School of War - The Attempt on Trump’s Life and Political Violence in America, with Douglas Murray

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

Douglas Murray, journalist and author of On Democracies and Death Cults, joins School of War to discuss the assassination attempt that we both witnessed in person at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. Was there a lapse in appropriate security? Is political violence being normalized? Can it be contained? Times: 02:44 - White House Correspondents Dinner 04:38 - Shots fired 06:51 - Security at the dinner 09:58 - Bobby Kennedy and Erika Kirk 16:25 - Secret Service valor 17:25 - Israeli security style 19:42 - Trump’s ballroom 21:35 - The shooter’s manifesto 27:26 - Past American political violence 29:13 - Assassinations can change history 31:09 - Hitler comparison 34:47 - Civic hygiene 36:49 - Justifying violence on NYT podcast 40:22 - Echoes of the Russian Revolution 47:05 - Failure of the education system 54:23 - The melding of the president and media   Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find more at The Free Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. I happened to have a front row seat, literally, to the chaos that broke out at the White House Correspondence Dinner on Saturday night when a young man attempted to kill the president or members of his administration, only to be stopped in a flurry of gunfire at the threshold of the ballroom where we were all just beginning our meals. Also at the dinner was journalist, author, and war correspondent Douglas Murray. And after things calmed down a bit, Douglas and I got to chatting about what we had just participated, in and what the normalization of political violence means for America.

He joins me today on School of War to have the conversation we were having in the ballroom in public, and it is a fascinating one, beginning with an account of the evening itself, some thoughts on security. I am extremely critical of the security arrangements that evening for what it's worth. And then, most interestingly of all, a discussion of just what is driving this now steady drumbeat of assassinations, assassination attempts, and generalized conspiratorial. and nigh holistic fervor in America. Let's get into it.

If you read the headlines about Israel, you're only getting a tiny slice of a long, complicated story without depth, context, or sometimes even the basic facts. I'm Norm Weissman, the host of unpacking Israeli. history, the podcast that dives into the fascinating and sometimes controversial events and figures that have shaped Israel's past and present each week on unpacking Israeli history. I explore the layers of Israeli history, debates around the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, the cultural forces at play, drawing from a variety of sources and perspectives. So if you're looking for a nuance, thought-provoking take on Israel, one that avoids the oversimplifficing

simplifications and political spin, I think you'll really appreciate the show. Find unpackings or the history wherever you listen to your podcast or on YouTube. The world is changing fast. Conflict and instability are spreading across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. If you listen to School of War, you know we try to cut through the noise with sober, honest analysis that helps make sense of it all. On May 19th, we're taking that conversation live. Join me and historian Neil Ferguson for a special.

live recording of School of War at the iconic New York historical. We'll be talking about the war with Iran, great power competition, China, military deterrence, and where all of this is heading. To learn more and get your tickets, visit thefp.com slash events. Hi, I'm Aaron McLean. Thanks for joining School of War. I am delighted to welcome back to the show Douglas Murray. He is a journalist and author most recently of On Democracies and Death Cults, a book he joined us here on School of War to discuss not that long ago, back when this show was me

plugging my laptop into a microphone in my basement. We've moved up a little bit. Douglas, thank you so much for coming back. It's a great pleasure to be back with you. It is. It's always good to see you. I regret a bit the circumstances that have led to this episode, which was after the chaos, or perhaps in the middle of the chaos, but after the shooting at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night. You and I spotted each other across the room and got to chatting. And it made sense here on the Monday after the fact to do a bit of a debrief about what you saw. Douglas, what was your Saturday night like? How to go? Well, it started like

all of us by being harangued by protesters outside the venue as I was walking up to the hotel where the White House correspondence dinner always takes place. There were people, one woman in a Kofia is screaming at me, how could you possibly have dinner with a child rapist and genocideist and that sort of thing? I never particularly like being heckled by strangers, but that was the sort of the tenor of it when everyone was going in and queuing. The event itself was the normal run of things, the White House correspondence dinner, pre-parties and pre-drinks things, and then everyone filing into the hall.

And I was with my colleagues in the New York Post at one of their tables. And I had Mike Waltz and Scott Bessent and others. And it was all going on as normal. The president came in. It was great excitement because, of course, it was the first time that President Trump had come to the White House correspondence in the last week, notably not just he, but none of the administration came. So it was a big thing, and everyone was looking forward to it.

I think they were looking forward, among other things, to Donald Trump roasting the media, which was what we were all expecting. And then something happened. I was close to the front where the president was, as you were. And so I didn't hear the shots. I just thought that it was, as the president's thought as well, I thought somebody had dropped a tray and something like that. But then it became clear that something bad was happening.

that really became clear when the Secret Service rushed down the center of the area. And because I had cabinet members near me, they were all covered by Secret Service pretty fast. It was very impressive. But, yes, we all sheltered down. And I saw from the video, I had my head up a bit too high because I was just trying to see what was going on. But yes, then it became clear it was very serious. And as a secret service were clambering over the tables, I suppose most of us had in mind the thought that there was probably another shooter in the room.

