Why Tyler Robinson Pleaded Not Guilty + Suicidal Empathy and Lindsay Clancy

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. 00:00:24 Speaker 2: College is a scam, everybody. 00:00:26 Speaker 3: You got to stop sending your kids to college. 00:00:27 Speaker 2: You should get married as. 00:00:28 Speaker 1: Young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. 00:00:45 Speaker 3: Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 2: Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 1: Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show. a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. 00:01:17 Speaker 2: All right. Welcome, everybody. September 2nd, 2026. I'm back in the YREFI studios here in Phoenix, Arizona. Blake was holding it down yesterday. Thank you for doing that, Blake. 00:01:27 Speaker 3: Of course. 00:01:29 Speaker 2: It was a really remarkable experience, I will tell you, being in that courtroom. Obviously, we covered the preliminary hearing in depth here and, you know, we watched every minute of it. But being inside that courtroom is a different experience altogether. I will tell you, you just walk right in and the defendant, Tyler Robinson, sitting right there, his family members, uh, There's nothing that will prepare you for that moment. 00:01:53 Speaker 4: It's a very small room. 00:01:54 Speaker 2: It's very small. 00:01:55 Speaker 4: All courtrooms are always smaller than people expect. 00:01:57 Speaker 2: It's very small. And you can sort of feel the energy and the ebb and flow of the hearing as it goes on. And it's just completely different. And what's interesting as well is you sort of get out of that online space where conspiracy theories are everywhere and people are speculating about this and that. When that courtroom, man, You've got to answer some very basic fundamental questions. There's only so much wiggle room because the court is going to keep you in check. And it's difficult to explain to people that haven't been in that room. But when you're there, you kind of feel the laws of justice and the wheels of justice rather turn in a really remarkable. You said yesterday they grind slowly, but they grind slowly, but very fine. And you can feel that granularity in in that courtroom. I mean, parsing over a word here or there or a count, how it's being interpreted or some sort of legal precedent. And it's just really emotional because you can feel that in that courtroom, the facts are so monumental to overcome for the Robinson defense that they don't really have many outs. And I don't envy them, their role that they have to play in this, because it's there is such a mountain of evidence from the DNA to the ballistics, to the confessions, to the surveillance video, to his discord chats and all this kind of stuff. I mean, I don't know where you go here because well, we saw where. 00:03:24 Speaker 4: They go yesterday, but first I think for anyone who wasn't tuned in last night, we may as well replay it. It took all day. There was a lot of back and forth. Uh, we were memorably talking about how they The defense objected to the sound a tripod on a camera would make if there were too many of them. 00:03:40 Speaker 5: Right. 00:03:40 Speaker 4: That would disrupt a fair trial. That's the level of objection we were dealing with. But the end of the day, Judge Graff, he did, took an hour recess, came out, he read it out. It took 45 minutes for him to read the whole order, but he finally got to what we were all waiting for. Would he bind Tyler Robinson over on murder and would he preserve the possibility of a death penalty? Here's what he said. Clip 15. 00:04:05 Speaker 6: Court's determination does not rest on crowd size alone or an assumption assumed probability of wind, ricochet, over penetration, or bullet deflection. It rests on the evidence concerning the location and manner of the shot, the documented position of several individuals in and around the canopy area, defendant's opportunity to observe those circumstances, and the preliminary hearing requirement that reasonable inferences So what he's saying there is to have Tyler Robinson be eligible for the death penalty, they. 00:04:37 Speaker 7: Need aggravated murder. 00:04:39 Speaker 6: The position they've staked out as their main thrust for that is that Tyler Robinson was firing at Charlie in a huge crowd. 00:05:01 Speaker 4: There were tons of people in front of Charlie, behind Charlie, next to Charlie, his security team, just a few feet away. He's firing from a football field away, so you move just half an inch, you hit a completely different person. 00:05:11 Speaker 2: Well, that was an interesting new detail that we heard yesterday, by the way. They said if he would have, under all that pressure, which you can imagine, yeah, he'd been at a, you know, he'd been testing his shot, right? There was the test shot that he took. There was targets that had multiple bullet holes in them, and only four hit the target, by the way, the bullseye. out of, I think, over 20. But they said if he would have flinched just a quarter of an inch, that moves three and a half feet. That moves the shot from that distance, 415 feet. It moves it three and a half feet. And I don't know where security was standing. Approximate distance, Tim, I'm sure they're going to figure that out. 00:05:48 Speaker 4: I believe the judge at one point said two to two and a half feet away. 00:05:51 Speaker 2: From the closest person. Yeah, but that's a quarter of an inch. If you just flinch a quarter of an inch under that pressure, a half inch– It's seven feet. And basically at that point, anybody's in play, I will tell you. And the other point that they made is that the people moving around, again, over 3,000 people and you're firing into a whole crowd of people. You on a shooting range, you are not allowed to shoot when anybody's downrange, even if they're, you know, 50 feet that way. You do not shoot downrange, let alone when 3,000 people are in your line of sight. But the judge made a good point that this is a fluid situation. People are moving around. They're moving their heads. I mean, it's common sense that, of course, he endangered other people. But he was also targeting somebody for his political speech. And I think that was one of the big stories out of yesterday, of course, was– The big one, really. The big one was when Novak, the defense counsel, started saying that Charlie– Of course, said hateful things. And I will tell you, I think a lot of people want to know what it was like in the room because they tell you, you can't nod. You can't make noises. You can't do anything. If you're watching, you have to be just completely still and silent. But when he said that, nobody could stop and hide their reaction. We just started turning around to each other. 00:07:08 Speaker 4: We were half paying attention and we jerk out and I go, is he saying what I think he is saying? 00:07:13 Speaker 2: I think, yes, he was. We have it. We have a long one. I don't even know if I want to. Can we cut this off at some point? It's too long, but it's not 13. 00:07:21 Speaker 8: There is no evidence of Mr. Robinson having heard or seen anything specific from Mr. Kirk or having expressed anything about Mr. Kirk until the statement, which basically says some hatred can't be negotiated out. 00:07:41 Speaker 7: So what is it? 00:07:43 Speaker 2: Is it political expression? 00:07:45 Speaker 8: Which political expression? It is true that Mr. 00:07:53 Speaker 7: Kirk spoke hatefully. 00:07:57 Speaker 2: Of certain groups of people. 00:07:59 Speaker 8: He spoke hatefully of people who don't have traditional norm-conforming gender identities. 00:08:10 Speaker 2: And he kept going. 00:08:11 Speaker 4: He said, spoke hatefully about people who had sex outside of marriage, spoke hatefully about people who were not purely heterosexual. 00:08:18 Speaker 2: So, but watch what actually happens. Not only was that disgusting, not only was that a bad look for him, and I saw one commentator made the point that the defense has been arguing to keep cameras out of the courtroom, but that moment specifically was Mr. Novak playing to the cameras. That was him trying to send a message and justify the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie. Because he's actually making the state's point there, Blake. He's saying, well, we don't know that he killed him because of political viewpoints or anything like that, but he was hateful and even acknowledged that The text, that some hate can't be negotiated out. 00:08:57 Speaker 4: He was trying to say there were so many possible motives, really, for why he could have killed Charlie. 00:09:02 Speaker 2: To narrow down the hate. 00:09:03 Speaker 4: That you can't specify one that would qualify for an enhancement. 00:09:06 Speaker 2: Which is a complete reach. And by the way, again, these people have nowhere to go. There's nowhere logically for them to take this. Their obligation is to defend Tyler Robinson vigorously, and they should. But this just is sort of proof. This was a microcosm of the fact they have nowhere to go with this logically. There's no outs. It's almost like Tyler Robinson, like, it's almost like this is so airtight that even these really high-powered, high-priced attorneys can't figure a wiggle way out. I mean, that's really what you're watching here. Thank you again to Blake and the team for holding it down yesterday. Humans work, as they say, because there was a lot. You guys streamed for a long time, man. Yes, it was. It was a long stream. 00:09:50 Speaker 4: I think we must have been on air close to four hours because you had Last minute, we were all prepared to just throw to the hearing. And then they had that delayed some hour. They delayed a half hour. Then they were debating. 00:10:00 Speaker 2: Some media related thing, electronic media. 00:10:03 Speaker 4: So that went, so we went for an hour at the top and then they took a lunch break and then they took a bonus break and then a bonus bonus break. 00:10:11 Speaker 2: There's always, I mean, it was just, we were constantly going in and out, in and out, which honestly you're kind of grateful for cause you have to stay so still. I'm not good at that. Staying still. But let's talk about this. So Mr. Novak playing to the camera says that Charlie's full of hate. And he specifically, to Blake's point, specifically says that he's hateful towards people that have non-gender conforming identities that are gay relationships, all this stuff. Total garbage, by the way. And I said this online. I'm going to play a clip that proves it. I said, Charlie's not hateful. He didn't speak hatefully of some groups of people. Charlie loved people enough to be honest with them and tell them the truth. And it didn't matter their race, their gender, or their background, which is verboten in modern American society. In a modern America, you are protected by whatever privilege group or special interest group or intersectional group that you claim. And so therefore, if you claim one of these groups, you can't be honest with them. You are immune from accountability. You are immune from From honesty. We see this in the Lindsay Clancy trial. She was a woman. She had postpartum psychosis. We can't hold her accountable. We're probably going to get a hung jury in that trial. Almost certainly. But he told them the truth was warmth and kindness. Charlie was actually one of the few people on planet Earth that respected people that disagreed with him enough to hear them out and to engage with them in good faith and say, if you disagree with me, come to the front of the line. Charlie obviously would match the energy if you were trolling him. Or if you came in bad faith, he would put you in your place. That's absolutely right. But time and time again, the crowd around him would urge him to dunk on people because they had faulty arguments or they were wrong. But if they were there sincerely, you know what Charlie would do? Charlie would look around to everybody and say, calm down, calm down. Let them speak. Let them speak. Be respectful, guys. Charlie, I would wager to bet, gave more time, patience, and love to people who hated him, hated his guts, and disagreed with him, then most people will ever give to even their greatest allies. 