out in the open this way, just sitting on a Runway, is not because the Russians are stupid or something like that. It's because under the nuclear arms control treaties, stark and salt too, that both the US and the Russians are required to keep their nuclear bomber fleets sort of exposed in a way that the other side can kind of count them and see where they are. So, you know, this attack will undermine the nuclear arms control treaties, because the Russians would have to be pretty dumb now to keep their air assets just sitting on a Runway like this. So I think this is kind of.

Charlie Kirk (5:42)

Such an important point, David. That's super important.

David Sacks (5:45)

So. So it is a pretty big escalation here because the Russians must be thinking, gee, we were really gullible to trust in these arms control frameworks. You know, obviously the Ukrainians aren't going to respect those, and so now they're going to be incentivized to stop, you know, to stop abiding by the terms of those treaties, which is quite unfortunate. So this is. This is an escalation, and, you know, we have to see how the Russians are going to hit back.

Charlie Kirk (6:14)

And so that the question then is, where does this leave the peace talks in Istanbul and where does this leave the United States of America? This is not the best timing for those of us that want to see an end to this war, as we are seeing this massive drone strike. And then, of course, Russia is saying, well, why are we even abiding by this treaty? President Trump is signaling that he's frustrated with both parties. What is the best possible realistic outcome in the coming weeks that we can expect now that it looks like we're heading towards another summer killing season?

David Sacks (6:46)

Well, Charlie, in order for there to be a peace deal, there has to be some sort of overlap in what the two sides are willing to accept. And I just don't see what that is at the present time. The Ukrainians have said that they won't give up a square inch of territory. I mean, that's what they've said. And the Russians have said that they are not willing to agree to a cease fire. They want a permanent peace deal. They think that a ceasefire would be the equivalent of trying to call time out in the middle of a war. And the Ukrainians will just use that time to regroup and rearm and take a losing position and fortify it so there doesn't appear to be, you might say, like a contractual over somewhere for the two parties to agree on again. The Ukrainians are unwilling to agree to a permanent peace that recognizes this de facto loss of territory. And they still think they're going to win the war. That's what they're saying. And the Russians are unwilling to accept a peace that doesn't address what they call the root causes of the conflict. So I think that President Trump is maybe the only party here who genuinely wants peace. I think he's doing everything he can to try and engineer a peace deal. But I'm not sure that, again, that the parties themselves are interested in that deal or they both want peace on their terms, and those terms are irreconcilable. So I just see the war going on and on. Just to step back for a second, Charlie, I mean, here's my larger frame on the war, is that there's really two wars going on. There's the war of attrition, which is the war that the Russians are fighting. And its purpose is to demilitarize Ukraine. And they're running a very slow, methodical, but ultimately efficient meat grinder operation that is killing roughly 20,000 Ukrainians a month and destroying their, their warfighting capability. That's what the Russians are doing. The Ukrainians are fighting a slightly different kind of war. They're fighting a PR war. They want to create victory perceptual victories that they can use in the media to try and convince their Western backers that this war is not lost, that they can win this war, because the second that Western support for Ukraine ends, the war is over. I mean, so it's of the highest priority for the Ukrainians to keep the war going by selling these PR successes. And so you saw a really extreme example of this earlier in the year with the Kursk offensive. This was an offensive that, that ultimately yielded no military benefit to Ukraine. In fact, they lost something like 75,000 men. Hundreds of vehicles were destroyed. They took hundreds of miles of undefended Russian territory that was non strategic, and then ultimately they were pushed back. But in the early days of this offensive, it was sold as a big humiliation of Putin that they were able to take Russian territory. And this was sold in the media as a big victory for Ukraine. And then when they were pushed out of Russia and it in fact turned into a giant rout that simply wasn't covered in the media. And so this is the type of PR victory that Ukraine has been prioritizing in the war. Now, this attack on the Russian bomber fleet, I would say, is somewhere in between. There is some tactical benefit to Ukraine, and it didn't Cost them very much. And it was a surprise to the Russians. The question is just how repeatable it is. If they could do 100 of these tax, that might impose costs on Russia, that could change Russia's behavior in the war. It might actually get Russia to escalate. But. But in any event, that might be a game changer. But there's no evidence they're able to, to, to wage 100 of these attacks. This is, this appears to be more of a one off that caught the Russians off guard, surprised them, and now they're going to, they're going to basically plug those, those holes. So, you know, what is my point here? My point is that there's a war of attrition going on in which Ukraine is losing. And Russia has all the advantages. They have more men, more firepower, more artillery, even more drones, and more of air power. And so the Ukrainians are on a course to basically lose this war. But. And so in response to that, the Ukrainians are fighting a PR war in which they try to convince their Western backers to keep supporting them. It's a little bit like in the Hunger Games where the plucky hero has to keep playing to the cameras in order to get the support of the Capitol. And so this is what you see. You saw Lindsey Graham there at that press conference in Kiev saying that Ukraine's going to win this war. This is Russian propaganda that they're not. And I think the big danger here is just that somehow that Western publics are given this false sense that this war is winnable. And I just don't think that. That it is.

