Tucker Responds to Trump’s Plan to Livestream an Execution and His Anti-Christian Death Cult
In a Nutshell
Tucker argues that America is being morally corrupted by leaders from both parties who treat human life as disposable, whether through public executions, abortion up to birth, or indifference to civilian deaths in foreign wars. He claims this stems from neoconservative ideology that rejects Christian principles of human equality and sanctity of life, replacing them with a "death cult" mentality that normalizes cruelty and bloodlust. The ultimate danger, he warns, is that this desensitization to killing—exemplified by Trump's nuclear threats against Iran and public incitement of violence—prepares the public to accept nuclear war as a first-strike option, risking total human annihilation.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
When politicians and government officials make statements, press conferences, or speeches, the event feels enormously important in the moment, yet most such statements are lost in the void and read only by political journalists. One announcement that stood out as genuinely shocking was the statement by Minister of War Pete Hegseth that Nidal Hasan, responsible for the Fort Hood massacre, would finally be executed by firing squad, and that the execution would be broadcast live.
Pete Hegseth stated that Nidal Hasan, an army major who betrayed his country as an Islamic extremist and killed a group of Americans at Fort Hood, would be executed at Fort Hood on Thursday at exactly one o'clock in the afternoon—the same time he committed the crime. The execution would be carried out by soldiers armed with rifles, the first such execution since World War II. Hegseth expressed admiration for the World War II mentality of victory, noting that this was an Islamic extremist attack disguised in military uniform within the army ranks. The execution would be made public because people need to understand that such actions have serious consequences.
It is difficult to understand how executing a man who spent more than a decade in prison constitutes a victory, and victory over what. The prisoner is already in federal custody and will die regardless. While the morality of the death penalty can be debated, it is hard to see how this execution brings the country closer to any meaningful victory.
When evaluating the prospect of a public execution, there are two levels to consider: its impact on the prisoner and its impact on society. The prisoner is a recognized mass murderer who killed 13 people and wounded approximately 30 others at a military base. As a military officer, his crime was not just murder but treason against the country whose uniform he wore, making it particularly gruesome.
The more important question is whether viewers themselves are guilty of something for which they have not been punished. There is a deep sense that the number of truly innocent people in the world is small, and everyone gets away with something. While justice and accountability are important, vanity should not creep into evaluations of others. No one is in a position to pretend to be gods, and tolerance should be maintained because everyone gets away with something.
The last public executions in the United States occurred in the late 1930s in the South for rape. The last public execution in Britain was approximately 150 years ago. The reason countries stopped public executions was not to spare the convicted person humiliation, but because of the effect the spectacle has on viewers. The question becomes whether it is good for a community for people to watch a bound man being killed, regardless of whether he deserved to die.
Charles Dickens wrote a letter to the editor in 1849 after witnessing a public execution in London. The case involved a couple who murdered a man who was the wife's friend, stole his money, and buried him under stones in their kitchen. Dickens argued that public executions reveal an ugly and dangerous side to viewers, degrading them to the level of those they watch die and arousing in them a tendency to shed blood.
The argument that public executions deter crime is made by fools currently in power. Videos of murder do not deter violence; war movies show people being killed, yet the lesson viewers draw is that it is good to kill the bad guys. Public executions awaken an animal instinct that will never die. If a society wants to remain organized and happy with brotherly love prevailing, bloodlust among citizens is the last instinct that should be encouraged.
Watching public executions insults those who watch it, just as pornography insults those who watch it. Child pornography is illegal even when produced by artificial intelligence because watching such material is bad for the viewer and could be dangerous, potentially inspiring people to become child molesters. There is no difference between public executions and mass executions in terms of their harmful effect on viewers.
Dickens began a campaign to end public executions, and Parliament responded approximately twenty years later, ending the practice in Britain in the late 1860s. The question is why the Minister of War is proposing this now. Reports indicate the president was unaware that Nidal Hasan uses a wheelchair after being shot several times, leaving him paralyzed on one side. Executing a paralyzed person on camera would look very bad.
Mark Wayne Mullen, head of the Department of Homeland Security and a committed neoconservative, was asked whether it is acceptable to publicly execute someone on live television and responded affirmatively. Mullen oversees one of the largest buyers of ammunition in the United States. He is also a partner in a company that produces kratom, a substance that affects the brain similarly to opioids, is addictive, can be deadly in high doses, and remains legal in many places despite causing deaths of American children.
It is questionable whether executing people in wheelchairs in front of cameras for educational and entertainment purposes represents a conservative position. Charlie Kirk was asked about the death penalty and stated he would oppose it in America because the government will use any power given to it against citizens, citing the Patriot Act argument. While supporting the death penalty morally in principle, Kirk argued that practically speaking, Americans should oppose it because the government has gone astray.
Charlie Kirk used the word Bolsheviks to describe those who would use government power to kill people. Bolshevism was not driven by economic ideology but was a revolution against Christianity and the Christian order. The Bolsheviks replaced God with money and power, using violence as a worldly bloody sacrifice to intimidate the population and gain more power. This represents an ancient religion of blood sacrifice, not an ideology.