00:12:21 Speaker 4: Let's just get the clip, I think. 00:12:23 Speaker 2: I want to make that point very clear, that Novak could not be more wrong about this. And here's the clip that proves my point, 28. 00:12:30 Speaker 9: I just want to say I'm a transgender male. What age should kids be able to get things like hormone therapy? Because I don't know what's true, what's not. 00:12:40 Speaker 1: Tell me, are you comfortable telling me your story? 00:12:42 Speaker 9: I've known that... since like third grade, and I'm currently 19, almost 20. I have known basically since then, I didn't start going by like a different name until seventh and eighth grade. I just don't know like with the whole medical stuff, like what's true, what's not, what's helpful, because I've heard so many different opinions. 00:13:03 Speaker 1: First of all, thank you so much for that. 00:13:05 Speaker 3: Yeah, of course. 00:13:06 Speaker 1: So I'm going to have an opinion that very few people will ever tell you, which is I want you to be very cautious putting drugs into your system. in the pursuit of changing your body. I instead encourage you to work on what's going on in your brain first. I think what you need first and foremost is just a diagnosis. Just someone that is going to listen to what you've gone through, listen to what else is going on. My prayer for you, and again, very few will say this, I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born. I know that you might not feel that way, but I think that is something that you can achieve. I think that with the right team and the right people, you don't have to wage war on your body. You can learn to love your body. 00:13:48 Speaker 4: He had so many exchanges like that, uh, at event after event. And we talked about this with Danny yesterday that when he was prepping his, his binder for the fall tour, he said, Hey, we don't need as much stuff on the trans issue. A lot of them, they're, they're troubled people. We're winning on this issue. We don't need to go that hard. 00:14:08 Speaker 7: And, Yeah. 00:14:10 Speaker 4: That is, that's the persona he cultivated and he could meet, as you said, he could meet hostile energy with his own energy. But if someone was wanting to engage in good faith, he was so happy to do that. And then to see Novak go on stage and just start planting those seeds so that six months, a year from now, someone on a jury might think, Oh, well I have to account for the fact that that hater had it coming when I decide the sentence. 00:14:37 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:14:38 Speaker 2: That's exactly what I think he was doing. It was completely out of line, by the way. Completely out of line. Disgusting behavior. And I thought Jeff Nyman, the family representative for the Kirk family, did an incredible job summing up what should be plainly obvious to everybody. You don't go into court and spit on the grave of the dead guy, of the victim here. 00:15:00 Speaker 9: 27. 00:15:02 Speaker 11: Charlie devoted his life to building a community of over a million young people rooted in faith and freedom he had hard conversations others were too afraid to have charlie was the opposite of hate firing a bullet into a crowd and assassinating him that. 00:15:26 Speaker 7: Is hate. 00:15:28 Speaker 2: Simple as that and it's just like and one statement from mr nyman And it was like moral sanity had been reestablished in the courtroom. And if I could have got up and started clapping, I would have. And I know that Erica and everybody else felt the same. The amount of, you know, I think back to the preliminary hearing and Attorney Burt, Mr. Burt, talking about Erica Kirk can have her press conference. Never had a press conference, Mr. 00:15:59 Speaker 11: Burt. 00:16:00 Speaker 2: But that was a low blow. A very unnecessary thing to do. And then to see Mr. Novak also engage in this sort of editorializing about Charlie being a hater, it completely out of line. This is the victim and his family. And these people go out of their way defending an assassin by attacking the victim. Absolutely out of line. And the other thing I would just say, and we're going to talk about this with Andrew Burkhart, but I got calls immediately after I, I mean, my phone was blown up. I get out. All these trial attorneys, a couple judges called me, and they were like, if I was judge of this case, this would be done. This would be done already. He would be convicted and sentenced. And I said, well, wouldn't that get overturned on appeal? They're like, no, you can do it fast, you can do it right. It depends. 00:16:53 Speaker 4: I think we talked about stuff that would get us takeaways, and I think a real lesson, if we want to make progress as a country looking at this, is we should think what are changes we can make to our laws so that A process like this is not a two or three or four-year ordeal. Andrea, we can ask her about this. There's other cases in Utah. Someone killed someone in 2024, and because the defendant is difficult, they only just got bound over now. You can really drag the process out, and that is torture for anyone who's related to the victim. 00:17:26 Speaker 2: It creates a vacuum, and this void is filled by all these bad-faith actors. Here's what I'll finish on. Of course, Tyler Robinson deserves a fair hearing. Of course he deserves his chance to make his case. We're not saying anything against that. But this process is so long when you're on this side of it, and it's just obscene. Looking for entertainment the whole family can actually agree on? Let me tell you about Ekkel. That's E-K-K-L dot com. The stars of Duck Dynasty, Willie and Corey Robertson, teamed up with Echo to create a brand new one-of-a-kind streaming platform built around faith and family. And they didn't just lend their name to it. They helped build it from the ground up. You get movies and series that you'll want to watch with your kids, friends, and neighbors. You get podcasts that make your commute a little more exciting. And every single day, you get daily devotionals, quick snippets of prayer and scripture to help you start your morning grounded, not scrambling. One platform, one community, entertainment that fits how you live and what you believe. The best part? You'll get all of this for just $ 5. 83 a month. Getting started is easy. Just head to ekkl.com. That's ekkl.com, ekkl.com. Sign up today and get ready to be part of something better. All right, Congressman Brandon Gill, welcome back to the show. It's great to see you, and thanks for making some time for us. We've just one question on this. I know you're not in the weeds like we are and you can take it however you want. But yesterday was the bind over hearing in Charlie's trial of the assassination. Tyler Robinson, he was bound over on all seven counts. Just from your vantage point, your perch. Why is this important that we get this right and that we get justice for Charlie? And, you know, what does this say about assassination culture in this country writ large? 00:19:23 Speaker 3: Well, first of all, thanks for having me on. I mean, it is important to get this right, I think, for two main reasons. One, simply for justice for Charlie and for Erica and for his family, because we need to make sure that if anybody commits a crime in this country, no matter who you committed against, if you murder somebody, you need to be in jail or you need to get the death penalty, in my opinion. And to the extent that we don't see justice in crimes like this, particularly that are so public, I think you truly do start to see the rule of law in civilization unravel. So the crime itself, apart from the political aspect, speaks to a very core part of what it means to be American and to live in civilization. Secondly, though, political violence is sort of another level of crime, I think. And the reason I say that is the ability to have self-government, to be able to have a representative democracy, a Republican form of government relies on the ability of people to speak openly without fear of assassination, the ability to debate different ideas and to hopefully come to some sort of conclusion about or consensus, and that ability is directly not only undermined, but I think begins to crumble whenever you see political assassinations like this, and that's what this is, become normalized in any way. So it really, in that sense, speaks to the core of our governing structure. So this is unbelievably important. I think it's something, you know, apart from that, all of us have a sense of justice that we want to see. 00:21:04 Speaker 2: I mean, this was. 00:21:05 Speaker 3: one of the most horrific crimes, um, that, that the American people had seen because, um, you know, it is the all feel for, for Erica and the family. 00:21:15 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:21:15 Speaker 4: I think that, I think that's the, one of the most important points to keep making that this was not nearly any murder and there are murders in this country. We're often a violent country. This was a large public assassination. It's harms go far beyond the fact that we lost our friend, our boss, our mentor, uh, a hero to so many people. It is that it was specifically done to terrorize anyone who did what he did, which is go on campus to debate people, anyone who holds the views that he did. It's so much more toxic than just a simple act of violence. 00:21:51 Speaker 2: Yeah. And Congressman, the two things came up yesterday that I would love for you to work on at some point when you get some some bandwidth. I know you got a lot going on. But getting these prediction markets out of the criminal justice system, these can be gamed. Bad judges, corrupt judges. This came up at trial yesterday. 00:22:08 Speaker 4: Yes, they were saying there's a polymarket on will Tyler Robinson be convicted. They were saying that introduces bias. But all we could think of is just one juror, one prosecutor, one defense attorney, one judge saying, any one of them, it makes it so much easier to do corrupt behavior. 00:22:26 Speaker 2: And then just get in this stuff quick, quicker. I mean, this, this is just the wheels of justice grind too slowly in my opinion, but those you're where I'm just throwing that out there. If you, if you get some time to work on it as a side project, we'd be grateful. Uh, Congressman, you are doing some, some amazing work on birth tourism. And as you do, you just completely dice these guys up, uh, You know, as you're talking, they don't want to, you know, are claiming the fifth and all this stuff. But you get your points out so expertly. It's just it's fun to watch you do this. Go ahead. And we're going to play this cut nine. 00:23:02 Speaker 3: Is it true that your business have my baby in Miami marketed itself to and facilitated the entry of foreign nationals seeking to come to the United States to give birth and obtain birthright citizenship for their children? 00:23:16 Speaker 12: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States. 00:23:27 Speaker 2: All right, so set the stage, birth tourism. This is a big, big issue. 00:23:33 Speaker 3: This is a big issue, and you start from the premise that American citizenship is the most valuable thing in the world. It's not something that we hand out to every foreigner on the globe, and it's certainly not something that private businesses or anybody else should be profiting off of. And that's what we believe this man was doing by advertising in foreign countries to have people come into the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth so that their children could become citizens. That allows them to be anchored into the United States. It has all kinds of ramifications from voting, being able to vote in American elections, being able to access welfare, but also being able to bring in family members via chain migration to to a virtually unlimited degree. That's a big, big deal. And I think the American people are sick of hearing news headlines about how 20,000 to 30,000 people obtain American citizenship via birth tourism every single year. We know that the number of Chinese Americans born in the United States who have American citizenship but are being raised in China could be astronomically higher. So what we wanted to do is put an end to this practice. We brought in this doctor. We've also requested information from several others as well. I wanted to simply ask him about what he's doing. You know, he's got the right to plead the fifth. He did. But we're going to continue the investigation. 