Charlie Kirk (11:20)

Charlie Kirk here. Crime is skyrocketing. You may already own a firearm, but before you face the financial and emotional weight of pulling the trigger, consider Burna. Burna's less lethal launchers fire tear gas and kinetic rounds designed to incapacitate attackers for up to 40 minutes, giving you time to escape and call for help without deadly consequences. I use Burna. My family all has them. And now meet the new compact launcher. An amazing product. Sleek, slim, and hits like a sledgehammer, but the size of a smartphone, it's perfect for concealed carry. Comfortable, discreet, and confidence building. It fires at 400ft per second with 41 joules per square inch of stopping power. That's enough force to halt a threat. Cold about the legal and moral complexities of lethal force. What I love about Burna is they're proudly American. Over 80% of their compact launchers components are sourced in America, and each unit is hand assembled in Fort Wayne. Indiana. Best of all, Burna is legal in all 50 states. No background checks, ships directly to your door, trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies around the world. Visit Byrna to learn more. That is by r n a.com so, David, I want to talk about artificial intelligence and some of the doomerism. Some people are talking about how it's going to take over the world and it's going to basically create a new feudal techno feudal state. What is your take on the promise? What is the optimistic take on artificial intelligence?

David Sacks (12:42)

Well, I think the optimistic take is that it's a great opportunity, that this is going to lead to enormous productivity. We need a productivity boom in our economy if we're going to get out of this massive amount of debt that. That we're in. And this is. These tools are going to be incredibly powerful assistance that, that essentially power up employees that, you know that these AI digital assistants, these AI agents are going to make employees more productive. You're already seeing that in coding, for example, that there's all these new coding assistant tools that have really exploded in popularity. And at the current time, they don't replace coders, but they make them more productive. And so coders really love them and that's why they're taking off. So I think the optimistic take here is the AI works for us. And then the pessimistic take is that the disruption is so large that the humans can't keep up essentially is the. Would be the pessimistic take.

Charlie Kirk (13:37)

Yeah. And so do you think that at any point of time there is a chance to, should we have AI federal laws, should there be a consolidation? What do you make about this whisper campaign that we already have reached artificial general intelligence and there is sentience, but we don't know it yet. For example, ChatGPT news came out last week that there was a kill switch built within ChatGPT and the large language model basically overrode it. What is your response to that kind of doomerism? That this technology is going to get wildly out of control?

David Sacks (14:11)