The conservative idea has always been equality, based on the belief that God created every human being, granting people inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. While abilities and appearance vary, there is no variation in moral value—every human being has a soul. This is the foundation of citizenship and the American project. The police can stop someone for a faulty brake light but must remain polite because they did not give rights; God did.
The current president stated at a pro-life event that together Americans must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life, and that he would veto any legislation weakening pro-life policies. The idea that life itself is valuable because it was not created by humans forms the basis of the entire American project. When those in authority stop seeing others as human beings and feel they can kill without apology, everyone is in danger.
Attitudes change through war. In 1985 or 1995, if a defense minister had announced a public execution by firing squad, there would have been an uproar even from death penalty supporters, who would have said such a thing could not be posted where children could see it, just as pornography cannot be broadcast. War makes people hard-hearted and brutal, and societies become the monsters they fight.
War changes us all. We see very ugly things, and the more we see them, the more we accept them as normal. This transformation explains how the same man, President Donald Trump, could shift from one position to another over time.
Trump was asked about the Iranian girls' school that the United States apparently bombed, resulting in the disappearance of more than 100 young girls in the classroom. When questioned about holding anyone accountable for the strike that targeted a school and killed more than 100 children on the first day of the war, Trump responded: "No, if that was a mistake, and as you know, it is under investigation. It's a strange question to ask in this state. We are talking about a time that has passed, but no one did that intentionally." He deflected by asking: "What about the thousands of soldiers they blew up when they opened their car door? What about the thousands of people killed by Iran?" He stated that "mistakes happen. War is brutal," but promised to "give you a report tomorrow" after asking Pete Hegseth about the investigation.
A normal response to such an incident would be: "This is terrible. As you know, I hope we haven't done that. If we do that, we will apologize for it immediately. Because girls are never a legitimate target. Never. In war or peace. You cannot kill young children. Never." The appropriate response would acknowledge that "we are not at war with the children of Iran or any other country" and express regret. Trump instead went straight to saying they were mean to us, referencing the Iraq War and Iranian-backed groups killing American soldiers.
Once you believe you are the victim, you lose empathy for others. Narcissism makes it impossible to care about others. Once you start collecting wounds, once you start thinking about your own mistreatment, mistreating others means absolutely nothing to you. You become a monster just as much as you believe you are a victim. This embodies one of the profound truths about human beings. This is exactly what is happening in Israel, where the prevailing consensus is that because they have been hurt and always have been hurt, they have absolutely no obligation to care about what they do to others.
Trump stated he doesn't have to apologize for a strike that almost certainly came from the United States or its ally Israel, which killed all these little girls because they had wronged us at some point. The real anger, according to this logic, is in what they did to us. The counterargument is that killing innocent people is always wrong, regardless of who they are. If this principle is not maintained, then Charlie Kirk was absolutely right to be concerned about where this tendency to kill might lead, since what is used against opponents will be used against oneself.
In a normal country with an effective political system, there would be some reaction through the competitive relationship between the two parties. The system is designed to regulate itself through this competitive dynamic. However, no one held Trump accountable for the Iranian school strike. There is no popular demand from Democrats for Trump to apologize for the killing of all those girls at the girls' school. Some politicians might point that out as a bad thing, but no one goes out to protest marches because of him.
The only conclusion is that Democrats are not really against killing innocent people because they do not believe in the one principle that makes that wrong: equality. Every human life has equal value. The idea upon which this country is founded no longer has the support of its leaders from either party. Nothing could be worse than the American president coming out and saying that it is okay to kill innocent people. Nothing is more dangerous to all of us than that.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey announced the passage of a state bill that allows abortion up to the moment of birth and the killing of infants. She stated: "We are here today to take another step towards protecting and promoting abortion rights, and to ensure that patients receive the care they need." She emphasized that "abortion is up for a vote this November in Massachusetts and across the country" and that "the role of governors is crucial." She expressed pride in working with the Legislative Council to support women, mothers, fathers, and families in making healthcare decisions.
Healey described the bill without euphemisms, calling it "abortion" directly rather than using terms like "healthcare," "abortion healthcare," or "reproductive freedom." This represents a shift from previous political language. Bill Clinton had said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," but current rhetoric supports "abortion up to the moment of birth" with the explicit position that "we only support abortion. The more abortions, the better."
American Financing helps homeowners benefit from the value of their hard-earned homes, providing clients with an average of $800 per month, or approximately $10,000 per year. They are known as "America's Home for Home Loans" and can be reached at 800-685-5696 or americanfinancing.net/tucker.
Fears that artificial intelligence will end humanity come not only from unbalanced people, but also from the people who are developing it. Those working in the field of artificial intelligence are very afraid of it. Last Country Supply provides survival food, lighting, energy, and basic necessities, with all supplies available at lastcountrysupply.com/tucker.
The position now is that "we will not lower gasoline prices or make it easier for your children to attend university, buy a house, or improve your lives in any way, but the one thing we will do is provide more abortions." With the exception of a small group of zealous evangelicals and Catholics who follow these matters online, nobody else responded to this position.