00:24:57 Speaker 2: Well, you go on and I love this one because you end up just it's such an indictment of the entire cottage industry. That is a complete farce, by the way. It makes a mockery out of our laws and our system. And the Supreme Court, somehow in their esteemed wisdom, couldn't see that we're being taken for suckers. But you make the point here very well, Saten. 00:25:19 Speaker 3: This website isn't public anymore. What made it motivated you to take down or at least substantially modify this website? 00:25:27 Speaker 12: I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me. 00:25:32 Speaker 3: Does your business help children of members of the Chinese Communist Party obtain American citizenship? 00:25:36 Speaker 12: I respectfully decline to answer. 00:25:38 Speaker 3: Have you ever facilitated the childbirth in America for a member of Trende Aragua, MS-13, or any other narco-terrorist organization? 00:25:47 Speaker 12: I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me. 00:25:52 Speaker 3: Is it your intention to answer any question put to you by the committee today with an assertion of your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? 00:26:01 Speaker 7: Speak to counsel, please. 00:26:02 Speaker 10: No. 00:26:03 Speaker 1: No? 00:26:03 Speaker 13: No, sir. 00:26:05 Speaker 12: Okay. 00:26:05 Speaker 10: Dr. 00:26:05 Speaker 3: Lorenz, considering your invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, I have no choice but to excuse you from the witness panel. 00:26:13 Speaker 2: You got your point across. I mean, it's so telling that this guy runs a big business, you know, taking advantage of a loophole in American law, and then he doesn't even have the courage to answer honestly and truthfully when asked about it before Congress. What does that say about the whole entire industry? 00:26:31 Speaker 3: Well, it shows you how ashamed these people should be and how they know what they're doing is wrong. I walked through certain parts of his website that used to be public or no longer public anymore. One of the front pages of his website for Have My Baby in Miami, by the way, the name of the business, had a statement saying something along the lines of, fulfill your dream of having your child in the United States. You can continue through the website. It has information on how to get housing in the United States, legal assistance where they'll connect you with lawyers, basically a step-by-step guide for how to come into the United States for the purpose of having a child. Of course, they took that down. Also on that website, by the way, they had been advertising that they had helped over 2,000 foreigners come into the United States to give birth. And that's just this doctor's office or just this business. Can you imagine how much bigger this is? outside and in all kinds of other areas. I mean, this is a serious problem. But I think they know, especially whenever you're confronted with the reality of what birth tourism is, the fact that this business is not vetting people to determine whether they should get American citizenship and they shouldn't be in the business of doing that. They shouldn't be in the business of importing people to give out the most valuable citizenship in the world either. 00:27:50 Speaker 2: And Congressman, Democrat Dave Minn sort of made the point for everybody. I hear this and I'm like, please argue more on why we shouldn't have this. Exactly. Sod 11. 00:28:02 Speaker 10: This is all very deeply personal to me because I am myself a birthright citizen. My parents were here in America on student visas when I was born. They had not become naturalized until after I was born. And if Donald Trump and Brandon Gill had had their way, maybe my parents would have been denied their visas. Maybe they would have been deported. Maybe my citizenship would have been denied. And maybe if I say something today or beyond that Brandon Gill doesn't like, he'll try to revoke my citizenship. 00:28:27 Speaker 2: Congressman, your reaction to the other congressman? 00:28:30 Speaker 3: I tried to assure my colleague, Mr. Min, that I am not going to try and take his citizenship away from him. He brought up Ilhan Omar, who I have gone back and forth many times. As long as Dave Min doesn't try to marry a sibling or support foreign terrorist organizations, I have no intention of attempting to take away his American citizenship. 00:28:53 Speaker 2: Well said. I think that's a good baseline. The bar is pretty low now, isn't it, Congressman? So I got two lines of questioning I want to get through here, Congressman. So there was this clip that went kind of viral with Senator Kennedy basically saying the Senate Leadership Fund is not going to be backing Ken Paxton, right? And he said, I hope the president puts some money into this race. Okay. 00:29:18 Speaker 14: Why? 00:29:19 Speaker 2: You know Ken Paxton. You know the state of Texas. I'm told internal polling does have Ken Paxton up. You'll see all these other polls that are a lot of noise. But it's closer than it should be. Can we just acknowledge that? And James Talrico is a complete nutcase. Make the case for Texans and for the country that maybe if you're living in Missouri. right now, the thing you need to do is send some money to Ken Paxton. Just throwing that out there. But the floor is yours, Congressman. 00:29:45 Speaker 3: Absolutely. Every single cycle, Democrats talk about flipping Texas blue. They've never been able to do it before, but they are going all out here. And you're seeing a little bit of that reflected in the polls, and you see Democrats across the state mobilizing, I think unluckily for them, they have rallied behind the most radical far-left candidate they could possibly find. Somebody who, if he was running in New York, would be considered a far-left candidate, much less in Texas. As we know, this is a guy who has talked about God being non-binary. Children you know, basically choosing their gender, wanting a welcome mat on our southern border, a guy who wants to destroy Texas's energy sector. I mean, this is a guy who wants to fundamentally transform not only our state, but our country. On the other hand, you've got Ken Paxton, who has been one of the most effective attorney generals in our country for over the past several years and has been a conservative fighter and somebody who's going to go to Washington and and represent and fight for conservative values. So I think the contrast couldn't be more clear, but we have to make sure that we get out to the polls. Every single Texan gets to the polls, that they're talking to their friends and family members, that they're telling them what the stakes are with Ken Paxton and James Tallarico and how wacko and radical Tallarico is. 00:31:11 Speaker 2: Yeah. Look at this. This is this was written the day that the Dobbs decision came out. This is from Talrico's got his official letterhead. We could throw it up. You know, OK, you're mad that Dobbs happens. We understand that. We understand that Democrats didn't like Dobbs. Maybe you want to overturn it, but whatever. Here is James Talrico advocating census. I believe you had to the president. 00:31:34 Speaker 14: Right. 00:31:36 Speaker 2: Yeah, Joe Biden. He sends it to Joe Biden. So he's advocating for what would essentially be a federal abortion service staffed by a federal abortion corps telling the president to federalize, give federal lands to abortion clinics to make these abortion providers federal employees so they would be immune from state level prosecution. And this is like good Christian boy, James Talrico advocating for all this on the day Dobbs came down. Your reaction? 00:32:03 Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't want to ever hear James Tallarico invoke the Christian faith again, not only because of this, but because of his insane social views and hatred, I think, for traditional Christian values. But the idea that we should have federally run abortion clinics on public, federally owned land to convert empty buildings so that we can run these as abortion mills is so radical and insane. It's hard to know where to begin. But I think it does show you how ideologically connected the left is to abortion for everybody without any kind of restrictions or without any kind of rational, logical, or common sense guidelines on it. And these people, I mean, that is truly deranged. 00:32:54 Speaker 2: It's so deranged. 00:32:56 Speaker 3: But again, that's where they're at. 00:32:57 Speaker 2: The radical nature of James Talrico, and he he hides it behind this golly gee shucks persona is you cannot be overstated. I mean, this, there, there is the line between a James Talrico and just like your random, like Chevalier, DSA, El Sayed. There, there is no line anymore. 00:33:17 Speaker 8: There isn't. 00:33:17 Speaker 4: And I mean, even that the golly gee shucks, it's not even really hiding it. It's that is their persona. You can be this sort of weird, cringy dork, but it's so baked into their worldview that, Abortion is, I don't know what else to call it, a sacrament, a holy rite, something that must be protected and provided and spread and promoted at all costs. 00:33:42 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's completely true. Let's go ahead and play this. This is, again, his bad theology is shocking, but it just means that he serves two masters, okay? And you can't do that. Psalm 31. 00:33:58 Speaker 1: I want us all to be aware of is that that modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. 00:34:06 Speaker 5: In fact, there are six. 00:34:08 Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Modern science recognizes that. And modern science also recognizes how to kill a baby, an innocent baby, in the womb. So does that all of a sudden make it okay? I thought that the scriptures that you say that you follow says that God made them male and female. What about that? Or how about Psalm 139, where it says, for you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I'm fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. I know that full well. The floor is yours. 00:34:39 Speaker 3: You know, I think that 10 or 15 years ago, the Democrat Party, many people in the Democrat Party might have heard those scriptures and realized that what you are saying is true, that there are only two genders, that God created us in a certain way and that we ought to honor that. I think many of them, maybe 20 years ago, would have recognized that abortion is at the very least a lamentable thing. I believe it's murder and it's evil. This is the party that used to believe in abortion being safe, legal, and rare. Now it's abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, and converting federal buildings to abortion mills as a matter of policy. I mean, that's not hyperbole. That is literally what this guy, as you showed, wrote in a letter, you know, even five years ago, we would have never been debating how many genders there are, whether a three-year-old can change their gender, or whether it's appropriate to give puberty blockers to minors, or any of these other just wacko, and frankly, very perverted ideologies. But that's where the Democrat Party is now. James Tallarico is a radical leftist, but he's at the sort of the ideological forefront of that party. And that's something that I think every American voter ought to realize, that this is not your grandpa's Democrat Party anymore. 