And that's why, by the way, I've seen a certain amount of weird, or a lot of weird criticism online of people in the hall, but I know somebody started chanting USA, USA at one point, and nobody picked up the chant. And some people online have been trying to pretend that's because journalists aren't patriotic or something like that. And of course, it was simply that we were all. trying to remain quiet so that the Secret Service could do their job and ensure that there

wasn't another shooter in the room. So it was a, you know, it was the same experience most of us had. I had colleagues certainly who were by the doors and heard the gunshots and are rather more alarmed by that than those of us who were further away. But yes, I mean, it was a horrifying thing to happen, as you know, in general, if you're in a sort of dangerous area in a conflict or the like, you sort of prepare yourself in advance for alarming and bad things to happen. But it's always worse when you're in a situation where you're not expecting that and, you know, whilst tucking into the first course and making small talk, you know, none of us expected the evening would go the way it did.

I'm curious your thoughts on security and just how safe you and your table of mates felt. I confess, I was a bit skeptical of security even as I sat down. I was surprised that nobody checked my ID. I was surprised that the checkpoint such as it was basically at the door to the ballroom, which means you could go, as indeed the shooter did, anywhere in the hotel you wanted armed to the teeth. That's slightly exaggerating the case, but not really. I mean, there was a fair amount of freedom to move around the rest of the building before you got to the ballroom. itself. And these thoughts were occurring to me, even as I sat down, I was then struck by not so

much the chaos, because chaos is to be expected in moments like that. And as a war correspondent, you know that. I actually spent the incident itself, there was a photograph of me that got some circulation that got me accused of apparently feeling a great deal of en wee, was the word applied to me on the internet because of my apparently bored expression, which is just my serious face. But what I was really feeling was a mild, at myself for not being able to figure out what was going on because it was just extremely confusing where I was sitting, the music was very loud, so I didn't hear any gunshots, and I just couldn't quite piece it together, nor could anyone in my corner of the room at first.

But then I was shocked by, for example, how long the president was on the stage after the incident began. I was shocked by the fact that Pete Hexath, who was sitting at my table, it was a solid two minutes or so before his guys came to get him. What was your impression of the security of the event? I mean, you know, in a way I'm reluctant to criticize after the fact, as you know, I mean, in a way, you know, everyone does the best they can in the circumstances they find themselves in. I mean, certainly it was strange that, you know, IDs and things weren't checked and that there weren't metal detectors until we got actually to the ballroom. and certainly at the pre-parties in the hotel. You know, there were cabinet members and other very senior administration figures,

you know, going in and out of some of those parties. They themselves have checklists, but, I mean, not metal detectors or anything. So there's quite a lot that I suspect, you know, after all of these such events, what happens is, you know, we all learn to live with a worse, tighter state of circumstances.

security, you know, I mean, obviously since Butler and Charlie Kirk's murder, nobody's doing outside events, now inside events, I imagine, will be even more tightly controlled than before, particularly if the president or people in the administration are present. I mean, it is alarming in retrospect, you know, just how many people in the chain of command were in such a small area. And quite a lot of people have pointed out that, you know, if this had been a more organized cell, say, you know, an Iranian cell or something, they could have done an unbelievable, unimaginable amount of damage and terror. Yes, I mean, I was watching quite closely the members of the cabinet and was actually, I was focused not just the ones on my table, but I was

actually looking across at Bobby Kennedy because he, he, was just across the aisle from me and he was pinned, you know, down by his security people. But I have to say, I think there were, I think my immediate thoughts went to two people in the room in particular. One was him and seeing him being bundled out through the back, given his family history. I just sort of thought this just seemed additionally awful. And the other person who I immediately thought about was Erica Kirk, who was at the dinner. And I just think that, For people who have experienced political violence and it's come that close to home for them, I just think that something like Saturday night must be so much worse than for anyone else present.

Yeah, on the security question, my thought keeps going to exactly what you just outlined, which is instead of one mentally unstable, tactically sort of nitwitted person, this had been a team, a small team of sophisticated people. It could be, you know, a foreign-backed group like an Iranian-backed group. It could be an al-Qaeda style or ISIS-style group equipped with suicide vests. So imagine if instead of this one guy, you know, his name was Cole Allen, bursting out of the door and just doing a sprint, which was destined to be foiled one way or the other, though we could nitpick, nitpick the foiling itself.

