The Charlie Kirk Show - Winning Too Much?

Episode Date: October 1, 2026

As the midterms approach, an unsettling problem has become obvious: As the Trump Administration delivers on its biggest promises, like fixing the border and stopping trans lunacy, voters become forgetful rather than grateful. How can conservatives win elections if fixing up America is actually politically harmful? Tim Parrish explains why President Trump remains so bullish on "super intelligence." Scott Greer responds to the ultra-viral Cornell fraternity story, and Evan Barker explains the real reason that black majority schools are failing — and it's not due to lack of money. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say 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. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

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 noble goldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. Hello. Welcome to the Charlie Kirk show.

It's just me today. Andrew is off on a vision quest somewhere. And no, he's off traveling right now. And that means I once again have both of the Y-ReFi flags. I'm very excited about this. and I'm very excited for what we're going to be able to talk about in today's show. A lot of big stories that we haven't gotten to recently. One of the biggest ones, AI or superintelligence, depending on what you want to call it,

a ton has been happening that over the last month or so. And I think it's time that we talked about it. We should talk about why President Trump is particularly bullish on super intelligence, as he now calls it, even as a lot of people on the left and on the right, and within the tech world are saying this might be going too fast. It's time to slow it down. President Trump, it's one of those issues where he is swerving right when a lot of other people are swerving left. We want to talk about that.

We're also going to be talking about the Cornell fraternity story. If you're on social media, if you're on TikTok, if you're following the news, this has become one of the absolute biggest dramas online these days. It's kind of become the sequel to the Lindsay Clancy story in some ways as the, the case everyone has an opinion on. So we'll be talking to Scott Greer about that. But first, I think it's time for us to, it's a little bit of a follow-up to the discussion we had

with Rich Beres yesterday. And it's about issues and what the voters care about going into these midterms. And we're facing a strategic problem that I don't think we've ever seen before in American politics, at least not in my lifetime. And a few headlines from last night and this morning got me thinking about this. First of all, we have this headline from Axios, and it says, how Trump's signature issue fell off voters' radar. And this is a quote from the article, immigration, the issue that helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency and rally his supporters over the past decade has become an afterthought for voters. That's what they say.

It says, they ask Avery James of Eschelon Insights, a Republican polling firm. They say on net, Republicans are winning out as the more trusted party on two topics, the border and immigration and crime and safety. But the problem is, if you're a campaign strategist, crime and immigration are just not the top issues for voters. So Republicans did well, but when you ask voters, what matters to you most? They're not saying the border. They're not saying immigration. they're not saying crime, even if they still favor us with that.

Similarly, we have this headline from the New York Times. It's not an issue. Crime as a GOP line of attack loses traction. And they again go into some detail. Quote, the chaos at the border, a reliable political target since 2018, has calmed. State laws, barring transgender students and athletics, have taken some of the sting out of that issue as well. voters say they are most concerned about the high costs of everyday necessities and crime usually a winning issue for republicans who are generally more trusted to keep law and order is seeing a staggering drop the downward trend that began during the Biden administration has only accelerated one analysis found that the murder rate last year was the lowest it has been since 1900 think about what we just heard there we just heard that during this administration, we have had a literal once in a century win. The murder rate,

the rate at which someone is likely to violently kill you is the lowest it has been since 1900, when I believe William McKinley was still president. And that's something that's happened under Donald Trump. And it's happening just six years after Floyd Apollosza when we had the highest murder rates in this country that we'd seen in about in several decades. And it was the biggest increase in murder ever recorded, totally turned around, totally eliminated. And what are we getting from voters? We're getting, well, it's not an issue anymore. I care about other issues. Same thing with the border. We were talking yesterday that the number of people crossing the border is basically at zero. The number of new immigrants arriving in the country way down. The number

of Muslim immigrants to America, immigrants from Muslim majority countries, down I think 80 or 90 percent, whatever that chart was. All of these wins are happening, and our reward is we're getting voters to just stop thinking about it. We are living through something that actually is unprecedented in American history. A political party is losing favor in part because it has one too much. That basically never happens. So, for example, when Barack Hussein Obama, ran for president. One of his big issues was health care, and he passed Obamacare. But did Obamacare actually solve the health care issue? No, of course not. Healthcare remained expensive. Prices continued to go up.