00:35:57 Speaker 2: Hopefully Texans realize that. 00:35:59 Speaker 3: I hope they do. This is the party of open borders and social insanity. 00:36:04 Speaker 2: I completely agree. So in the last, like, 45 seconds we have here, there's a trend online, I know you've seen it, where the left-right paradigm, it's dated, bro. It's not a thing. What do you say to those– a lot of them are young men, by the way, Brandon. What do you say to those– people that are getting cynical about the system. 30 seconds. 00:36:23 Speaker 3: I would say, listen, there's always areas where you can criticize somebody in any party. But at the end of the day, you are given a binary choice whenever you go to the voting booth. You're given a choice to vote for sanity on the Republican side. And I think common sense, and maybe it's imperfect. Maybe the candidate that you're voting for has views that you disagree with or does things that you don't like. But the other side believes in things that are genuinely deranged and insane. And that's the choice that we have in front of us. And we've got to operate in reality. 00:36:56 Speaker 2: Congressman Brandon Gill, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being a voice of sanity. Rising star, Brandon Gill. Watch him closely. Midterm elections are coming up and control of Congress is on the line. If there's one thing financial markets hate, it's uncertainty and uncertainty is is exactly what the next few months are going to bring. In 2024, if it taught us anything, it's that uncertainty breeds volatility. Between now and November could be one of the most volatile stretches for the stock market and the economy. So you owe it to yourself to have a plan. Here's the good part. There's a simple way to protect what you've built, and that's gold. Physical gold and silver let you hedge against that volatility. And there's no better partner for it than Noble Gold Investments. For over a decade, Noble Gold has helped everyday Americans protect their wealth with precious metals. They make it simple. They make it easy. And they make it safe. You can trust them. Give them a call, 877-646-5347. That's 877-646-5347. Or visit them online at noblegoldinvestments.com slash kirk. And find out how to protect yourself, your wealth, and your family. noblegoldinvestments.com slash kirk. Election Day is coming. Don't let it arrive without a plan. And here's the best part. To celebrate America's 250th, just mention The Charlie Kirk Show when you call Noble Gold, and they'll send you a free 10-ounce silver bar when you open a new qualified account. Mention The Charlie Kirk Show. That's all you got to do, and they'll do the rest. We have a very special guest for you, and that's Andrea Burkhart. She's a Legal commentator, experienced trial and appellate litigator. You can find her on Substack on YouTube. Her Substack, though, is Andrea Burkhart, B-U-R-K-H-A-R-T.substack.com. Andrea, welcome back to the show. We always appreciate you making time for us. I know you're streaming all the time, so we really appreciate it. Now, you are apolitical. You do a very good job of that, but you're gracious to come on with us, and you know we have a POV on this. But, you know, I was in the courtroom yesterday. It was very traumatic. But you and I had texted before, and I basically said, well, what about the plea deal? What about the plea deal? What's going to happen? And you were like, oh, he's pleading not guilty. And for you, this was completely obvious and not surprising at all. The least interesting development. Yeah, it was not even noteworthy to you. I had to ask you and pull it out of you. like of course he's pleading not guilty now but if you look on social media that was like oh see he's he's still fighting this and yeah he does he deserves a vigorous defense but then i asked around after you and i talked and everybody connected to anything was like yeah he's pleading not guilty of course why did you know this Because. 00:39:41 Speaker 5: That is normal and predictable, and anybody who has ever watched a criminal case before would know this. 00:39:49 Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're laughing, Andrea. You're laughing, but I have been credibly told on social media that this proves that everybody who puts any stock in the state's case is wrong. 00:40:01 Speaker 4: They're specifically saying it proves that Tyler Robinson did not confess, basically. 00:40:08 Speaker 14: Right. 00:40:09 Speaker 4: I don't think any of us have ever said he confessed in the sense of he signed a confession to police. It's that he confessed to his roommate. At least 11 times. He confessed on his Discord. He, I think we would say, behaved in a manner with his parents that admitted, like, you've got me. 00:40:27 Speaker 2: Yeah. But go back to why you were not surprised. Because you were laughing. You find this somewhat ridiculous. But the internet does not think this is ridiculous. 00:40:36 Speaker 5: Well, I would push back a tiny bit. I mean, yes, there's certainly an echo chamber that has their ideas about the criminal justice system that they apparently got from sniffing glue or something, but... You know, for those of us who have actually dealt with criminal cases, yeah, you plead not guilty if you don't have a plea deal coming into arraignment already set up. You plead guilty or you plead not guilty because that is the only way for you to move the process forward, for you to have the opportunity to negotiate a plea deal, for you to put yourself into any kind of a position where you can get a better outcome than what you would be facing if given the charges and the potential penalties against you, which, of course, for Tyler Robinson is death. He is not pleading guilty with death on the table, at least not at this point in time. The only time that's even remotely realistic as a possibility is if they're getting towards the trial date. And he's not in a good position as far as being able to present a viable theory of defense on guilt at trial. And so in that case, he might have strategic reasons to go ahead and plead guilty and then just proceed to trial on the penalty, because it would tend to show remorse and accountability and things like that that would work to his favor. But the whole Purpose, the whole process of the criminal justice system is to hold the state to its burden of proof. Pleading not guilty does not mean I didn't do it. Pleading not guilty means state, you're going to have to prove it. It's put up or shut up time. 00:42:21 Speaker 2: So you're basically saying the only way that he would have pled in that instance is if there was a deal on the table to say, we'll take the death penalty off or something along those lines. Absolutely. 00:42:34 Speaker 5: He has no incentive to plead guilty at this stage because he has the opportunity to litigate the case to try to improve his position. And he does that through the types of steps that you routinely see in criminal cases. You file motions to suppress. You challenge charges. the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence and things like that. You'd basically try to limit the damage that the state can do in light of whatever you expect them to be presenting at trial. And then you evaluate kind of where you end up. And so if they were successful at potentially getting a lot of evidence thrown out, well, now there's a bigger risk to the state of going forward to trial. They might lose. And so now they have more of an incentive to to moderate their position and potentially accept a plea to something that they would not be willing to accept at this stage in the process. 00:43:30 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:43:30 Speaker 2: You mentioned the theory of the case, like the defense puts forward a theory of a case. Maybe they don't. They can't come up with it. I'm legitimately scratching my head, having been in that courtroom watching Mr. Novak. basically talk himself into a corner saying, well, we don't know that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie because or, you know, that he was killed because of hate or whatever political speech. But then he goes, but we know that he did say hateful things and targeted people with hateful rhetoric. 00:43:59 Speaker 4: Andrea, that really baffled us. We were discussing what was he saying there? Was there a strategy to it? What was your professional reaction to that moment? 00:44:09 Speaker 5: I I did not think that was a very smart thing to say. My read on Mr. Novak at this particular hearing was he seemed to be operating maybe a little bit more off the cuff than he has in other proceedings where he's been a little bit more organized, a little bit more systematic with his presentation. This one, he was, I mean, you could visually see him like having to stop and kind of think through his thoughts a little bit more before he said them. And so I think he may have reverted to instinct in a way that maybe is not going to resonate with people who don't share his political perspective. I'm sure it's not revolutionary for me to notice that it's often common when political issues come up that certain people just kind of take it for granted that the whole world shares their, their political perspective and it can be hard to, uh, to kind of get out of that. Um, so that, that's kind of my read on, on what I think probably happened is, um, just a, a very, a very bad, uh, impulsive misjudgment on, uh, the, the, the temperature. 00:45:31 Speaker 14: In the room. 00:45:31 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:45:32 Speaker 2: Well, and I think it was a mask off moment. I completely agree. And he did, you know, I was looking at him talking to Tyler Robinson a couple of times, like when I first entered the courtroom and it struck me that they were smirking. They kept like looking at each other, almost like they were like two old friends. It's like, you know, kind of, and I, That gave me chills. 00:45:53 Speaker 4: It makes me wonder, Novak, he's a seasoned death penalty case litigator and just makes you think, what's the long-term effect on you where that is every case you're litigating is with people who committed crimes facing the death penalty. 00:46:06 Speaker 2: This is a good point. This is a good point because, Andrea, his whole defense team, this is what they do. They fight death penalty cases, right? These are crusaders against the death penalty. 00:46:16 Speaker 13: Oh, yeah. 00:46:16 Speaker 5: I mean, I think there's no question about it. And this is where we may have a little bit of a difference in perspective on what they're doing and the importance of that job and so forth. I see what they are doing sincerely as God's work. They are standing with the people that are the least desired people. people in society, the people that nobody wants to stick up for. And that is part of what you internalize when you do that job is you are the one person, you have a duty to be loyal to them and you have a duty to advocate for them. And so you take that very seriously. 00:46:49 Speaker 2: I don't disagree with you. He's entitled to a rigorous defense, a vigorous defense, and we want him to have that. I actually think that's good for the whole process. But just their biography suggests that this is what they do. They are there to get him off death row. 00:47:06 Speaker 4: The jury is deliberating on a verdict for Lindsay Clancy. And so we are asking people today whether or not they think that she's innocent or guilty. I think she's innocent. I think if she was guilty, I think it needs to be a state of psychosis. She does not deserve prison time. 00:47:18 Speaker 2: Guilty. Sorry, I said it. 00:47:21 Speaker 4: I think she's guilty. But I do think there's a lot of like, gray area. And I don't know, her husband seems obsessed to me. 00:47:28 Speaker 2: I think she should be found guilty. From the little bit of research that I have done, I think her diagnosis, she said, I think it was a mental issue. She was trying to blame it. I don't agree. 