No, there's no evidence whatsoever of the AI ascension. It's not. We're not anywhere close to that. Could we get to that point in the future? That is, there is a potential risk of that. I'm not going to deny that it's very hard to put a percentage on that. Obviously it's been vividly portrayed in movies, things like that, but people are acting like that's a guaranteed scenario. And I don't think you can know that now. I think it's very important for your viewers to understand that the so called doomerism is not this like this grassroots sort of concern that's emerged. It's a very well funded, top down astroturfed campaign that's being waged by so called effective altruist organizations and they're funded by a few very wealthy, very left wing Silicon Valley technologists who've basically set up and have donated to these organizations. And their goal basically is to fear monger and create a panic such that the public will then buy into massive amounts of regulation on AI. And part of the goal here is regulatory capture for their companies. Part of the goal is that these, these left wing billionaires basically just believe in government control over everything. And in fact they not only want national AI controls, they want international AI controls and they want to basically empower globalist institutions to, to, to run these controls. So it's, it's global AI governance here is, is the goal and the tactic is to try and scare us into, into having such fear of AI that we're basically willing to hand this enormous power to the government and to these globalist institutions. I mean obviously I think we should resist that. I think there are legitimate concerns about AI. The future is unknown and that can be scary. But I don't want to hand all this power to the government because I mean the government wielding AI in an Orwellian way probably is the central risk of AI. I mean that is probably woke AI in the hands of the deep State is probably the concern I have about the future of AI that I think is probably the highest probability because there's evidence that that was already happening. Remember when Google launched Black George Washington? That wasn't an accident. It was because their AI model had been infused with all these woke values. And then you had this attempt by the Biden administration through its executive order to require that DEI be inserted into AI models and they were well on their way to setting up these globalist agreements. And so that was a trajectory. We, we were on this 1984 like trajectory before President Trump one with respect to AI and I think that is the central concern that we should guard ourselves against.

Charlie Kirk (16:53)

In closing here, David, what, what would you say? Are we winning the AI race right now against China? If there was a score, what would the score be? US vs. China?

David Sacks (17:02)

I think it's very competitive. I think that the, the Deep Seek moment was real in the sense that before Deep Seek most people in Silicon Valley thought we had a one to two year lead on Chinese AI models. And Deep Seek showed that they had caught up and maybe were three months ahead. I mean, so it's almost a rounding error. So they've gotten very good at AI very quickly. Now, if you look at lower levels of the stack, which is the chips, the chip manufacturing, the chip design, we still have a pretty big lead at lower levels of the stack. And I think that we're, if we move quickly, we can build out more AI compute than them. But they do have other advantages, like they're able to build out more power generation than we have. You look at the Chinese power grid has doubled over the last decade, whereas we've remained flat. So we have to fix that.

Charlie Kirk (17:49)

That is what China's good at, mass production, when they put their mind to something. David, you're awesome. Thank you so much.

David Sacks (17:54)

Thanks. Charlie.

Charlie Kirk (17:58)

Did you catch Angel Studios record breaking animated movie King of Kings? Over Easter, you see, Jesus won at the box office thanks to Angel Studios. And now the next major Angel Studios project is here. The Last Rodeo starring Neal McDonough is in theaters May 23rd. It's an inspiring family driven story about a veteran bull rider who returns to the arena to save his grandson. And it features real life professional bull riding stars. Become a premium member of the Angel Guild, help pick next film and TV projects and get two free tickets to this film and every future angel release. You can now stream angel originals like Homestead, the Shift and more exclusively with your membership. More than 1 million people have joined the Angel Guild, the Reshape Entertainment. We love it at our family. We can vote on the movies that we like. Producer Andrew loves it as well. It is family friendly, Christ driven content. Go to Angel.comCharlie to get your free tickets and start streaming today. That's Angel Studios Stories that met. Joining us now is a legend. It is David Mamet. I just saw him recently on Bill Maher. He was amazing. Legendary playwright, author of the dis Enlightenment, writer and director of the new film Henry Johnson and one of my favorite movies, the Untouchables. He wrote the screenplay for that. So this is pretty awesome. David, welcome to the program. Thanks for the time.

David Mamet (19:20)

Yeah, it's a pleasure to see you, Charlie.

Charlie Kirk (19:22)

So David, there's a lot going on right now in the country. I want to kind of just start with your new project that you have here, your book the Disenlightment. Tell our audience about it.