There is someone impersonating the president, making none of the major decisions, but calling himself that, and he has dragged the country into a losing war that is destroying the empire and economy. The leadership of both parties refused to acknowledge the humanity of every individual, which allowed the Biden administration to fund genocide in Gaza. The system is so completely dysfunctional that everyone in power acknowledges that if you are a nuisance or a problem, you can be killed.
Charlie Kirk made the point that Bolshevism is an alternative to the Christian social order. A system that was open to non-Christians from its inception, but was based on the humanity of every human being because God created him. When this foundation is gone, society becomes fierce and cruel, obsessed with money and power.
Part of the transformation comes from the nature of war leading to the death of innocent people. If you see that a lot on screen, after a while you might find the horse somewhat attractive. If you live in a country that bombs schoolgirls, you will be shocked the first time you hear about it, and the fifth time you will say "Yes, war is harsh." As Trump said, "mistakes happen in war. As you know, civilians die in war, and that is very unfortunate. But they committed many atrocities against us."
There is another mechanism that turns people into monsters: the fear that leaders deliberately instill to control and force compliance with an anti-humanitarian agenda. Leaders use this approach by saying "Be afraid, be very afraid, and do as I say." Netanyahu constantly gives speeches about how everyone wants to kill Israelis all the time, even as people are angry because of genocide and the leveling of churches in southern Lebanon.
A person reaches this state when they repeat to themselves over and over again: "Everyone hates me. We are under constant threat. We are never safe. Kill them before they kill us." This kind of obsession is not limited to Israel, although it is the clearest example due to its long duration. It is happening in the United States as well.
The first fact about the United States is a geographical fact. The basic fact about the United States is that it is isolated from the rest of the world by the two largest oceans on Earth. This is a good thing, especially with the availability of the internet. It is a country that is safe by nature, and its danger depends on the will of its leaders. Under normal circumstances, it is one of the safest countries in the world, and will remain so.
After the events of September 11th, the message was "We will not leave our homes again. No more commercial air travel." The 9/11 files remain secret forever. George W. Bush and those around him went berserk, and the goal was to terrify the population, but in the end they terrified themselves. The same thing is happening with Trump now.
Trump explained his need for a dance floor, stating it is a highly military complex. The roof is actually a landing pad for drones. The roof of the dance hall is a landing pad for drones, providing great security for everything below. He described it as "a truly magnificent ballroom, but it is also a strong military site for our people. The roof is actually a landing pad for drones. This is the great thing. It is a landing strip for drones. The drones were launched."
The basic requirement of leadership is that you be prepared to sacrifice your life for those you lead. It's the father's first job. A leader is someone who is willing to sacrifice his life for those he leads. The idea that the president's life is much more valuable than yours is a lie. His life is exactly equal to my life, your life, and the life of anyone else in this country. Every individual has the same value as the President of the United States.
There are two ways to govern a people. One is with consent. The other method is to rule by fear. Terrorize everyone until they do what you say. This is a more traditional and established form of government. In fact, this is the form of government in most countries for most of the time throughout history. It is popular because it is successful. You can intimidate people into doing what you tell them to do.
Historically, America has run this country through consent. The people want this. That's why we do it. This is one way. The other method is to rule by fear.
This ended in the West in 33 AD with the rise of Christianity. The first Christian church was located within the Roman Empire. Jesus lived within the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was ruled by fear. The number of slaves was enormous, and they probably had no other choice. Among the ways they instilled fear was by torturing people to death in the most gruesome ways possible.
Over the past two thousand years, very few people, even the most evil minds on the internet, have devised a form of tortured death more gruesome or painful than crucifixion, which involved hanging a man by his arms, nailing him to a wooden beam, and leaving him to die there. The process used to take days, sometimes several days. He was hung naked in public along a busy main road, and everyone saw this man writhing in endless agony for days until he died.
It was such a horrific method of execution that it was effective. This method was not applied to everyone. The Romans executed people in many ways, but those whose deaths they wanted to send a strong message to the rest of the population were crucified.
The followers of Jesus took that symbol, that cross, that instrument of torture, and did not abandon it, but rather adopted it as a symbol of their religious faith, of their faith in Jesus. For two thousand years, that cross has remained a symbol of the Christian Church, of Christianity itself, and of faith in Jesus.
This symbol was inherently destabilizing to secular authorities. The message was: Is this the worst you have to offer? I will make it, I will put it on the walls of our churches. I will wear it as a necklace around my neck. Are you being tortured? It means nothing. Nothing you do can scare me because this is not the end. This has been the position of faithful Christians ever since, for over two thousand years.
Paul, the author of much of the New Testament, wrote a collection of his letters while chained to a wall in prison, and they are delightful letters, by the way. So you can't intimidate people in this way. In fact, these are the people who intimidate the officials. There is nothing more terrifying to those who seek to rule by fear than a person who is not afraid. They are not afraid of your reaction. The only thing that instills fear in their hearts is your courage.
The only thing that gives people real courage is the belief that this is not the end, but the beginning. So, if you want to rule the world by fear, the first thing you have to do is eliminate Christianity.