00:47:38 Speaker 5: She's guilty of the murdering part of it. 00:47:43 Speaker 4: But I do think that there's a lot of underlying mental health issues and, you know, women's health issues that need to be talked about with that trial. Whether or not she did it from a state of sanity, she. 00:47:54 Speaker 5: Killed her kids. The guilty party is like the medical system that failed both her and the children. 00:47:59 Speaker 2: The gender divide is wild when it comes to this Lindsay Clancy case. And we are watching this Andrea, because it feels like weirdly an overlap of what we're dealing with, where you have a clearly guilty party that's confessed to do it. 00:48:13 Speaker 4: It feels like it's also the only other story. Like yesterday we had to make some time and we're just thinking, is anything else going on except everyone's watching the jury in this trial? 00:48:22 Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. I, It really is– the gender divide is wild. When you were talking about jury selection in a trial like this, and I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking down the line with Charlie's jury selection too. How important is the gender of the jury? Is this something they talk about openly behind the scenes? 00:48:42 Speaker 5: Well– There's going to be a lot of different perspectives on that. You're certainly going to find some people who do kind of a segmentation analysis type of approach to jury selection, right? They look at kind of how people can be categorized and what that might suggest about their tendency to vote guilty or not guilty, how they would process information and things like that. And so if For example, somebody engages a jury selection consultant, they'll often get that kind of information and advice. Personally, I've never found gender or really any kind of categorical metric to be very helpful in terms of evaluating who is going to be a good juror or not, because mostly what you're looking for is just you're looking for somebody who is going to be open and receptive to your arguments, to the information that you want to present, somebody who's going to be willing to see it your way. So it's often just more of a kind of gut instinct about do I connect with this person or not? A person that likes you and trusts you is somebody who is more likely to give you their vote when it comes time to the verdict. And so that's something that you can't really you can't really create a formula for that. You know, there's there's the spark or there isn't. 00:49:59 Speaker 10: So. 00:50:02 Speaker 4: So externally, people have made it a big sex divide. There's all these jokes because there's the nine women and there's the three men. And so people have joked, oh, the three men of the jury holding the line on trying to convict. But what do you think the likely dynamic is actually going on in the jury? Do you think we're more likely to have a case where it's one holdout one way or the other? Yeah. Any stereotypes? Who's what's most likely to be actually going on? 00:50:27 Speaker 2: And then what happens if they do get a hung jury? Yeah. 00:50:30 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:50:30 Speaker 5: Well, so as far as the single holdout, that typically is not that common. It certainly does happen, but it's far more likely when you're unable to reach a verdict that it's because there is more than one person. Juries are like any kind of social environment. There's pressure, and people have a natural kind of tendency to want to. 00:50:54 Speaker 5: Please the group, go along to the extent that they can. And so it's not that common for somebody, a single person, to be able to resist the pressure of another 11 for a significant length of time. So I would suspect it's probably more than one person. I think the nature of the divide is just over the medical issues and the extent to which they have opinions about You know, was she in active psychosis? Was she medically noncompliant? So those things that just factor into people's reaction to the culpability for a crime like this. If a mistrial is declared, if there's a hung jury, then a mistrial is declared. And that means that the jury is discharged. She's not convicted, but she can be retried. I would expect in this particular case, if she is if there is a hung jury, that the state would try again to to convict her. 00:51:55 Speaker 2: So so it goes basically back to square one is what you're saying. 00:52:00 Speaker 5: Not all the way to square one. But I mean, in terms of the trial. Yeah, they got they got to start the trial over, pick a new jury, all that. 00:52:06 Speaker 2: Interesting. 00:52:07 Speaker 4: Do you think they would bother with that? 00:52:09 Speaker 10: Yes. Yes. 00:52:11 Speaker 14: Yeah. 00:52:11 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:52:11 Speaker 4: We think so. 00:52:12 Speaker 2: I think so. Yeah. I mean, this woman killed three of her own kids and she's admitted to doing it. Like if you don't get any kind of conviction, that means she doesn't even go into the psychiatric ward. She doesn't get committed. 00:52:22 Speaker 13: Right. 00:52:23 Speaker 2: I mean, if you just kind of, you say, Hey, then you're just, you're zero punishment together. 00:52:27 Speaker 5: So altogether, the alternative to them retrying her is them dismissing the case. And so, you know, they're not going to be inclined to do that. As you said, with, with three dead children. 00:52:37 Speaker 2: Yeah. I can't imagine that would be the case. 00:52:40 Speaker 10: Okay. 00:52:40 Speaker 2: Okay. So back to what happened yesterday in the Tyler Robinson hearing. That moment at the end, I tweeted about it, too, because I found it so obnoxious. But you're our timeline expert here. So the state goes two weeks. And then the defense goes, well, judge, more like 30 days. And he goes, how about October 23rd? How about seven weeks? That was bizarre. And then he throws out, well, we could do it virtually. And I was like, oh, great. Maybe we can do it in two, three weeks instead. And then he's like, how about October 23rd? The whole thing. He's very, what's the word? He's slow. Okay. 00:53:22 Speaker 4: Felt very deliberate. 00:53:23 Speaker 2: I've been told that there might already be a calendar month date already kind of circled loosely towards the end of 2027. These things move all the time. Are you still thinking late 2028? 00:53:36 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:53:38 Speaker 5: I mean, I could see a situation where they might schedule it before that, but I just have a hard time anticipating that they would actually be ready. And so if they if they did, you know, set it soon, sooner than I think it's likely there would be a motion to continue at some point. It's just hard for me to overstate the massive amount of preparation that a trial like this requires, not just from the investigative standpoint, their duty to go through and check everything that the state's done. We've seen from the discovery report that they just filed. Not just the volume of what they have to go through, but they were very systematically laying out the steps of what they need to do to be able to kind of process the information, make it usable, understand it. And they've only just gotten started with that, you know, almost a year since Charlie died. And that's just not unusual with cases of this scope. Also, just a massive amount of litigation that we already know is forthcoming. They've told us they've hinted at it. You know, they've suggested it. So these things take time. It's just an unfortunate product of how the system works. 00:54:52 Speaker 10: Yeah. 00:54:53 Speaker 2: Nestor, as soon as they were talking about setting a trial date, she quickly started rapid fire listing all the things that she's going to do to slow the process down. Andrea Burkhart, thank you, as always, for your unvarnished opinions, even when they disappoint us. And thank you for calling Balls and Strikes. We appreciate it. And we need more people like you. So follow her. She is worth following. Before he ever stepped onto a debate stage or behind a microphone, Charlie understood something really important, that if you want to lead, you first have to learn. Charlie believed that ideas shape character, conviction, and courage. That's why he spent years studying the classics, the American founding, and the Bible through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He would rave about these courses all the time. These free online courses are taught by Hillsdale College professors and draw from the same great books and enduring ideas studied on Hillsdale's campus. Hillsdale's newest free online course is the Iliad, where Professor Stephen Smith guides students through Homer's great epic of honor, courage, friendship, leadership, and the pursuit of true greatness. For nearly 3,000 years, the Iliad has shaped the Western imagination. It tells the story of Achilles as he confronts injustice, rage, grief, responsibility, and the terrible costs of war. But Homer's epic is more than a story of ancient battles. It raises enduring questions about courage, duty, leadership, sacrifice, and self-command. Achilles is the greatest warrior among the Greeks, but Homer asks whether strength alone is enough to make a man truly great. In this new free online course, you'll follow Achilles through the defining trials of his life and discover why one of the greatest works of Western literature still speaks to the permanent questions of human life. Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage. You can enroll today completely free and take this class or their 40-plus other free online courses. Just visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today. That's charlieforhillsdale.com. Learn deeply, think clearly, lead boldly, and carry it forward, just like Charlie. Without further ado, we have the great Gad Saad. He is a visiting professor, the Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom. God bless him. Guy from Lebanon, and I love that. University of Mississippi. And he is the author of Suicidal Empathy, one of the few books in recent memory that has literally transformed the way social media discusses this, I don't know what you call it, like a parasite, this ideological parasite that's infected the West. He has coined the term suicidal empathy. It debuted as an instant number one New York Times bestseller, and it stayed on the list for 10 consecutive weeks. God bless you, Dr. Saad. Welcome back to the show. It's so good to have you, and thanks for making some time for us today. 00:57:49 Speaker 7: Thank you for having me. Let me just preemptively apologize. 00:57:52 Speaker 13: I have a really bad cough, so if I cough in your face, so to speak, please forgive me. 00:57:58 Speaker 2: You have the normal kind of parasite. At least it's not an ideological one, all right? So that's fine. We'll give you all the grace in the world. And we are going to go a little bit long, so we're going to do some podcast exclusive after this with Dr. Sad, just because there's too much to get to. It feels like the world is upside down. More than any other note that we get from our listeners is it feels like after we lost Charlie, it was like this anchor of just truth and reliability. You knew where Charlie was going to be on things. He was going to speak sense into the void, into the madness. And there's this void that's been left. And it's like up is down, left is right. People that you thought were going to say one thing are saying the exact opposite. Left and right is an old dated paradigm, bro. We're getting the horseshoe theory. the moral inversion of Lindsay Clancy trial. You got Charlie trutherism. The floor is yours. Make sense of this moment. Are we living through mass psychosis? 00:58:51 Speaker 14: We are. 00:58:52 Speaker 13: And so for those viewers and listeners who are not too familiar with my work, in several of my books, I offer, if you'd like, the entire framework to explain why we are consistently jumping off the abyss of infinite lunacy. 00:59:07 Speaker 7: So in the. 00:59:08 Speaker 13: Parasitic mind, I argued that the way that you can hijack someone's ability to think critically is by injecting them with these ideological brain parasites. 