What if it had been three or four people who came out shooting and knew how to shoot, who came out prepared to die. You know, these are like, in a way, very dark thoughts, but as a security, I mean, I'm a Marine, as a security professional, these are the thoughts you're supposed to have. You're supposed to have these nightmare thoughts. And I worry that the system that we witness would not have withstood that kind of assault. I think that's, I think there's a lot to that, yes. The, you know, as I say, it's all hindsight and I hate that.

But, well, in your case, it was foresight as well. I mean, my assumption at the time was that they were looking for a second wave or a second attacker. And that was what I was expecting, I have to say. And if that had been the case, then yes, it would have been a very different story. I mean, you know, people have pointed out that the president took a little while to get him off the stage. he had been pushed down or gone down behind the podium fast and a lot of self-appointed experts have been trying to work out why or think that's something strange about the fact that the vice president was pulled out by security first

but that was simply because the president was already behind the stage and not in the eye line of any shooter. You know, I've noticed, by the way, after these events, it's something worth noting that the president himself, doesn't like criticizing publicly any of the efforts of the secret service and others. I noticed that with him after Butler and after the golf course attempted shooting. And I think that's, you know, he has a genuine gratitude towards them for their, for having, you know, kept him safe in the face of bewildering odds.

it has to be said by this point. And that sort of lack, his desire not to ever criticize him is something I sort of, I understand and somewhat share. You know, it was an unbelievably chaotic situation on Saturday night. And as you know, I mean, just in hindsight when everyone knows it's only one shooter,

that's very different from when you're there and you're expecting other things to happen. But once the cabinet was got out, I mean, I was slightly surprised that they were, a lot of them were going out the same route. And I heard Pete Hegseth saying as he went down the middle that I think, I think he was surprised that he would be taken out that way because it was. I was surprised too. Rather direct, not just from the line of where a shooter had been trying to aim, but, you know, right down the middle of the hall, very visible. but it's difficult, of course, because, as you know, better than me, I mean, in some ways, of course,

because everybody knows in the moment that everything they're going to do is going to be poured over. And, you know, if Hegseth had, you know, crawled out on his hands and knees, then we would have endless days of mocking of him for that. if he marches down the end of the room with his wife, there'll be people criticizing him for that. You know, the president stumbled as he went out. People are criticizing him for that.

I mean, it's a really, I mean, I notice that people are criticizing Robert F. Kennedy for a moment, not noticing that his wife, you know, was right behind him. But that's just because he was being almost carried a long

by the Secret Service. Just, you know, things happen in these chaotic moments, which everyone can pour over afterwards. But at the time, you can only do your best. And, you know, my view, you know, everyone involved did their best, including, I have to say, the people at the dinner who, you know, it's quite hard to get a room full of journalists to be silent. But, or indeed to follow any instructions.

But everybody did. and everybody, you know, made sure that they followed the orders that were being shouted by Secret Service and others. And I think, you know, as a result, the picture of what wasn't going to happen became clear quite fast. And as you know, we all sort of got up and went around our business of checking on colleagues and all that sort of thing. I think some people were hurt by, you know, flying chairs and things like that, but, you know, thankfully, nothing more than that. This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you.

It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming. Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment. Old Navy's drapeed denim wide leg. Yeah, and I want to be clear, none of my criticism should be interpreted as in any way criticizing the individual valor of any of the officers or secret service agents involved. I mean, I saw one agent in particular put his body directly between the president and the rest of the room, very dramatically, not knowing, and there's no way he could have known what was out there, what was about to happen. Obviously, out in the hall, you know, officers who were exposed to to fire took the, took the shooter down.

There's a tremendous amount of personal valor. And I totally agree with you, Douglas. I've noticed the same thing, at least from his public remarks that the president, you know, he has a kind of emotional attachment to these guys who are defending his life. And in a way, I think that reflects well on him. I just hope we can leave the issue here, but I hope that there's somewhere there's a cool, dispassionate, analytic eye being trained on what happened without emotion to just ask the question of, well, what if it had been a more serious attack and we had this system in place?

I think one of my first reactions I think I said to somebody on Saturday night was that everything is going to have to be sort of more Israeli, by which I meant just that the kind of protection that surrounds Israeli senior figures, particularly the Prime Minister, will be the sort of thing that will happen more in America. and that's, you know, I mean, in a way, again, it's strange that there hasn't been tied to security in this case. But, you know, all acts of terrorism, as you know, always have a consequence in subsequently infringing on, you know, the freedom of people to live in any way a normal life. And that obviously includes the, the, most senior figures, but everybody else as well. You know, we got used for years to taking out our liquids at airports because of one plot in 2006 to bring down planes with explosives mixed on board. We got used after the shoe bomber Richard Reed, trying to put the bombs in his shoes