The Bolsheviks throughout the ages, from the first century AD through the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the current revolution we are witnessing, the artificial intelligence revolution, all aim to eliminate this religion specifically. Not all religions, but this particular religion. The religion that placed a symbol of torture on the walls of its buildings, claimed its sanctity, and said to worldly leaders: "Nothing you can do or say to us frightens us."
By "them" here we mean adherence to a very specific worldview, namely neoconservatism. Which is supposed to be considered an anti-Semitic insult, but the fact is that many neoconservatives are not Jewish. You don't have to be Jewish to be a neoconservative. Some of the most famous ones are not like that. It is not synonymous with Judaism, in fact. But it is hostile to Christianity.
The neoconservative movement is an attack on the Christian system and Christianity itself, and you can tell this from its harsh and aggressive stance towards the killing of innocent people. They are so aggressive and cruel that after a while, if you follow it for twenty years as some of us have done, you begin to suspect that the taking of human lives, especially innocent people, people who have no fault, who have not made any decision that warrants the death penalty, is the goal. It was almost like a blood sacrifice ritual. They derive deep pleasure from it.
We could give you a million examples, but we will only refer to the extreme neoconservative, the late Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. So, January 6th happened, regardless of what you think about it. I think decent people would agree that the government would have been wrong to respond by killing a group of unarmed Americans who, perhaps mistakenly, ended up in the U.S. Capitol building. But that is not Lindsey Graham's opinion.
Listen to the testimony of one of the law enforcement officers who were present. Former Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fannon says: "In a meeting with the officers who responded to the attack, Graham told them, literally: 'You should have shot them all in the head. We supplied you with the weapons and you should have used them. I don't understand why that didn't happen.'"
In a normal country where people love each other and believe in the humanity of every individual, this would be a normal thing. People are removed from their positions because of sex scandals or investments in companies they oversee, and that's all fair. But calling for the killing of unarmed American citizens who thought—however wrong they were—that they were exercising their constitutional rights, and calling for them to be shot in the head, is a statement that disqualifies a person from being eligible.
The neoconservatives have geopolitical goals, and we need to be firm with this country and destroy Iran, and Putin is our enemy, you know, they wrap it up. But at its core, the neoconservatism is an attack on Christianity, on the belief that all people have souls and that they are united in that. And that people cannot be treated like animals or objects. And that there are limits to human power, there are things you cannot do. You are not allowed to do that.
The neoconservatism is a rejection of that, and this, by the way, is the basis of Western civilization. Therefore, neoconservatism, of course, is a devil's lie, not a defense of Western civilization. It is a direct attack on it, and on all its principles that make it Western, and that distinguish it from the East, or from what Dickens called the pagan world.
It is an attack on Christianity, and most of its adherents probably do not realize it. Sadly, but true, many of those who spread these ideas and call for the killing of so-and-so, or even good people, are in fact like that. And I know that because I know them personally, including Lindsey Graham. He is one of the most attractive personalities ever. No one would refuse a dinner invitation from Lindsey Graham; he is very fun and entertaining. Sorry, that's the truth. But the ideas themselves are sick. And how sad it is to see people you know and love personally embracing these ideas publicly with moral certainty.
One of the reasons that makes you realize that killing is the primary objective, not saving lives, but taking them, is the deliberate indifference shown by supporters of the Ukrainian government towards the number of Ukrainian deaths. If you truly believe that waging war against a country you cannot defeat, namely Russia, is worth answering, then you should ask yourself: Why do you believe that? They will always answer: Because this is wrong, and we must protect Ukraine's sovereignty. She will give a speech that we have all heard time and time again.
But you would think that whoever gives this speech would be giving it on behalf of the Ukrainian people. So, a time will come when they will ask: How many Ukrainians died in this attempt to save Ukrainians? How many Ukrainians died trying to save Ukrainians? However, they not only fail to ask this question, but they don't care about it at all. They don't ask him secretly. They don't know. If you press them individually, in a polite manner, and ask them, for example: How many people have been killed in this war? They have no idea. They don't care.
If you don't care about the deaths of others, it's reasonable to assume that over time, say five years, you will applaud them. How sad it is to see that! How sad it is to see this complete distortion of the image of honorable people because of these ideas, which are in essence an attack on the basic principles of Christianity.
Here's an example from Fox News a few days ago. But for me, the way they devised drone technology to eliminate what fuels the Russian war machine is so amazing that it deserves to be written about in War Forever Memoirs. The Ukrainians have modernized warfare right before our eyes. I'm not sure this is a positive thing, Brian. I mean, there are 30,000 young people from all sides dying every month. Putin. Every month, we shouldn't be experimenting with the drone technology we need, and using these children as guinea pigs.
Have you seen the children's video? Is war a good thing? A war in which other people's sons are fighting, and now, apparently, their daughters as well? And their children who have Down syndrome? And their parents are in their mid-fifties? An entire people is fighting and losing a war in Eastern Europe, instigated by Western leaders and thinkers like the one you have just seen. They are being exterminated. The historical nation has disappeared and will not be rebuilt. They will be resettled with people from South Asia. This is a fact. It's a tragedy.