00:59:21 Speaker 7: But in order for me to fully. 00:59:23 Speaker 13: Hijack your capacity to think, I have to do two things. I have to hijack your cognitive system and your affective system, meaning your emotional system. And that's where suicidal empathy comes in. If I can completely hijack your cognitive and your affective system, I own you. And that's when we end up with up is down, left is right, freedom is slavery. 00:59:45 Speaker 7: And so on. 00:59:46 Speaker 13: So really those two books, forgive me if I'm tooting my own horn, really explain the existential malady that we're currently facing in the West. 00:59:57 Speaker 2: OK, so how so. I have so many questions based on the question is how does a bad actor do this? Right. And I don't mind calling her out by name, but it does seem like Candace Owens has this ability to sort of do this to at least some subset of the population. Right. I mean, maybe it's foreign actors. Maybe it's the CCP. Maybe it's Iranians on social media. Maybe it's Russians. Maybe it's domestic actors, but how does that actually happen and what tools are they using? 01:00:28 Speaker 13: Right, so that's a very good question because the more general fundamental question that you're asking is, are these parasitic ideas coupled with suicidal empathy a top-down process whereby someone willfully sat in a Davos meeting and came up with a way to destroy the West? Or is it something that happened organically bottom-up? 01:00:51 Speaker 2: Yes. 01:00:52 Speaker 13: Now, to your point, It is true that many nefarious actors use our regrettable proclivity to swim in the infinity pool of suicidal empathy to their advantage. 01:01:05 Speaker 7: But maybe this is good news to your audience. 01:01:08 Speaker 13: The origins of this lunacy were not started in an a priori lab of evil. 01:01:15 Speaker 7: And so let me explain how it came about. 01:01:18 Speaker 13: Every single parasitic idea that I discuss in The Parasitic Mind, thank you for putting it up on the screen, that eventually led to suicidal empathy stems from the university ecosystem. Because as I never stop reminding people, it uniquely takes intellectuals. 01:01:36 Speaker 7: To come up with some of the dumbest ideas. 01:01:39 Speaker 13: Now, these ideas were originally spawned on university campuses, not because professors were inherently evil. It's because they were fully decoupled from reality and seeking. 01:01:52 Speaker 7: To create a utopian world. So let me give you a concrete example. 01:01:57 Speaker 13: The parasitic idea of cultural relativism, which basically says, who are you to judge the cultural practices and beliefs of another culture, racist? If they wish to cut off the clitorises of five-year-old girls, shut up, racist. Well, that cultural relativistic idea stemmed from an anthropologist about 100 years ago named Franz Boas. 01:02:17 Speaker 7: Why did he come up with this ridiculous theory? 01:02:20 Speaker 13: Because he thought that if you applied biology. 01:02:23 Speaker 7: in trying to. 01:02:24 Speaker 13: Understand human affairs, it can lead to nefarious consequences. So let's build edifices of both, but that hopefully will allow us to get to a better world. 01:02:37 Speaker 7: Well, now, once the. 01:02:38 Speaker 13: University ecosystem internalizes that parasitic idea called cultural relativism, it then renders me impotent to make any judgment calls about whom I should let in to the United States. That's why I'm open borders becomes a form of suicidal empathy. If I can't judge that people who throw gays off rooftops and who cut off the clitorises of five-year-old girls are less likely to assimilate in the United States, we end up with Dearborn. 01:03:08 Speaker 7: And with Patterson, New Jersey, and with Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis. 01:03:12 Speaker 13: So it didn't start with some nefarious evil guy, but to your point, nefarious evil guys take advantage of our weaknesses today. 01:03:21 Speaker 4: And also, I think it's really powerful the way you describe the layers of abstraction from reality. So it comes from a university campus. You're in this cloistered environment. You're not around the full spectrum of humanity. A common thing is like an Ivy League campus. Everyone's pretty bright. Everyone's pretty law-abiding. You forget what the real spectrum of human behavior is. And then on top of that, you don't have to earn a normal living anymore. You're Often you're being funded by an endowment or you're getting a bunch of money from the state. There's so many layers. And I think about how much more of society is like that today. The number of people who are able to get by on some form of government program as their main income. So many people got hooked on that. During covid so many people who are government employees and the work they do is useless, but the federal government is vast and you can never really get rid of anything. Think of like USAID. Did anything USAID do? Was that good for the country? It almost didn't matter. But a lot of people in D.C. were making one hundred thousand dollars a year off of it. And I just think how many of these societies cancers are because more and more people are in a reality that is not in the brass tacks of owning a business, producing something valuable, having to care about what is real and what is fake. 01:04:39 Speaker 7: Yeah, so two points to build on what you just said. 01:04:43 Speaker 13: If you look at various disciplines within the university ecosystem, there is a difference across disciplines in the extent to which particular disciplines have been infected with the parasitic mind and with suicidal empathy. So, for example, traditionally, I've been housed in a business school. Well, the business school and the engineering school are inherently less likely to be parasitized by this imbecility because they are tethered to reality. In other words, if I try to build a mathematical model to explain consumer choice using lesbian dance theory, I'm going to be out of a job very quickly because it's not going to predict consumer behavior. If I try to build a bridge in the engineering department using lesbian dance theory physics, the bridge is going to collapse. So by virtue of those disciplines being more coupled with reality, there's the autocorrective slap of reality that keeps my bull in check. Well, then those fields are inherently more inoculated against the nonsense. 01:05:47 Speaker 7: But other disciplines. 01:05:49 Speaker 13: in the humanities and the social sciences, are perfectly untethered to reality. And therefore, the professor can get up in his wool jacket, pontificate nonsense, and there is nobody that's slapping him back to reality. If anything, he or she gets promoted to tenure. And so to the second point now, forgive me if I'm speaking too long, I'll cede the floor in a second. Just yesterday, thank you, I posted a clip where I, referred to a recent program by the Canadian government to hire top minds from the United States. So at the cost of $ 504 million of taxpayer funds, they hired 64 professors from American institutions, one of whom is a specialist. He is a trans woman who specializes in trans philosophy. You just have to go and read this person's, you know, quote, research to see in what world would it make sense for the Canadian government to endow such nonsense. 01:06:57 Speaker 7: But regrettably, this is where we are in academia. 01:07:00 Speaker 10: Yeah. 01:07:00 Speaker 2: You know, I remember one of your first interviews with Charlie. You had this quote. You said the pesky shackles of reality. I can say that I can fly. But as soon as I jump off the building, guess what? Gravity is going to pull me down and reality is going to smack you straight in the whatever, whatever part of you hits first. Dr. Sad, you know, we talk about the pesky shackles of reality. It seems like we have a political ideology in this country, in the West, that it feels wrong. not at all beholden to the pesky shackles of reality. It seems like everything they do is basically flouting creation in its face and, uh, and just saying, you know, up yours. It's kind of what it feels like. Um, but what's interesting is that my prediction was that the left was going to go so kooky on so many different things that basically, even if the right was frustrated about the war in Iran, even if the right was frustrated about the handling of Epstein or whatever, it's kind of going, Hey, I can't, pair up with these guys because they're just too kooky. Instead, what we have is this refrain that the left-right paradigm is over. It's dated, right? We all have to, I think most of them are basically saying we all have to unite against Israel together because of the uniparty or something. Horseshoe theory. Is it real? Do you believe in it? Do you think that's what we're seeing? And if you don't, what is your explanation? 01:08:22 Speaker 13: Well, I don't know about this horseshoe theory business. What I can say is that one party is wedded to values. 01:08:31 Speaker 7: That it wishes to conserve, hence conservatism, right? 01:08:35 Speaker 13: And this is why, by the way, in one of my previous books, in the Happiness book, I referred to a lot of research that points to the fact that there is unequivocal findings that point to the fact that conservatives are much happier than progressives slash liberals. And I think I offer a pretty compelling explanation, which kind of speaks to your general question. 01:08:58 Speaker 7: Conservatives wake up in the morning. 01:09:01 Speaker 13: And their general existential stance is that, yes, we may not live in a perfect society, but there are many things that are worth conserving here. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of inquiry. So this is a great society to be in. Thank God that I was born in the United States. The progressive wakes up every day with great existential doom and gloom because he or she lives in an Islamophobic, transphobic, sexist, misogynistic society where there is a genocide on trans people and black men every day by the police. And therefore, I, as a progressive, must effect change. around the corner lies unicornia. And if I could only burn everything down, we could then finally get. 01:09:48 Speaker 7: To the final destination of unicornia. 01:09:50 Speaker 13: And so I think really what animates the two parties is that reflex. Once one says, thank God I'm American. The other one says, God damn that I'm an American. And therefore that's why someone like me to your point, when you first introduced me, you get the Lebanese guy who grew up in Canada, who is now the professor to teach American freedoms, because to be an American is to internalize those foundational principles. There are many Americans that will never be remotely as American as I am. 01:10:28 Speaker 2: I mean, I kind of agree. It's hard for me not to agree. And listen, I'm an immigration moratorium guy, Dr. Seth. 01:10:35 Speaker 10: Sorry. 01:10:35 Speaker 2: Just to be fair. 01:10:36 Speaker 4: Got to digest that. 01:10:37 Speaker 2: But it's a net zero immigration moratorium, which is what I would propose, which means there's an outflow. We would get excellent people like you, the geniuses coming through that love our country, love our values. I have a whole different problem with immigration, though. I don't think we can possibly vet 1.2 million green cards every year. We don't want to. You would need at least one case officer for every 10 years. green cards. That's what I would think, to properly vet them. So anyways, that's a whole other thing. But I do agree that we do have a history of proud immigrants that have come to this country. They helped us win the Revolutionary War. I mean, you could go back and forth. They've got to love our values. They've got to not hate the country. But that dialectic that you're talking about between gratitude and ingratitude, basically hating America or loving America, being grateful for the opportunity of America, or just being sort of belligerently angry at everything that might not be 100% perfect is a critical dialectic. I felt like you were about to chime in here. I just... I don't know if that's a yes or no. 01:11:39 Speaker 4: We're always sensitive, of course, because it's a very common line from people who love maximum immigration that every immigrant is actually more American than the people here. So I know you didn't mean it in the same way they do, Dr. 01:11:51 Speaker 2: Saad, but.... 01:11:53 Speaker 4: There is a psychosis that treats everyone in America as a fungible creature. 