and bring down an aircraft. We got used to our shoes having to come off at airports. All of these things, you know, we're now used to the fact that, you know, that almost certainly won't be outdoor events for people like Trump ever again. And we'll just get used to extra rings of security and, you know, just have to put up with it. Yeah, I worry a bit. You know, there's some discussion of, you know, could the, could the shooter have been identified earlier? Which I think in his case would have been problematic because, you know, apparently no criminal record. The truth is there probably is the technology these days to sift through. large data sets and use AI to sniff out people who are having problem, expressing problematic

thoughts here and there that could theoretically lead to an active violence like this. I'm not sure I want to live in an America where we're employing such technology too aggressively. You know, there's a fine line there. So, you know, there's both the question of how you identify people like this before they strike and then the question of how to stop them once they strike and concerning repercussions either way. Yes, that's right. I mean, in this case, I think it's going to be quite straightforward is that, you know, I mean, nobody should be staying in a hotel where such a gathering of senior officials is happening. And, you know, as many people have said, the case for the Trump ballroom just got fast-tracked.

And actually, by the way, I mean, I'd said this before Saturday night. But, I mean, the case for that has been overwhelming for some time, you know, inaugurates. and events like that are enormously disruptive around the city, especially when, you know, like last time they have to be indoors. And there probably should be a very secure place where a large gathering can take place, which is prepared for just this sort of thing. So I've been really eager to ask you about the shooter himself who sent his family, this manifesto, you know, identifying the fact that he was unleashed.

willing to have, I think it was something like his hands bloodied with the pedophilia and rape and everything else that he attributed, I suppose, to the administration generally, but by implication to the president, sort of nutty stuff, but also politically charged stuff. I mean, there's sort of an edge of Epsteinism there. And Douglas, I mean, you're one of the best chroniclers of the madnesses, the maddises of crowds in the present day. What is this shooter, you know, we have Mangione in New York, earlier going after the insurance executive of murdering him.

We do seem to be, I would say, obviously, other examples of Trump's life. There's the Charlie Kirk assassination. We do seem to be living in an era where political violence is becoming distressingly normalized. What does this shooter tell you about America today and how does he fit or not fit for that matter into other patterns that you see? Well, you know, I was just talking earlier today with a journalistic colleague about this, because the issue of the manifesto is interesting for a number of reasons. One is, you're completely right.

I mean, it struck me immediately on reading it, what he wrote as his alleged justifications for his actions were exactly what people were screaming at us outside the venue as we were curing to get in. These sort of outlandish claims that have been normalized, you know, the presidents are child rapists and things like this. I mean, it's just so obscene and seems to be, I don't know, not mainstreamed,

but mainstreamed on the fringes, if you like. And, you know, there's a way to have healthy discourse and there's a way to have very unhealthy discourse. I mean, the moment that, you know, people are screaming baby killers and child rapists journalists for, you know, going into a dinner with the president who's neither of those things. I think we do, we have sort of got used to a sort of just very ugly discourse, but then, you know, free speech is often ugly and to curtail it is uglier than allowing it. But yes, the manifesto was completely in line with the declaration, whatever you want to call it, was in line with what, you know,

certain fringes on the right and left in American, certainly online life, playing around with. But the reason I mentioned that it's interesting is that I was very struck by the fact that that within 24 hours of the shooting, the president was being read parts of this madman's, I'm not to say madman, perfectly possible he's just sane and wicked. But the president was being read this sort of manifesto. I'm very torn about this because I think that there's a significant chance of copycat imitation attempts. The fact that the shooter was detained alive, may well, like with Mangione, make him some kind of hero to very sick people.

It may also be the case that people think, oh, okay, I can take a shot at the president and I won't necessarily have my head blown off myself. And some sick people will also be thinking that. But what struck me is, you know, there was, and you can correct me on this, but I seem to remember that when there was a particular spate of school shootings here in the US, there was some media hygiene about, there was a period I think where we were trying not to name the shooters because people were realizing that there was a very significant sort of mimetic copycat element to it. And there was certainly some kind of, you know, desire to attain notoriety.

and the media has had that struggle on a number of things. But I seem to remember with a particular spate of the school shootings that the so-called manifestos or suicide notes and things were actually, we were very careful about not giving them the publicity once we realized that we as the media were being used by these people in part. There was a similar issue in the 2010s when the media realized that ISIS, ISIL, were manipulating the media, were eking out statements,

grotesque execution videos and much more. I'm uneasy about, I think on the one hand, of course, you know, the public and the media, we want to know what somebody like this sick individual from Saturday was thinking. I mean, what always happens, sadly, after any terrorist event, any assassination attempt is, all political sides line up to try to blame their opponents and there's this sort of weird hiatus before people then can claim, you know, the shooter is the responsibility of their political opponents

or vice versa. So on the one hand, yes, we want to know and we need to know. On the other, I'm very uneasy about the fact that what this young man wrote as his purported justifications, his disgusting actions is sort of out there and is actually being put to the president within 24 hours. That gives this shooter and potential future shooters an enormous boost in a way that they've got a kind of direct line to the president and to the nation as a whole by acting in such a way. There are a lot of people who are very disturbed in this country as in any other. And there are a lot of people who feel that their voice isn't heard. And I'm very concerned about this.