But if you look at it, it's a tragedy that could have been avoided, but we caused it, and yet you conclude that we get valuable drone technology by watching other people's children die? By the way, since I know everyone who was at that location, I can assure you that they are all very good people who love their children, have noble values, and go to church. They are not monsters at all. But this idea is hideous.
It is repeated without scrutiny at all levels of our leadership. Is it conceivable that the positive aspect of the war is the profit for Raytheon shareholders? Do you hear what you are saying? This is disgusting. No nation that prioritizes killing people for the sake of rising defense technology stocks can last long. It's extremely disgusting.
Ultimately, a nation like this, which allows itself to become callous towards human life, celebrates the law of killing children, or looks at the war in Ukraine and says, "We are getting valuable drone technology," such a society will destroy itself. It will not be destroyed from the outside, but it will be destroyed from the inside because people will lose all affection for each other. That spirit that binds the nation will disappear, the idea that "You're American, you know, we're at Frankfurt Airport, but you're speaking English with an American accent. I don't know who you are. Maybe your color is different, whatever, but we're Americans. We're in this together on some level." This fades away. Americans lose their empathy for one another, and therefore their cohesion, and the country collapses. This is the fate that awaits us, and it is already happening.
There was a woman named Christina Pike, I think. It's deadly. I am not defending her, and I never will. She killed someone, and was sentenced to death. Whatever your opinion on the execution of women, I am against it. We are here to protect women, excuse me. This is a patriarchal system. They are not supposed to be sent to their deaths in war with limbs amputated due to landmines, or executed. I am against this, excuse me. Call me a liberal. Liberals, of course, fully support that.
But the point is, regardless of your opinion on the idea of executing this woman, or sending her to be executed, any normal person would pause for a moment when they learned that the prison had failed twice to execute her. Now, this is not the first failed execution in human history. There have been many failed executions, and they are well known.
Why did these incidents become so famous? Because civilized nations, such as Britain, at some point in history, looked at failed executions, especially repeated ones, and said: "Wait a minute, perhaps these incidents carry a message for us." You can search for it, and you will find it interesting. There are many examples from English, American, and Australian history, in civilized countries, where the condemned person fell from the gallows opening, and the rope broke. In some cases, it was interrupted twice. The spectators, who came to watch the execution, said, with gruesome motives, "Wait a minute, the rope broke twice. Perhaps these incidents carry a message. Perhaps we are not the ones who control the universe. Perhaps God himself intervenes in this matter."
In a number of cases, which you can review, the crowd at the execution site pressured the authorities by shouting, demanding that they stop trying to kill this man and admit that there was another motive behind it. In some cases, they simply released him. "Sorry, we tried to kill you twice, and it didn't work. Obviously, as you know, something is going on. God has an opinion on this as well."
So, it appears that this woman, Christina Pike, tried to kill her twice, and it didn't work with the lethal injection. Perhaps you will try again.
This matter was recently commented on by a veteran conservative religious commentator, who is, by the way, a very nice man, Glenn Beck. Cheerful. He seems to treat his family kindly. But the cruelty, brutality, and excessive savagery that appeared in this clip should make you question our future, unless we reverse this approach. Here's Glenn Beck:
"Executions are successful. You know, it's like...what's her name? What is her name? Ricky? Ah, you know, who says, 'I can't use my arms anymore, because you tried.' Yes, yes, that was the idea, you know? You were not supposed to use your arms, legs, or any other part of your body. This was the moment they tried to execute you. Yes, Christopher Pike. So, she says she is confused now. Well, she was supposed to be brain dead. I mean, she was supposed to be completely dead. Then when she didn't die, they said she was brain dead. Then she regained consciousness. Of course, she is confused. Of course, she is confused. Ah, she was supposed to be dead. Ah, and I'm sorry, but I told you, I told you the moment it happened. They will file a lawsuit arguing that this is a cruel and unusual punishment and that you have corrupted it, therefore she should not be executed again. No, I don't know why we rushed her to the hospital and were trying to save her. You are executing her. They executed her. Repeat what you did."
If this is a conservative view, most decent people will reject it. I mean, they presented arguments proving that what I did deserved the death penalty. Good. But to mock her because she was paralyzed and brain dead, and now she has regained consciousness, and then to remain silent and kill her. She is a human being. By the way, she is an American citizen.
It is clear that she gave up a lot of her rights by killing someone. I am not defending her in any way, but if you look at the case, you will feel that it is terrible for anyone to sympathize with this woman. Well, she's a human being and a woman, by the way. Isn't this a man? Isn't it your duty on this earth to protect women? Apparently not. I have abandoned this duty. They sent him to the front lines in Ukraine. We will gain valuable drone technology from there.
Glenn Beck's opinion on whether this woman should be executed again probably had no material effect on the outcome, but it is a window into his utter depravity. It is humiliating for us, the rest of us, to simply nod and say, "Yes, yes, I killed someone. I didn't commit any crime at all. I was treated with complete fairness. I have been punished for every sin I have committed. Who can say that?"