01:11:59 Speaker 2: You said this the other day. I thought this was brilliant for Blake. He said that the political left in this country is basically a replacement mechanism. They see anything that's in place now and they want to replace it. They want to replace our courts. They want to replace our Senate. They want to replace the Department of War. They want to abolish ICE. They want to prosecute anybody. 01:12:17 Speaker 4: It explains the sheer array of forces that are in the Democrats that you have fundamentalist Muslims teaming up with radical Marxist socialists teaming up with just general race grievance people and it's all it's a vast coalition of people who basically want to destroy historic America historic America's population historic America's values institutions it's the unification of all people who want to basically set the history book on fire because it offends them that it exists. 01:12:52 Speaker 13: If I can just build on something that you said in the start of your remarks, Blake. Of course, I'm not saying that all immigrants are more American than Americans. 01:13:03 Speaker 7: But let me build on my point. 01:13:05 Speaker 13: It's not a coincidence that many of the most vociferous defenders of American values are immigrants. 01:13:14 Speaker 7: And let me explain why. 01:13:16 Speaker 13: Because we have sampled from the large buffet of society's And therefore, we know that the freedoms that most Americans presume to be the default value in any society is not the default value, right? That's why this thing called American exceptionalism exists. It's a small bleep in human history to have created a society like the one that America has created. Therefore, it takes an Ayaan Hirsi Ali or a Gad Saad she grew up in Somalia and in Saudi Arabia and so on, and Gadsad grew up in Lebanon, to come and say, hey, guys, don't take those freedoms for granted. There's always a monster that's coming to erase your freedoms. And so it's in that sense that I meant that many of the biggest defenders are those who weren't born in. 01:14:05 Speaker 7: The United States. 01:14:07 Speaker 2: Oh, I totally agree with this, by the way. What you're saying is completely true. Having the Alexis de Tocquevilles of the world come in and observe... the country and its exceptionalism, it's true whether you want to admit it or not, even if you're an immigration moratorium advocate like I am, that when you have outside eyes to look at what God has given America and the providential hand of God and the freedoms that we have been bestowed upon us by our founders and our amazing institutions and our history and our heritage, you see it with eyes I simply cannot. Now, that being said, I traveled a lot after college, and I was abroad for years. And all I wanted when I was done, it was like I had this travel bug. I got done, and I was like, I want to come back home. I want to build here. It made me love my country in a profoundly new way. 01:14:58 Speaker 4: All right, Dr. Saad, we're on the far side of the end of the live show. So we talked about suicidal empathy for the past 20 minutes. Now we have to talk about, sadly... homicidal empathy so this this lindsey clancy case we'd be interested just in your what's your psychological read of what is driving what appears to be millions of people women where mostly women but not exclusively so to have that impulse to say this woman who murdered three of her children in a pretty gruesome way strangling them to death one by one that we side with her, we don't want her convicted of murder. They maybe think she should be a free woman. Outright, we're seeing this manifest a lot. What do you think is the psychological driver of this? 01:15:48 Speaker 13: So I'm going to first answer in a broader way, and then we can come back to her case. So in Suicidal Empathy, in one of the chapters, I talk about blank slate felons. And let me explain what I mean by that. Blank slate-ism is the idea in psychology that we are all born tabula rasa, empty minds, with no biological imperatives, with no differences across. 01:16:13 Speaker 7: People in potentiality. 01:16:16 Speaker 13: And it is only some environmental factors, it could be socialization, it could be a bad upbringing, it could be whatever it is, that then leads us down our unique trajectories. So let's apply it now to felons of color. Well, if you are suicidally empathetic and you subscribe to this idea of blank slate felons, then the black guy who has been arrested for only the 197th time, what is the point of you punishing him? He was already born in a white supremacist society, so existentially he's been punished. Don't you think you should be a bit empathetic and give this guy another chance? And by other chance, I only mean 197th other chance. And so that reflex then manifests itself in the case of this woman, right? She couldn't be personally responsible for what she did. There must be some external factor because we are all born tabula rasa with equal beautiful morality, equal likelihood to live in kumbaya. And in her case, Maybe it was her hormones. Maybe it was her postpartum depression. Maybe it was her bad upbringing where her father didn't hug her enough. There is always an external reason for why I committed the debauchery that I did. Once you internalize that message, you remove personal agency from people. 01:17:44 Speaker 7: So you then. 01:17:45 Speaker 13: Don't intervene with the homeless. You don't intervene with repeat recidivist criminals. You don't punish this mother who... you know, snuffed out the life of three beautiful children. So it really comes from the internalization of the blank slate premise. 01:18:02 Speaker 2: So we have this clip here, Dr. Saad, that this is the new part of the story here. 56-year-old Lindsay Clancy jury intimidator, Dawn Light. She's being sworn by the press in this clip, but I got to watch it because it's really remarkable what people are driven to in these moments where they get whooped up in this social media fervor SOT 21. 01:18:24 Speaker 14: The state of Massachusetts is handling it very seriously. She faces up to potentially 20 years in prison because of this. She pleaded not guilty. This is her leaving her arraignment earlier this morning. But, Donna, there's so much national attention on this case. The jurors have not been sequestered. And prosecutors allege she was there filming them all. 01:18:45 Speaker 2: So up to 20 years for jury intimidation. And I got it. You got to laugh at the irony. irony of her situation here, right? So she's filming them, intimidating them allegedly. And then she next day, she's already arraigned and she's getting swarmed by a bunch of people filming her. She's got the mob all on her. So that's kind of ironic. And I think good for them. Good for them for taking it seriously. But the dramatic lengths of I mean, this, you know, I think, who was it? It was Dr. Robert Malone, I think, coined that phrase, mass psychosis, mass, you know, whatever. But this is uniquely targeting, it seems, like females. And I don't think women understand how this whole Lindsay Clancy case is making males, men think about women. There's a lot of anti-female, I mean, I know you're on X, Dr. Saad. There's a lot of anti-women sentiment on X right now. And some of it's coming from women, by the way, to be fair. I just, I got to press you. Why do you think we're seeing the gender divide here? Why is it so pronounced? 01:19:47 Speaker 13: Well, again, so if you remember in very early in Suicidal Empathy in the book, I offered three mechanisms that yield to Suicidal Empathy. Number one, there has to be the hyper activation of empathy, right? It misfires by hyper firing. it has to be triggered in the wrong situation towards. 01:20:11 Speaker 7: The wrong targets, right? 01:20:13 Speaker 13: And so when you are more empathetic towards the one who killed the three children than you are towards the three children who were killed, that is a manifestation of suicidal empathy. And let me link it to another criminal context. I discuss many, many examples in the book where the rape victims exhibit great empathy and sympathy. 01:20:39 Speaker 7: For their rapists. 01:20:41 Speaker 2: These are terrible. 01:20:42 Speaker 13: Let me mention one example, then we can come back to the Clancy story. A woman goes to Haiti, to Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti. She's a white, liberal, enlightened woman, a lot kinder and. 01:20:56 Speaker 7: More empathetic than the three of us here. 01:20:58 Speaker 13: And she wants to dismantle the idea that black men are violent rapists. in any way, because we have absolutely no evidence in the world that a black man has ever committed any violence. And the only reason why black men in the United States commit violence, because it's a response to the white supremacist society that they. 01:21:19 Speaker 7: Have lived in. 01:21:20 Speaker 13: Therefore, if she can go to Haiti, where hopefully they're not prone to the white supremacist Americans, then she could see that all of the black men in Haiti are all lovely. Well, then she gets slapped by this thing called reality, where a Haitian man takes her to the top of a rooftop and then rapes her violently all night. Now, you would think that that might alter her original premise, her operary hypothesis. Well, she then wrote an essay after she returned to the United States where she said, you ready, drum roll? She was thankful for the experience because it made her realize that that guy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, had so much inherent hatred towards white supremacy that he used her body to express that rage. Well, if that woman who's been violently raped can empathize with her rapist, then surely tons of women are going to empathize, if they are suicidally empathetic, with the killer of those three children. It's the same mechanism playing out in slightly different contexts. 01:22:28 Speaker 4: People have speculated on interesting stuff. We discussed, for example, does it matter psychologically that Lindsay Clancy, she looks like she's a little bit attractive, but not too attractive. 01:22:42 Speaker 2: She's like a five or a six. 01:22:43 Speaker 4: Yeah, that if she was very attractive, they would turn on her. If she was ugly, they would turn on her. But I mean, another example that came to mind is I've argued if you took the exact same pattern of medication, the exact same pattern of kind of mental health episodes, and then, but if Lindsay Clancy had been a 19-year-old male who'd done a school shooting, who said, took these pills, had psychosis, I grabbed a rifle, and I shot up a kindergarten, none of us would, for even 10 seconds, consider this argument. It does feel like you need a specific profile of victim, in this case, for this all to get whipped up. 01:23:21 Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely correct. 01:23:24 Speaker 13: Look, I studied in various settings, how hormones affect both men's behaviors and women's behaviors. So for example, I've done research looking at how where a woman is in her menstrual cycle affects a wide slew of her behaviors. The way that she beautifies herself varies depending on where she is in her ovulatory cycle. Not surprisingly, when she is in the maximally fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, this is when she is most likely to beautify herself. The types of foods that women are either attracted to or not varies depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle. So of course our hormones affect our behaviors, right? If a man has a rise in his testosterone, he's more likely to become aggressive and belligerent and a greater risk taker. So no one is contesting the fact that hormones have downstream effects on our behavior. But to then use that as a justification, well, you know, I had postpartum depression or this or that. 01:24:30 Speaker 7: Listen, I'm married. I've had children. 