They would debate, were they go up faster or slower with or without Obamacare? They could argue about that. It created a bunch of new programs. Some people really liked those. Some people, a lot of people, really hated them. But it certainly did not resolve the issue. It did not make people stop thinking about health care as an issue. And annoyingly, that's the case for so many things when Democrats campaign on issues. Paradoxically, Democrats have the advantage that since their ideology does not work, it doesn't solve problems and make them recede from voters' mind so that they can't campaign it on anymore.

So think about Democrats when they say the problem with America is too many stale, pale, white males in positions. They're the ones screwing up the country. we need to get them out, get fresh blood, do more DEI. And as we've seen over and over, that doesn't actually work great when you hire people who are less qualified for things. You get more problems. You get more inefficiency. People realize things are in decline. But the Democrats have a righty answer to that. The problem is the vestigial power of white males in every institution. The problem is we just haven't gone far enough. That systemic racism, systemic sexism, the patriarch here, it's all more deeply rooted than we thought.

We need more of this. So keep electing us. It continues to work. When they create problems with immigration, when they mess up our labor market, when they drive down wages with it, they always have the ready response. More immigration to fix this. The problem is we haven't done enough amnesty. The problem is we haven't gone far enough on this. We need to triple down on this.

And this works for a lot of people, especially the fact that as a side effect of their policy, they bring in new voters. And as we see in cities like New York or in states like California, they can create massive economic problems with socialism, with price controls, with overregulation. And they have the righty excuse of, well, greedy capitalists are messing everything up. We need even more of this to solve the problem. That is the line the Biden administration took when they launched huge amounts of inflation in 21 and 22. They literally said companies invented being greedy. They have decided to be more greedy than in the past. That is why prices are up, and that meant cost of living was still an issue in 22, and they had a surprisingly good midterm.

But we face something, we face a curse right now as conservatives, that this administration, more than any we've ever seen, has actually delivered so hard on issues that they have receded from the public consciousness, that they have cut immigration so much and secured the border so much that voters aren't thinking about it anymore. There's not that many. There's not border caravans arriving every day. There's not a meltdown at the border because 10,000 Haitians have set up an encampment so it's not in voters' minds. We're getting the same thing on crime. Crime is down a lot, and so voters just, they don't think, wow, I live in way less fear of being mugged, of being shot, of being murdered. I don't have to worry about my kids nearly as much. So it's just not in their minds. On the trans issue, the Trump administration rolled in and said, No men and women's sports. We're stopping that. We're going to make it so you can sue hospitals. We're shutting down gender clinics. We're keeping schools from propagandizing you with all of this.

They have turned the tide on that issue so decisively that it was a big issue in 2024, one of the most successful issues for Republicans, and it's now just not in voters' minds. This is an existential crisis for our movement if us succeeding on our political goals makes it so that we are less successful politically. So how are we going to solve that? First, I want you guys to email in. If you have any ideas or thoughts on this, I'd love to hear it. We're talking about this phenomenon in politics that we have the first administration that has, let's put it this way, as President Trump used to say, you'll get tired of winning. And it seems that rather than getting tired of winning, a lot of people have gotten bored of winning. They've gotten distracted by winning.

they have stopped thinking about winning. It is the fact that for the first time ever, you can win on an issue so decisively that it actually entirely recedes from the voter's consciousness. And this is a big problem for the right that we need to be thinking about. And this is not even a theoretical concern. As we know, the midterms are coming up.

And whatever your issues on the Iran War, whatever your issues on affordability, there should be a very strong case to be made of that this administration is good at solving problems, that they ran in 2024 and said, we will fix the border that's in this huge crisis, and they fixed it overnight, that we can fix the flood of immigrants into this country, that we can fix the trans issue and not have you not have these gender goblins running around trying to groom your kids. This is an administration that can solve problems and that's a reason to trust us in other things,

but the problem is people just aren't thinking about those issues where they want. And the long-term outcome of this can be bad. As an example, in Sweden, they just had an election. In Sweden, we know, very left-wing country generally, but they had a conservative government by their standards for the last few years. And that government had a similar problem, that they ran on crime being out of control, mostly due to heavy immigration. They ran on the immigration itself being out of control, and they took action, and they basically fixed these issues. They made it so there is net out migration from Sweden for the first time in ages. They stopped letting in new people. They encouraged a lot of refugees and asylum seekers to actually go home rather than just permanently live in Sweden.