Again, this is not an argument against the death penalty, although a strong argument could be made against it, and perhaps we should. It is an argument against cruelty and arrogance, and an admission that if you engage in cruelty and arrogance long enough, you will become their victim. As you judge, so shall you be judged. This is a natural and theological truth.
So, hold on, Mr. Arrogant, who mocks the paralyzed woman. She is not suffering enough. Do you know anything about crime? Or do you enjoy the suffering of another human being? So, if we talk this way enough, if our leaders talk this way enough, if they encourage cruelty towards their fellow Americans, do you think that will change the behavior of Americans? Well, of course he will change it. If you tell people that those who oppose you are not complete human beings, but merely... Palestinians, then you can kill them. Around 75,000 of them, who cares?
Then, after a while, they will act as if this is true. Look at this tape. Watch this video. This is from a recent Trump campaign rally. Yes, he is still holding gatherings. And there's a protester in the background, we certainly disagree with her on many things. She appears to be American, yet she stands up wearing a shirt that reads "Release the Epstein Files". See for yourselves. Watch what happens to her when she does that.
A paid protester. She is a paid protester. They were all paid. They are paid by the left to destroy the country; they are scum. Just punch her in the face. Trump calls her scum. You women have a face like that.
Once again, it is astonishing how much the conservative leadership has absorbed the most disgusting and false feminist lies, which they claim to oppose. This means that the two sexes are identical and have identical roles and obligations. This is not true. Anywhere in nature. This is not true in the animal world, nor among plants, and certainly not true among humans.
Hitting a woman in the face is fundamentally different from hitting a man in the face. Our law reflects this self-evident truth in many ways. Therefore, as a man, you should feel upset to see a woman, even if you hate what she says, being punched in the face by a man. Your motivation should be to protect her. Simply. This is your duty. Nature dictates it. It's not up to you.
Any society that loses its connection to this immutable truth loses its honor. What are we talking about? What is worth defending? If you're sending women to die on the front lines, what's the point of an army in the first place? I thought the army was for the protection of women and children. Now they will be killed? Is this equality? No, that's an insult. Any normal person would feel that immediately.
Show 100 people, 100 men, a video of a man being beaten up and they will say: "Go for it, arrest him." I don't know what he did, but they support it. What about a woman whose nose is broken? No normal man would find that attractive. They are repelled by it because it is inherently disgusting. But we have reached a point where some women are saying: "Release the Epstein files." "This isn't leftist rhetoric. If this is considered leftist, then we need to redefine the terminology. He is leftist. I don't want to know anything more about Epstein. I think he drank grape juice and ate pizza. No question about it. And anyone who says otherwise is a liberal. Yes, that's not really the definition of the terminology. But anyway, she stands up and says, 'Release the Epstein files,' and someone punches her in the face, and the President of the United States calls her '[ __ ]'? What the hell is going on?"
Because this is the president. We're not singling out Trump. He's not the worst of the aggressors here. But he's the president, the most powerful president in the world, we're told. Before we know it, he has no power whatsoever, but anyway, he still has symbolic importance. And he's encouraging violence against this person simply because she expressed a perfectly ordinary, arguably conservative, opinion at this rally. What message are we being trained to receive?
Well, there's no need to think too much about it. We are trained to believe that violence against others, including our fellow American citizens, is perfectly acceptable. It's normal. It is the same message that the Bolsheviks were keen to convey to the Russian people during the Russian Civil War and in the years that followed. It is perfectly normal to execute and crucify people, as the Bolsheviks did, and to kill all the clergy. It's perfectly normal. This is how the state works. Either you obey the orders or we will do the same to you.
Are we really being trained to believe that? Is this just paranoia? I don't know. Take a look at President Trump's post on Truth Social today. That's true, by the way. A witness. What is this? Well, I mean there are probably many levels of meaning, but the most obvious meaning is a video of people being killed by predators. As in the Colosseum. These were just quick snapshots of people being preyed upon by lions and tigers. Some of them appear to be generated by artificial intelligence. Some of them were real, it doesn't matter. The President of the United States sent that without any reference, as if it were illogical. He simply said, "Oh, by the way, here are some videos of people being killed by big cats."
There's a certain kind of messiness in Trump's personality that can be appealing in certain circumstances, but this isn't messiness. It's a doctored video of people being eaten by wild animals. What's the point of posting it on social media? Well, maybe there are many points, but the most obvious is to desensitize you to cruelty, suffering, and death. Now, why would they want to do that? Why would your leader want to desensitize you to human suffering and death? I don't know, but it doesn't bode well. It doesn't bode well for the future. It's not good news for you. And then we have to ask, where does this lead?
We've been thinking about this for a whole year, or a little more, actually, since early last summer, when Chelsea Gabbard, then Director of National Intelligence, put together a video condemning the horrors of nuclear war. Of course, only two bombs were dropped on populations anywhere in the world. Summer of 1945 in Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of people were burned, and many later died from radiation-related illnesses. For more than ten years, Tulsi Gabbard has stated that her main concern, as a public official, a member of Congress, and then a member of the Trump administration, is that we are heading towards a nuclear war.