And I'm not quite sure what I think our answer should be in the media to this. But yeah, I find this a very worrying precedent, as I'm sure you do. I want to pick up on something we were actually saying to one another in the room where we were talking after the peak of the incident had passed, but everyone was still in the room waiting to be told, you know, we thought maybe the president would come back. There was some confusion about whatever was going to happen next. And you said something to the effect of, you know, I had always wondered what it was like to live in the 60s and 70s, in the era of political violence that boiled then, you know, based on your, your, your, study of history and this terrible run of American history, which, I mean, of course, it's the assassination of JFK of 1963 that people sort of think of as the initiation of this period, but it's really the late 60s with MLK and 68, the riots, 1969 sees the formation of the weather underground, recently glamorized in this movie, one, one battle after another in a way. So it extends well into the 70s, you know, there's this attempts on Gerald Ford's life.

I mean, there's a lot of stuff, a lot of, a lot of domestic. Tatech, essentially. And I'm just curious if you see parallels between that period and the kind of ferment today. We have populist right political violence as well. It's not purely a left-wing concern, but it is a concerning ferment no matter what slice you take at it. Yes, I mean, it was on my mind, I think I was saying on Saturday night, because I've always thought that that, that, particularly that trio of assassinations, in the, 60s of JFK, MLK, RFCK, it must have felt at the time and friends who were around at the time confirmed this as if just, you know, this was going to be endless. And, you know, one of the great

problems about assassinations is that they really do have the opportunity to change the course of history. You know, when Gaville Princechip decided to kill the art. Duke in 1914, he probably didn't foresee that his action would lead to the loss of millions of lives of young men across Europe for the next four years. But, you know, it does change the course of history. History would have been very different if JFK had remained president. Policy at home in the Far East and elsewhere would have been different. Martin Luther King's assassination dramatically changed the course of history, as did Bobby Kennedy's assassination. That was on my mind.

I was thinking when I was looking across at Bobby Kennedy Jr. on Saturday night, I suddenly remembered, you know, a friend of mine who is a very distinguished historian and author who happens to be a nephew of LBJ. I remember once telling me that as a boy, he was in the White House and went down to his uncle's study or to the Oval Office and found him, found the president in tears at the oval desk because he had to call the mother of Bobby Kennedy a second time. One of her sons had been killed and my friend told me that LBJ was just sitting at the desk saying, what am I going to tell Rose? What am I going to say to Rose? And it's those moments that, you know,

it's also worth reminding the personal cost of such actions. My own view is that although, you know, we'll never be safe from, you know, lone madman or evil people, whatever you want to call them, there is something in recent years which I think we can all identify, which it's not new, but it seems to have reached a particular pitch, which is that, you know, anyone who, who you disagree with is Hitler. And when you think, I mean, years ago...

Unless you're Tucker Carlson, in which case the analogy wouldn't work. Yes. Well, he's a special case, as we know. You know, the... this thing, I remember years ago saying to a friend before Butler that I was surprised that there hadn't been more assassination attempts on President Trump. I remember in 2016 in an episode that most people forgot, but at the Trump rally in 2016 ahead of the election, a young British man who was about 19 or 20, leapt to try to seize a revolver from a Secret Service agent's holder

and was trying to aim and shoot at then-candidate Donald Trump. And I remember back then, you know, 10 years ago now, saying to colleagues, you know, that young man, wicked as he was and evil in action as he wanted to do, in some ways, was acting in a rational way because he had been told by a lot of the media that Donald Trump was Hitler and that if Donald Trump became president, we would literally have, you know, the sort of Fourth Reich. And that was patently absurd and, and, and defamatory and much more back then, but it'd become normal. And of course, you know, every school child knows the sort of what if thing of history of, you know, what would you do if you could go

back in time and kill Hitler? Of course, everyone thinks that they would, but the history doesn't work in that direction. But, but, you know, if you know that's, as it were, one of the moral lessons, which is, you know, Hitler is, of course, the embodiment of evil, as somebody said the other day, you know, we may not believe in God anymore in our societies, but we believe in Hitler as the devil. And that's, you know, it's an interesting and strange sort of theology that we've ended up in. But once you accept, and of course, you know, that Hitler is the most evil person in history, he's also one of the few people in history that everybody has heard about these days. And therefore, anyone you disagree with is Hitler.