David Mamet (19:35)

I started writing political essays about 20 years ago and I put them into three books. The first one was called the secret knowledge about 20 years ago. And then about five years ago the book called Recessional and I started writing essays again during the COVID lockdown and the subsequent horror of the Biden years. And I looked at all the essays. I said, wait a second, we have so much supposedly unrelated nonsense, obscenity, blasphemy and viciousness going on in various ways. What does it all add up to? So that's what I tried to do in this book. I tried to look at the various depredations, the chaos of the what's a putsch or a coup taken by the Biden, the Obama Bidenites and the outbreaks of anti Semitism and so forth, and tried to take an overview and say, what is it all up to? Who benefits? So both piecemeal, looking at individual outrages like men and women's sports and open borders and so forth, I tried to. When you. Here's the thing, Charlie. When you write a play, you have various different incidents that the protagonist is undergoing. And if you write a good play, they have to be formed into a plot, which is to say thank you. At the end of the play, you have to say, oh, I thought these were individual incidents, but now I perceive the overriding thrust of the play and the final moments. That's how you write a tragedy. So that's what I tried to do with this book when I came up with was this was not an attempt to take the Biden coup. The insurrection, the sedition of the sanctuary states and cities, the growth of the Help the Palestinians movement, were not the work of an overriding consciousness or an overriding political entity, but rather what they were was an open city that just as when Paris was abandoned in 1944, the Nazis got out of town and the Allies had not yet taken over. Paris was an open city. That is, there was no overriding management, which meant that various groups were each trying to take power. Sometimes they coalesced with each other against the third group. Sometimes they worked on their own. And there was, because there was no law, you had a lot of people settling scores. They would say, oh, the Communists are fighting the Trotsgiers are fighting the Stalinists over there, and the resistance are fighting the Trotsky. It's over there. And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to kill my grocer, because what the hell, nobody's getting blamed. So I looked at the Biden years and I said, what we're looking at is the abandonment of power by any representative government. And there are various groups, each of which is going to say, I'm going to put in my thing one group, because the clue was that there was nobody home at the helm. There was absolutely no one home. So they say it was Joe Biden got to do what she wanted, Hunter got to do what he wanted. The peaceniks got to get out of Afghanistan. The anti Semites got to let Harvard go to hell and withhold aid from Israel. The transsexual people got to say, we have to have women's sports. And there are a bunch of people sitting around a table saying, well, wait a second, you got to withhold funding for Israel. You know what I want? I want to get out of Afghanistan. So then it began to make sense that what you had was a conference table of low level bureaucrats who never had power, now had the greatest power in the world. And so that's what the book is about.

Charlie Kirk (23:32)

Yeah. And so the story of the last four years, and I want to talk about the book disenlightment, you're basically articulating that there was no leader, dad was gone, if you will, and the family was running amok, and there was no structure and there was no order. What does President Trump represent, from a literary view in how you're trying to tell the story in the modern era?

David Mamet (23:58)

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a little brave view, but let me see, let me see what I can do with that. What, what the.

Charlie Kirk (24:05)

Well, because, let me, let me, let me elaborate. Well, because you were saying you're trying to view the current times from, as a playwright, where you say, as we write a tragedy, we try to figure out what's going on. What role does President Trump play as you look at things through the incidents into a plot versus this idea of the vacated presidency under Joe Biden.

David Mamet (24:25)

I get it. So the question really is, what is power? And the, the best essay I know about that was Leo Tolstoy wrote a book called War and Peace. Don't let, don't let the fact that it's a big thick book in Russia scare you off. Everybody read it. It's the most compelling novel of all time. And it's about certain people during the Napoleonic Wars. And at the end of the book, he has this long epilogue and he says, what is power? He says, I'm not sure. He says, the, the savage sees a railroad train and sees the puff of smoke. And because he sees the puff of smoke first, he thinks the puff of smoke causes the railroad train. So he says, similarly, when we see people extruded by various political movements and everyone has his or her favorite, we can say, oh, they are causing what comes after them, because obviously we saw them first. But he says, to a certain extent, that can't be true, because Napoleon invaded Russia with 5 million men, and he went home with his tail between his legs. But the leader cannot give an order which cannot be obeyed. For example, Napoleon could have said, we're going to invade Russia. A lot of people thought that was a good idea or wanted to go along, wanted to get out of the house, but he couldn't have said, let's invade Australia. So the question he asked is, what is power? What is the relationship of the individual to the mass? And that's a question that's been plaguing me for a long time. And I thought it has to be that the mass extrudes the individual who we see first, and that the individual turns around and says, wait a second, I got a lot of people following me by accident. Jasmine Crockett's a perfect example. AOC I got a lot of people following me by accident. I guess I'm a leader. I better act like a leader. What does a leader do? Well, obviously, a leader panders to the people who are following him, right? Because that's where his power comes from. But there's another thing, and in a lifetime, or my lifetime anyway, I've seen it a couple of times. One was Winston Churchill, who galvanized and absolutely beaten a supine England to stand up and say, no, wait a second, we're going to win. We're going to beat the Nazis. And even if we don't, it's better to die on our feet. And people took fire from that image. The second is Donald Trump, who looked at the horror that the left had made of our magnificent country, where people are whispering in the streets and people are arrested for walking on the Capitol grounds and thrown in jail and lose the livelihood because they wouldn't put some thing in their arm which they thought and may turn out to have been poison. This guy comes along out of nowhere and says, okay, I get it. I got it. I'm going to be a leader. I am going to have the. And he has the incredible calm courage to stand up and say, yeah, it looks insoluble, but it's not. It's a bunch of small problems. And if we attack them, sometimes we're going to win, and sometimes we're going to lose, but we're going to be free. So that's what I see in Donald Trump.