01:24:32 Speaker 13: I've seen the hormonal changes that my wife went through. Well, apparently, thank God she didn't kill our children. So again, I'm not belittling the fact that people can suffer from mental health situations that may render them criminally not responsible. I'm not sure if her case rises to that level. 01:24:50 Speaker 2: So, Dr. Satt, I'm going to ask you a controversial question because I have a controversial take on this. I believe that gender roles are really important. I think my wife would tell you this. The fact that we've been married for over a decade and I have really strong opinions. As Christians, she thinks of me as the head of the household. I don't lord that over her. It's not like that. That's not our vibe or energy. But I will tell you, if my wife came home and she was you know, feeling sympathetic towards Lindsay Clancy, we would have an immediate conversation about that. And I would probably put her in her place and I would explain, I would, I would take it very seriously and tell her why she's wrong. Now, thankfully my wife has her common sense. I I'm, but here's the big long and short of that. I think what we are suffering through is a complete lack and a deprivation in society of strong male leadership, both at the home and in the institutions. We've had Helen Andrews on the show. She talks about the great awokening. Because it's the over-feminization of our institutions, of the workforce, of higher ed. How critically important is it that we get this back to a place of sanity and normalcy? Because men are opting out. 01:26:02 Speaker 4: What can we do? 01:26:02 Speaker 2: And can we? Or are they like the locusts that come through the field and they're just going to consume everything good and beautiful and true because of their feelings in the longhouse? I mean, I love women. I am a respecter of women. They're amazing women. They're strong women. But men need to be leaders. I'm telling you, I'm very convinced that this is the case. And a lot of the ills we're seeing in society is a result of complicity for men, sins of omission, of not being strong leaders and not being in the home. 01:26:28 Speaker 7: Fantastic question. 01:26:29 Speaker 13: So let me now break it down for you from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which is sort of my. 01:26:36 Speaker 7: Bread and butter academic research area. 01:26:39 Speaker 13: We are a sexually dimorphic, sexually reproducing species. 01:26:43 Speaker 7: What does that mean? 01:26:44 Speaker 13: Sexually dimorphic means that human beings are innately different in terms of some of the traits of male and female. There are other species that are not sexually dimorphic. There are some bird species, some, for example, penguin species, where you literally can't tell unless you do a close inspection who is male and who is female. So some species are very dimorphic. where it is the females that are larger, bigger, more testosterone. So for example, the Kaswari bird, the male sits on the eggs. The females build a harem of males. So there is a biological explanation for why sexual dimorphism exists in human beings and why there is a thing called male and female. So having said all that, We can then study human mating preferences across endless societies, societies that couldn't be any more different from each other. And what we repeatedly find is that the types of attributes that men look for in women and vice versa are shockingly similar across all cultures and across all time periods. 01:28:02 Speaker 7: Now, there might be slight variations, but. 01:28:04 Speaker 13: The general patterns of preferred attributes are exactly the same. Men are much more likely to put a greater weight on physical beauty and youth for very obvious evolutionary reasons. Women are much more likely to put much greater weight on any attribute that correlates with your ability to ascend the social hierarchy and maintain your position in that social hierarchy. Now, here's where cross-cultural differences can arise. In some cultures, the number of cattle heads that I have makes me the top dog in that culture. In other cultures, it's whether I have an Ivy League degree and many zeros in my bank account. But in no culture does a woman ever say the following. 01:28:49 Speaker 7: You ready? 01:28:50 Speaker 13: I want a pear-shaped, nasal-voiced guy who sucks his thumb while watching Bridget Jones' Diary And has a really hearty cry if his pants are too tight because he's put on weight. No woman has ever fantasized over that guy. 01:29:07 Speaker 4: I need to pick a different movie to watch tonight. 01:29:10 Speaker 7: Therefore, this is why.... 01:29:14 Speaker 13: These parasitic ideas are so fundamentally existentially destructive to male-female dynamics because we are teaching, for example, women that, no, you should do exactly. 01:29:27 Speaker 7: What a man does. 01:29:27 Speaker 13: If he wants to have unrestrained sex, You have the right to do it too, girl. 01:29:32 Speaker 7: Burn your bras and do it. Now, of course, you've got the right to do it. 01:29:36 Speaker 13: But does that mean that women would be equally pleased with mating with 100 guys 100 days in a row that they pick up randomly at the bar? 01:29:46 Speaker 10: No. 01:29:47 Speaker 13: So promulgating ideas that are contrary to human nature will always fail. And please forgive me if I could take one more minute to give you an example. If you wish to study... the archetype of what women desire, what they fantasize about. 01:30:06 Speaker 7: You know which product you should study? Can you think which one it would be? 01:30:09 Speaker 2: Yes, I know what it is. It's the trashy romance novels that they buy at Walmart. 01:30:14 Speaker 7: Look at you. You're exactly right. 01:30:16 Speaker 4: They're getting way trashier over time too. 01:30:18 Speaker 7: Hold on. 01:30:19 Speaker 2: Did I get it? 01:30:20 Speaker 13: You got it exactly right. You get an A plus at my evolutionary psychology course. And let me explain why. It literally is as though every single romance novel that has ever been created was plagiarized from an original template, which is the male hero is, to my great chagrin because I'm not tall, is a tall guy who is a prince and a neurosurgeon. He's got glistening six-pack abs. He wrestles alligators and snakes. makes them submit to his will, but he can only be tamed by the love of this one good woman. I just described for you every single male protagonist that's ever existed in any novel, romance novel. 01:31:09 Speaker 4: You might be surprised, Dr. 01:31:11 Speaker 2: Saad. 01:31:12 Speaker 4: It's gotten a little more wild lately. You're forgetting, at this point, he's now also a werewolf or a minotaur. 01:31:19 Speaker 2: You're also describing every Hallmark film, which is hilarious, like the Hallmark film where You know, the big city girl. She left her small town and then her mom calls her back and says, you got to come home for Christmas. And she doesn't want to go back because she's the big city girl. And she comes back in this lowly provincial town and meets the guy and sees the guy that she grew up with. It was really a dork. But like now he's grown up. And oh, by the way, he's he's a lumberjack. And and then, you know, he's wild and she does tame him. And then at the end, she finds out, lo and behold, he's a multimillionaire with an international scented candle business, and they live happily ever after, and the rock's huge. But you're totally right. There is the archetype. It does exist. But back to my original point, Dr. 01:32:07 Speaker 10: Saad. 01:32:09 Speaker 2: Men need to be stronger and exert more influence in this culture. I am completely convinced. We hear all about the patriarchy. We hear about toxic masculinity. We hear about, you know, women are this protected class and every DEI initiative supports them. By the way, we make a big deal about like, you know, different races or ethnicities or sexual preference. It fights for women too. But we are at a point where it's like 62% of UCLA's undergrad or something like that is female. We have way overshot the mark and now they're earning more money than men and all this stuff. Women want to marry a man that, makes more than him or her. So, so there's, so everything's out. Like, how do we get back to a point where our institutions, male leadership in the home, male leadership, it's important. I'm not saying you can't have only male leadership. It's a yin and yang. It's a balance. It's a homeostasis, but we're out of whack. 01:33:02 Speaker 10: Yeah. 01:33:02 Speaker 13: Well, we, we, we certainly have to eradicate those idea pathogens that allow people to internalize these beliefs that are so contrary to human nature, right? 01:33:11 Speaker 7: I mean, This is why I do all of the public engagement that I do, right? 01:33:15 Speaker 13: I don't just critique Islam. I critique radical feminism. I critique post-modernism. I critique trans activism that is completely decoupled from reality. 01:33:26 Speaker 7: Men too can menstruate. Men too can bear children. 01:33:29 Speaker 13: And so that's why all these parasitic ideas are so dreadful. they literally erase, eviscerate all of the most fundamental fabric of our human nature. Look, I receive a million emails from women, and let me just kind of paraphrase and summarize them. Hey, Professor Saad, I know that you're, you know, a big evolutionary psychology guy and you understand male-female dynamic. How come I go to a to a bar to meet a lovely guy and not a single guy approaches me and I'm a beautiful woman, I'm ready to mix and mingle and none of the guys, are there no real men left around? Well, if you tell a man that if he comes up to you and compliments you, that is a form of verbal rape, then don't be surprised that the man is going to be reticent to approach you, right? If it becomes a type of sexual harassment, If I tell a colleague, my God, you look radiant in that lovely dress. If I no longer have the reflex to share such a beautiful compliment, then it's not surprising that men and women are going to have a hard time meeting one another. So radical feminism really did a number on women because it taught them to internalize all of the beliefs that would lead to their unhappiness downstream. 01:34:46 Speaker 14: Exactly. 01:34:47 Speaker 2: And Dr. Saad, if you just spent some time with our students and you put social media in the mix of that, a young guy goes up to a girl, gets rejected, and then she humiliates him on social media, it's like that on steroids. It's terrible out there for these kids. I feel my heart goes out to them in such a huge way because this generation's up against stuff that we haven't seen before. And we're experimenting with their brains and with their fertility and with their relationships with social media. 01:35:16 Speaker 10: Dr. 01:35:16 Speaker 2: Gad said we could go on forever. I know we could, but you've already been so generous with your time. You are the author of Suicidal Empathy, the smash bestseller, 10 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Congratulations, Dr. Gad said. And, of course, Parasitic Mind, which you did a great job of pairing those together, part one, part two almost, so buy both of them. We appreciate your contribution, your courage. I was going to ask you about Israel, but you know what? Let's just save that for another time. 01:35:44 Speaker 7: Next time. 01:35:45 Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. God bless you, sir, and we'll talk to you next time. 01:35:48 Speaker 7: Thank you, guys. It was a delight. Cheers. 01:35:54 Speaker 4: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.