But particularly Donald Trump is Hitler, then that sort of fantasy of going back in time and killing Hitler becomes something you can do in the here and now. And I mean, this has alarmed me for years in America, you know, that we can't just have disagreement but have to demonize to such an extent. And I'd not, you know, in a way, as my friend and colleague at the spectator Lionel Shriver,

as pointed out before, the thing that makes, you know, gunmen, terrorists different from other people really is the simple thing that they pick up a gun and use it. A lot of other people have the same beliefs as those people, but thank goodness they just don't act on them in that way. But I just find that this, you know, as I say, this thing that was literally people standing outside, the dinner the other night, I think even after the attempted assassination, still, you know,

screaming at the police and, you know, there were people with signs saying, I think, that everyone should be killed and this sort of thing. I mean, it's protected by the First Amendment, but it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be normalized. And there should it seems to me be some kind of just civic health, really. civic hygiene, that, you know, people who stand on street corners and scream that the president's a child-raping mass murderer, you know, shouldn't really be just sort of laughed off as part of the human parade. This is, it has become very normal. I mean, the no king's protest. I say this on a day. when the King of England is coming to D.C., I'm quite in favour of constitutional monarchies myself.

But the accusation that, you know, I mean, what is this no king's nonsense? The crazy claims. I mean, in a way, again, it's hard, Aaron, isn't it? Because we've had so much of it before. I mean, you and I are old enough to remember the way in which George W. Bush was demonized. I thought nobody could be demonized more at the time. And I remember then people saying in various magazines and journals that George W. Bush wasn't going to

leave office in 2008 and he was going to stay on for a third term. And all this, every, all of these things were being said back then about him. But it just feels like it's much, much worse with Trump. And, you know, I don't know. I mean, whenever people say dialed down, the rhetoric. What they really mean is that their political opponents should dial down the rhetoric, but nobody thinks they should themselves. And, you know, as it happens, my latest column in the New York Post was about the way in which a particular New York Times podcast from last week. And again, I'm not drawing a direct line from that podcast to the shooting on Saturday, But the column I wrote last Friday was about the fact that, you know, the New York Times podcast was basically asking, you know, was the murder of Brian Thompson, the 50-year-old father of two by Luigi Mangione, was it justified or not?

And the guests seemed to think that they accused the health care executive of, I think they called it social murder. and yet they wouldn't condemn the actual murder. And this is complete moral inversion, of course, where people who are not guilty of murder are accused of murder, and people who are guilty of murder are not accused of murder. I think I've got that the right way around. It's a completely upside-down situation, and I've long worried about the particularly Manjone case

because of the valorization and the glamorization, of what was simply a disgusting cold-blooded shooting on 6th Avenue in Manhattan of a man who was meant to go home to his family that night and then never did. There are things like that. As I say, it's not a clear line, and I'm not trying to shut anyone up

or say that people don't have the right to say whatever they like. But there is something that we have, And we've had a set of things like that. I'm, you know, again, sorry to, I'm waffling on slightly, but I mean, I just, you know, I have to say as well, you know, the assassination of Charlie Kirk was, was another such time. Far too many people, you know, have valorized the shooter or actually deflected from the actions of the shooter and come up with crazy and wicked. conspiracy theories about Charlie's murder, which are, for instance, perfectly likely, actually, to prejudice the trial. I mean, the two cases I just mentioned, the Thompson's murder in New York and Charlie Kirk's murder, the people who are accused of perpetrating those crimes are coming up for

trial. And there has been so much wicked, disinformation, misinformation, misinformation, lies, falsehoods, conspiracy theories, in both of those cases, that it's perfectly possible that there could be a mistrial or a verdict which is affected by one juror having absorbed the craziest nonsense which has been put out about these things. So we are definitely at a very dangerous moment. The New York Times podcast that you cite

and the sort of fatuous embrace of violence by people who, I don't take it to have been engaged in much personal violence themselves. And the nihilism, really, of what they're suggesting in the moral inversion of murderers, literal murderers and people who they claim that because of the systems they are part of are de facto murderers. It puts me in mind, actually, I went to the 60s earlier, but that citation that you just made puts me more in mind of Russian revolutionary fervor. I remember you're probably familiar with the work of Gary Saul Morse, This scholar of Russian literature who contributes to new criteria and other publications.

I remember going into a think tank event with him maybe a decade ago now. It had to be a little bit longer than that. It had to have been before 2015 because it would have been less crazy to say it in 2015. So early in the last decade. I mean, they're talking about, you know, his work on Anna Karenina and different stuff. And they just sort of starts to say about events on campus that actually things on campus remind him of what he studies. in the Russian literature of the turn of the 20th century. That is the same currency.