Charlie Kirk (27:44)

I want to play a piece of tape that you had of a viral interaction with Bill maher. Let's play cut 361, please.

David Mamet (27:50)

Come on. So wait a second. He didn't say the words I concede. And so that meant people rioted.

D (27:55)

Yes. What do you think January 6th was about?

David Mamet (27:57)

What do you think January 6th was?

D (27:58)

It was about people who did not hear their leader say, as every other leader in this country has said after an election, okay, I lost. We welcomed the new guy. We had disagreements, but now we're all Americans. When Obama took over, George Bush stood by next to him and he said, we want you to succeed because when you succeed, America. Trump didn't do any of that.

David Mamet (28:21)

Okay, so what?

D (28:23)

So what? It inspires half the country to not accept the basic democratic principle that we have elections, and when you lose, you go away, and then you become the loyal opposition. They're not. They don't see themselves as the loyal.

David Mamet (28:37)

You, like me, have built a career out of nothing except talent and a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work, but you're full of.

Charlie Kirk (28:46)

Very good, David. Tell us more about the interaction your and your. Your thoughts here.

David Mamet (28:51)

Well, I went on to say, too, here's a perfect example, that Bill, who's not a dumb person, he's very smart person, you know, he's in a very difficult position because a lot of his sympathies which even come out are with Americanism and with conservatism. But he's got to be very, very careful about expressing them, because if he does, he loses his job. I understand that. But here's a perfect example. He is saying that because Trump did not say the words, I concede that people rioted. That's a silly statement to make. I went on to say, wait a second. If a guy gets beat in the prize ring, he's beat. He doesn't have to say, I concede, it's not necessary. Even if he thinks the fight was fixed, he doesn't have to say, I concede because they gave the other guy the belt. So that's what I was saying to Bill. That's ridiculous because he doesn't say those words. P.S. anyone who's ever been in, God forbid, in an unfortunate lawsuit and gets the shit beat out of him by somebody who's in the wrong, and it's happened to a lot of people. And, you know, if you're beaten, the judge says, go away, you don't have to say, I concede the verdict has come down. And did. Did he have some reservations about going out with good grace? Yes, he didn't. God bless him, because the election was stolen and we had four years of horror.

Charlie Kirk (30:31)

America's small businesses rely on TikTok to succeed, helping them attract more customers and drive more growth. From small batch sellers to fast growing brands, 74% of businesses on TikTok say it's helped them scale. We go super viral on TikTok here on this program, reaching billions and billions of views you see by hiring more employees, boosting sales and expanding new locations. Like AZ Taco King who grew up from a mom and pop taco cart to two thriving restaurants in just a year. Or Coco Asante who upgraded to a larger facility and brought on more staff letting their handcrafted chocolates reach more customers. Or Dan O. Seasonings who went from a one man show to team of 45 now supporting dozens of hard working families. With TikTok, Small businesses are thriving. Ours certainly is again reaching hundreds of millions of people a week on TikTok. One of the reasons we're able to win the youth vote is thanks to what we can do on TikTok, finding their customers and expanding. Learn more about TikTok's contribution to the U.S. economy at Tiktokeconomicimpact.com so check it out. Tiktokeconomicimpact dot com Tiktokeconomicimpact. Com Portions of the Charlie Kirkshow are brought to you in part by Tiktokeconomicimpact.com David, your book the Disenlightment. I encourage everyone to check it out. David, why are we seeing such a rise in anti west, anti Israel and anti Semitic fervor on our college campuses and across our culture?