Last summer, as an official in the Trump administration, she produced a short video in which she said: "Just to remind you, nuclear explosions are the worst thing. They kill the most people and have the longest-lasting destructive effects. They are a real nightmare. Nothing is worse than a nuclear war. It is very easy to wipe out life on this planet, not just humanity, but all life forms, and make it uninhabitable for millions of years. So, we must be aware of that to exercise restraint and make wise decisions to avoid it."
"That's all I did." "And two things happened almost immediately after that. First, Trump went ballistic, even attacking me, so I know that happened. His behavior was outrageous. What is she doing? I don't know, repeating a point you've been making for years, citing your uncle, the MIT professor. Nuclear war is the worst thing. You don't know how destructive a nuclear weapon is. Trump has always said this, privately and publicly. Nuclear war is the worst thing. It's far more terrifying than people imagine. So, here's the Director of National Intelligence repeating what you've said time and time again, and this makes you furious. Why? What's changed? Well, the Butler shooting, for example, and maybe other things. But Trump was furious, but more importantly, all the neoconservatives, the endless war cheerleaders, the death cult, were furious too."
Here's a brilliant analysis by Ben Shapiro, and every time I watch a clip of him, I feel a bit guilty, because I wonder: Why do we hold this guy and his ideas in such high regard? His eyebrows? However, he unintentionally reveals the entire program. It's not his program, nor the podcast, the failed podcast, but the program, the unintentional plan. So, here's this, watch it carefully. This is Ben Shapiro's response to Tulsi Gabbard's statement, as you know, that nuclear war is not good. Watch this.
"Tulsi Gabbard, of course, has presidential ambitions of her own, and she posted a very strange video that I think alludes to the horseshoe theory linking the isolationist right and Howard on the left, who look almost identical. This video caused quite a stir for good reason, mainly because many of the things she says here are absolutely awful."
"Here's Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence. I recently visited Hiroshima in Japan and stood in the center of a city that still suffers from the unimaginable horror caused by a single atomic bomb dropped in 1945, 80 years ago. This attack devastated the city, killing more than 300,000 people, many of whom died instantly, while others died from severe burns, injuries, radiation sickness, and cancer that worsened in the following months and years."
"Yes, dropping a nuclear weapon has dire consequences. Yes, there is a massacre resulting from the dropping of a nuclear weapon. Everyone knows this and no one underestimates it, but why is she posting this video? It's really strange. This happened in 1945. Now, 80 years later, she is posting a video in which she talks about how terrible it was to drop the atomic bomb. This is a rather bizarre rewriting of American history, in which America is portrayed as the villain in World War II because it dropped an atomic bomb, or rather two atomic bombs, to end the war. This is a first-rate historical distortion."
"So, it's quite funny. At first, he says: Well, that's what happens when you're a marginal figure. It's the horseshoe theory. It's as if you're a complete leftist, if you're a Marxist, or you're far-right, or even a Nazi, you agree with everything. Only extremists agree. Unlike me, Ben Shapiro stands at the heart of American public opinion."
"What percentage of Americans support a nuclear exchange? Not very high. Outside of the Daily Wire and places like the White House and the Israeli Embassy, the percentage is actually very small. Most people oppose the extermination of all humanity. Therefore, this is not an extreme position, but rather the position of the vast majority of the world's population. Extremists are the ones who see this as acceptable. Ben Shapiro belongs to this group, which leads us to the second point, which is amazing. This man, who has superb verbal skills but not a very high IQ, is a great way to unintentionally reveal the truth, and that is exactly what he stands for."
"So, he says, 'Why are you bringing this up?' Eighty years later. Why is this important? I don't know. Perhaps because you want the United States to use nuclear weapons for the benefit of Israel, which it already does. And by the way, if it's not important, why are you upset about it? If it was just a strange article about the World War, why are you devoting precious time on the Daily Wire website to condemning it? Because it hinders you, that's the reason."
"Tulsi Gabbard, regardless of what you think of her, knew early on that the neoconservatives wanted a nuclear swap, which is what they now want openly. They want a nuclear exchange. Most people do not want a nuclear exchange. Tulsi Gabbard predicted this early on, and that's why they attack her."
"Think about this for a moment. In what world can you publicly call, as they are doing now publicly, for a nuclear exchange? Only in a world that has gone completely mad. Well, how did this world go crazy? Well, through words. This is how the world always goes crazy. So, here's how it works. You can make reality a reality just by talking about it. You can make things real by repeating them. It is often observed that a lie, if repeated often enough, is accepted as a truth. But what is often overlooked is that a lie can somehow become a truth through words alone. Or what is known as spells or amulets. I mean, this is kind of considered a principle of magic. It is rarely recognized as a human principle. If you keep saying something long enough, it is more likely to happen. Trump believes this."