I remember this to say it was 2011, something like that. And I remember thinking and reacting sort of negatively, that's a bit strong. That's a bit strong. I don't know if we're quite at the Russian revolutionary moment. But, you know, he certainly would have a stronger case to make now. And I think he was, in retrospect, undeniably correct about the sort of philosophical overlap,

the nihilism, the fetishization of violence. violence, this is a kind of socialism, but a socialism that bleeds into just revolution, almost contentless revolutionary ferment. It was just some sort of vague idea of justice hanging over it. I don't know if you think that's a fair comparison. I do. I mean, there are, of course, different types of revolutionaries. Some are revolutionaries who know what they want to do, have like the Bolshewiks, a very clear.

albeit disastrous plan for how to reorganize society. Other people, to quote a famous line, just want to see the world burn. And there are also people who are simply desperate for a cause and for meaning. There's a long history of literature as well as actions in Russia, in particular along those lines.

I mean, I often think these days of one of Tegenev's masterpiece is Rudin, one of his perhaps less well-readed works in the West these days. But Ruden is about a young man who he wants to die on a

barricade. I mean, this is set around the actions of the revolutions of 1848. But Rudin is about a young man who wants to die on a barricade and it matters less what the barricade is than that

it is a barricade. And that's something I've thought about a lot in the last few years, in particular and written a bit about in some of my books, because the way in which there are a large number of people, desperate, particularly young people, desperate to fix themselves to a cause, is part of what I and others have called the meaning crisis that's going on in the West at the moment. But in the midst of the meaning crisis. Fixing yourself to a cause and one that you're willing to be on the barricades for is, I don't know if I want to say it's a growing phenomenon, but it's an existing

phenomenon for sure. I made the comment quite often after the atrocities of October the 7th, I was struck by the fact that the generation who had gone up to university that month or the month before had been gearing up for climate emergency, climate crisis protests. And instead, thanks to the actions of Hamas, affixed themselves to the Hamas side in the Israel-Hamas war, the Israel-Iranian revolutionary government, war. And this, there's a lot to be said about this, but as I say, for the time being, the notable thing to me is these are essentially people wanting to affix themselves to any cause to have the thrill of meaning of revolutionaryism. And unfortunately, I mean, certainly 1917

teaches us that should teach us that whatever it is you hope for in that revolutionary, moment. You can never control it. This is these forces, the forces that permit murder, that excuse murder, that make the most wild accusations against the status quo, whilst never appreciating anything good about the status quo, are the forces that create whirlwinds. And I, you know, I'm simply of the belief that most of the people playing around with this, dark whirlwind creation are people who would not like the results of it. I mentioned in that column last week that, you know, if these people, the New York Times really do excuse looting and theft from shops, for instance, and if they really do excuse murder,

they better watch out because history shows that these things aren't one-directional. I joked in that column that readers should, if they want, go and help themselves to any of the stuff that those New York Times podcasters own, because clearly it's just okay to take the old five-finger discount if you feel like it. But other people, equally wicked people, may think that the violence should go against them and in their direction. I wouldn't want that because, like you, having seen the consequences of violence, I hate it with all my heart and want it to be as little existing in our world in our orbit as possible. But people who've never seen it and don't understand the consequences, and don't know what an exit wound looks like,

and don't know the unmentable damage that murder and political violence does to everyone around the person who suffers it. The people who don't know that are willing on something, which, I mean, is, I simply can't use any word other than the term evil. It's evil. I have a proposed villain that may surprise you for some of the problems that you cite. I think in particular of your reference to Ternative and the need of some young people to just be on a barricade, perhaps even fan. fantasize about dying on a barricade. And I would like Douglas to blame teachers collectively, our education system for failing to provide a kind of sufficient moral guidance to what is actually sort of a natural desire of young people. And I'll say young men in particular, I may get into

some trouble for that. But in fact, most of these shooters are our men. The vast majority of the violence are talking about perpetrated by men, what I would argue is much more wholesome forms of this human urge, you know, young people joining the military and seeking out dangerous combat arms roles within the military. That's predominantly a male desire, I believe, but predominantly a male desire by the numbers as well. So it's young men need generally and for the most part something to feel heroic about and something that is risky and dangerous and involves accruing credit for the risk. And absent any conception of the good or anything wholesome to shape and guide that. It's hardly surprising that that raw human

need gets translated into deeply nihilistic, deeply destructive or perverse far left, far right, or just for that matter, plain, loony conspiratorial ends. You know, and we could go, this is a longer conversation that we don't have time for today, but we could go through, you know, what is the moral ethic that our young people across the country are exposed to? They're not taught, I'm not suggesting, at least in K-12, they're taught to be nihilist conspiracy theorists. So I'm sure there's probably exceptions here and there. And maybe we could draw some more exceptions in the universities. For the most part, my impression is, put it this way, they're not, they're not energetically encouraged to, for example, see defending their country or building a family or something like that.