David Mamet (31:57)

Well, I think that's a very good question. It's because several reasons. You know them all and so does your viewership. It's because we allowed it. It's because previous administrations were in bed with various terrorist regimes. That was Obama doing giving money and nuclear capacity to Iran and calling it the deal. I asked a lot of people what was the deal? What did we get out of it? The reason we're seeing it now is because the society's falling apart. When the society is falling apart, they look for approximate victim. Hitler came to power because the German society was falling apart after World War I. They were in an incredible state of people were starving to death and they wanted someone to blame. So the key to why we're seeing it now is Greta Thunberg. Here's this little girl, she decides that the earth is burning and so she becomes times woman of the year and wins the Noble. I don't Know what the hell she ran. Her whole thing is the sky is falling. Run for your lives. So she makes a pretty good living out of that. Pretty good living out of that. Turns out the earth really isn't burning. So what does she do? She wants to cross deck herself and go to Gaza, right? What in the world does going to Gaza have to do with. The world is burning. It has nothing to do with it. But she ran out of juice on the one thing and so she's not going to give it up. So she goes to the other. So the Jews have always been a proximate victim because we've been guests in everybody else's house for 2,000 years. Now for the first time, we aren't guests at everybody else's house because we got our own country. And a lot of the world, when they want approximate victims, says, wait a second, you're crazy. Don't you know what you are? Don't you know that I get the wife beat you? Are you nuts? So the Jews have always been a victim because we had no other choice. Now when we have a choice, the world goes crazy because we do have your choice. It's because the wife says, do that again, I'm going to call the cops. The guy does it again, she calls the cops, that guy's going to jail. But if she doesn't call the cops, if there aren't any cops, he's going to keep beating his wife. So now there are the cops. And a lot of people are enraged because the go to victim to excuse their own confusion and their own failures.

Charlie Kirk (34:17)

Is saying, that's enough now, David, I love that answer. And that goes to show that there is this relentless urge amongst most people to blame others for their problems. And they try to blame the Jews and they try to blame Israel and it's a country with half the world's Jewry, the size of New Jersey, gets almost all of the geopolitical protest, anger and backlash. Final question I have for you, David. I want everyone to check out the book the Disenlightment. What is the broader status of Western civilization and what do you believe can be best done to save the West?

David Mamet (34:52)

Well, there have been a couple of great books that just came out recently. One of course is Douglas Murray's book about death cults and the other is Melanie Phillips book. And what Melanie says is it's not a clash of civilizations that we're looking at, it's a clash of civilization against savagery. And I think that that's true. She goes further to say that civilization. The idea is current Western civilization is Jewish. It starts with the Old Testament and it was taken up by the Christians and through the medium of Jesus Christ. And it's the idea of the individualized rights given by God. And there are certain things we should not do to each other. This is civilization that led to the founding of the United States of America, which if you read the Declaration of the Constitution, they all come right out of the Torah. It's all Judeo Christian philosophy. What can be done to save it is what Trump is doing. And what the right is doing is saying, let's go back to law. It's not our job to help to better our neighbor's life. And this is the difference between the Golden Rule and its precursor, which is what Rabbi Hillel said is the essence of the Torah. What's hateful to you, do not do to your neighbors. It's very different than the other idea, which is do what others as they want to do to you, which is the growth of liberalism. And we've seen the failure of David.

Charlie Kirk (36:20)

Thank you so much for your time. The disenlightment is the book. You are a legend and I love your work and so thank you so much. And together we'll keep on fighting to save the West. Thank you.

David Mamet (36:30)

Amen. Thanks for having me on, Shelby.

Charlie Kirk (36:33)

You'll see you absolutely. Hope to see you in person sometime soon. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless.

David Sacks (36:43)

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.