"But you can see it all around you. Do you remember the first time you heard about same-sex marriage? In the 1980s, no matter how liberal you were, you would say, 'Well, that's not going to happen. Gay marriage? What? I mean, Steve meets Steve?' People made fun of it. Even liberal Democrats ridiculed him. In fact, all Democrats opposed it. In fact, they voted to ban it. This shows the extent of their opposition. It wasn't long before that happened. I remember that very well. I was present during the voting. This was not in the 1920s, but about twenty minutes ago. That was in the first decade of the second millennium. The state of California held a referendum banning same-sex marriage. California! Can you imagine? If you woke up tomorrow and found that California voters had banned same-sex marriage, you would say: What? Well, that's absolutely not true. Well, they did. Less than twenty years ago, they did. And now, of course, you are seen as a freak just for saying that there is something wrong with same-sex marriage. Are you a homosexual? Are you, I don't know, some kind of extremist? So, after twenty years, whatever your opinion on the matter, this is not an argument in either direction, but simply an acknowledgment of what happened. Okay, so how did that happen? Simply put, there is nothing wrong with this. That's great. And during what? Within a very short period, people readily accepted it."
"Do you remember the first time you heard the idea that a man could become a woman? Again, no matter how liberal you are, the first time you heard that, you were like, 'What? A man can become a woman? How? Just by wishing? Isn't sex determined at the DNA level? How can you change your DNA?' Well, you wish that because you are from another generation, and you say to yourself, 'Shut up.' Even if you weren't judging transgender people, and then you called them 'trans,' I was absolutely certain that there was no chance of that being widely adopted. There will never be a boy on your daughter's football team because that's crazy. And a few years later, once again, it was no longer about taking a position on the issue, but simply acknowledging what had happened because people kept saying, 'No, no, this is normal.' Most people accept that it is normal. And that is exactly what is happening now."
"This is why Ben Shapiro was angry at Tulsi Gabbard's criticism of dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populations, because he wants to do it, and in fact they are planning to do it, and in fact they are changing the internal U.S. nuclear doctrine to make it easier for them. That's why they do it. It is not as if they expect to be hit by a nuclear weapon and are finding it difficult to respond. This is already present in the nuclear doctrine. The only reason they changed their nuclear doctrine is because of their ability to drop a nuclear bomb in what we used to call a first strike against a non-nuclear state, thereby risking the annihilation of the world's population of 8.3 billion people. It's as if they are doing it openly."
"Almost everything we see, from encouraging cruelty towards others and not loving them, to encouraging people to turn into monsters, is preparation for that, because there is a small, determined group of people who see nuclear war as inevitable and a means to achieve certain goals. Now we enter a theological area, but it is no less powerful in motivating human behavior than any other motive. This is absolutely true. We know it's real because the President of the United States just threatened a nuclear strike at the United Nations."
"Stay tuned for this. But I have to make a crucial decision. Will we reach an agreement with Iran that allows it to rebuild and create a state far greater than it was before? Perhaps one of the greatest countries in the Middle East, and perhaps even in the entire world. Or will I completely and swiftly annihilate the Islamic Republic, and not give it another chance to kill and destroy peoples and countries? Am I going to push her into a hell where there is no hope of survival and no hope of future greatness for generations to come? But I think we will reach an agreement immediately after the elections."
"So, to make this perfectly clear, in case anyone has tried to mislead you about what you just heard from the president, he is not threatening to use conventional weapons, because there is no conventional weapon in the United States arsenal capable of achieving what he just described. The complete annihilation of a civilization, of a nation that lasted for centuries without hope of recovery. And immediate annihilation that does not give them time to respond. There is only one thing that can describe it, and it does describe it: the first nuclear strike. After that, it is difficult to predict what will happen, but it is very likely that we will be on the verge of a total annihilation of all the inhabitants of the Earth. So, quite simply, this is madness. This is reckless. This is a crime. Threatening to exterminate the world's population in a casual manner is a crime."
"If I had spoken this way to a salesman in a small shop, I would have been arrested for threatening to kill. When the President of the United States speaks in this way about exterminating the entire population of the earth, or even about 90 million Iranians, this is a crime. The only reason we have come to hate each other based on our differences, and to dehumanize each other, is that we have been raised by successive generations of leaders of this country to accept random brutality against innocents, to the point that a Trump supporter—and we are willing to give him a chance to doubt here—may be a decent, law-abiding man who loves his children, yet he is willing to punch a woman in the face in public, in front of cameras, because she dared to demand the release of Epstein's files. How far have we gone insane? Complete madness. Where does this lead us? To the complete extermination of the human race. Because this is the end. This is the inevitable end. This is always the end."
"The only way out of this, the only possible way out, the only way out of the cycle of attack and counter-attack, and of course of blood feuds, is the way out that was promised to us in the Sermon on the Mount. Where it does not respond with violence. Where no grudge is held. Remember that as much as you hate your enemy, God also gives him sun and rain. God created him too. We are all human. This is not just empty talk from liberals. This is the only thing that protects us from certain mutual annihilation at the hands of madmen like this one, Netanyahu, and others. This is exactly what we are heading towards, encouraged by every institution in American life."
"Don't forget the risks. This country was founded on true equality, not on the basis of ability or result, but on the basis of humanity. And when you give up on that, the logical conclusion is what you just heard. This is the end for all of us. Thank you all for watching tonight."
Keep Tucker Carlson in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