these more traditional ways of channeling male, thumos would be the old word for it, into something productive. And instead, given this sort of bland or sort of kindergarten-like doctrine of kindness and compassion, there's anything wrong with kindness and compassion, I'm generally for it. But if you're a young man, it's not enough. You have to have something else to fight for and pursue, and you'll figure it out for yourself in some cases if something wholesome is not described for you. I agree with that.

teaching in most countries in the West is educational standards are lamentable. And here in America in particular, the presumption that education can be improved simply by pouring more money into education is, of course, a complete nonsense and one that I'm forever railing against in New York State, about the cost per pupil per year is suddenly at $30,000. And so when Randy Weingarten and others pretend that we just need to invest, more in education, $30,000 per student to get people who, after K through 12, are 50% illiterate and 50% enumerate.

That's not a money issue. That's a simple education issue. You can make people learn how to add up and read for a fraction of the amount that we pour into education in the United States. But the very dangerous one is, to your main point, is the present. The presentation of the best good you could do in society as being to be an activist. If I could put my finger on any one thing which I think has led so many people astray, it is that. Being an activist is being presented, has been presented in modern America for some time as being the highest good.

And that is not the highest good. And if you present people as, if you say to people that they must man the barricades for any cause and that that is what it means to be a good person, you will find people seeking out causes and eventually latching on to very perverted causes. You know, I was doing an event last night in Detroit with Van Jones and came up, some interesting disagreement I had with him about, to me at any rate, about progressivism. My critique of progressivism as a cause is the one that the late Australian political philosopher Ken Minogue made,

which is the St. George in retirement problem, which is that, you know, St. George, after getting the acclaim of having slain the dragon, staggers around the land, looking for more dragons to slay, ends up killing small and smaller creatures until eventually St. George, in retirement, can be found swinging his sword at thin air. Now, it isn't the case that we live in a perfect society in America. So people who would be St. George are not necessarily swinging their swords at thin air, although they sometimes do. but they're certainly slaying ever smaller creatures.

But at the same time, they are presenting themselves and presenting the situation we are in in America today as if it is what it was when the dragons were real. You know, I noticed the number of young people who are being taught that they must be like the heroes of the civil rights movement or the anti-slavery movements. But we don't live in a slaving society. and although there are things to improve in America,

we do not live in 1920s America with a segregationist South or anything like it. And so people are being educated to the idea that the highest good is to be an activist when the actual things that we do need to address in the country are simply much less glamorous causes than that. The people who wish to solve all of our problems by burning the thing down, could spend their time trying to work out how,

with the education spend we have in America, we could try to make sure that we're producing a far higher quality of education. But that's not sexy. That's not thrilling. That's not the barricade. And they have been taught that the barricade is a desirable place to be. and yes, I think this is a lamentable trend. None of it, again, just to repeat the Lionel Shriver point,

none of it means that those people are going to all pick up a gun. The people who pick up guns and wish to carry out violence are unusual by the nature of their actions. But it is at times like this worth having some self-reflection as individuals and as a country as to why it should be that this violence seems to become so normalised. And in the meantime, I would just observe

that the people who advocate the violence should notice, among other things, that things don't always go the way they mean it to go. And the person who was hoping on Saturday night to kill the president or members of the administration has said that he was perfectly willing to shoot through the journal. who were in the hall, should know that his actions so far have done only one thing,

which itself is rather miraculous. Arguably, he has managed to give an administration that dislikes the mainstream media in America very greatly, and the mainstream media that dislikes the president in this administration very greatly, seems to actually melded us together, rather, in a shared experience. I bet he didn't expect that, and so he can sit in a prison, for the rest of his life knowing that his actions were meaningless and that the only thing that he achieved was perhaps a miraculous thing of bringing the Trump administration and the American media together for a moment. Douglas Murray, author most recently of on democracies and

death cults, it's always a pleasure and always thought-provoking to speak with you. You were cool, calm and collected, I have to say, as the incident proceeded, as were, in fairness, many of our colleagues in the media and others in the room. I'm glad we ran into each other. Thanks so much for coming out in School of War. It's a great pleasure. Thank you. Spotify, it's Jay Shetty. Are you one of those media strategy people? Scrolling through spreadsheets, searching for an audience that pays twice as much attention to your ads than they do on social? Let me introduce you to fans. And they're here with me on Spotify. Trust me, I know fans. They don't skip. They stay for hours. They don't move.

on, they manifest. They're not a demographic group, they're fans. Spotify advertising. You're among fans.