And due to that and some other efforts, they also drove crime down. And the reward for Sweden's conservative party in government was they lost the next election. And that's partly due to the demographic change of immigration because heavily immigrant areas of Sweden were voting overwhelmingly left. But the other part of it was what we're seeing here, that Once they solved an issue, wasn't in voters' minds anymore. So we need to ask ourselves, this is an existential question. How do we fix this? How do we keep it?

So our wins are in the public's minds, or rather, maybe the inverse, you could say, how do we make sure voters are thinking about the fact that things will get really bad again the moment Democrats have the authority to do it? That you might think crime is not an issue now. It will be again, if radical leftists who still believe in letting criminals, home free are back in charge, that the border will be wide open again. It will be endless caravans from the third world again if they re-obtain power. How can we get that in voters' minds? And I was thinking about this in the context of that conversation we had yesterday with Rich

Barris. Rich, as you know, it's polling about the midterms. And he's been, we have them on because he gives us some real talk. He says, it's tough. Voters are dissatisfied with a lot of things. And one of the things he highlighted is that voters have this sense. that Washington doesn't care, that they're checked out. And I think this goes back to the frustration all of us have had on this show with the United States Congress. We have a Republican Congress right now. Is that Republican Congress reflecting what we feel we should get from a Republican Congress when it's elected? I think all of us would agree, no, they haven't passed the SAVE Act, they haven't passed legislation to bolster what the Trump administration is doing on.

immigration. In general, they just haven't passed a lot of stuff. There's been a lot of sclerosis. And some of that is because there's cowards, there's people in Congress who've never liked the Trump agenda and they don't want to participate in it. But some of it is structural. And I think on the right, it's time for us to start thinking in somewhat revolutionary terms about how should we approach Congress to get more political wins. And it's an idea I want to build out over the weeks and potentially months to come. Because let's think about what's going on in Congress all the time. We heard about these Jack Smith hearings, for example.

There's a lot of hearings in Congress. There's a lot of speeches that people deliver on C-SPAN to an empty chamber. No one's ever there when they're speaking on C-SPAN. It's just done for the cameras so they can have clips to show off to people and post on X. There's a lot of confirmation battles. They love to have confirmation hearings. They love to take forever to hold them. We have tons of positions that are unconfirmed for ambassadorships and lower-level positions

that there's a nominee and they just haven't voted on them for months on end. They love to drag that out. But there's not a lot of votes in Congress on core issues that Americans would understand. So let's consider immigration, for example. Despite all the progress the Trump administration, the executive branch, has made, there are still a lot of obstacles that exist on immigration. The Supreme Court didn't rule the way we wanted on birthright citizenship. And that stinks.

And it's causing a lot of voters to be demoralized and say, we were betrayed, they abandoned us, they totally let us down. And that's actually not the case. The Trump administration tried something. No other administration, Republican or Democrat, had ever been willing to attempt trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment so that it means what the text says. And they're also trying to find administrative ways to dial back birth tourism, to check birthright citizenship, make sure that foreigners aren't taking advantage of it as much as they have.

but who's not really taking action is Congress. And some congressmen have proposed ideas. We've heard great things from Brandon Gill, other members of Congress, what they would do. But we're not getting a lot of up or down votes on this. And that's what we actually need to be seeing. We should be seeing Congress come out and be endlessly proposing single issue bills that they force Democrats to vote on. Even if you can't get all the votes on it, we should be having these votes.

Where Republicans are voting, for example, to say, if you're a Chinese billionaire, you can't hire a surrogate to drop one or two or ten or a hundred in some cases, anchor babies in this country who are all U.S. citizens. We should be having them vote to make it a crime when these people sail boats near the United States so they're in our territorial waters while pregnant. They have a kid. That person is apparently a U.S. citizen for life. We should have them be voting up or down on an amendment to dial back birthright citizen,

to restrict it, to repeal it. make them be passing and voting on things all of the time. And I think this is a way you can keep this issue front and center in voters' minds. They should be seeing a party that is voting aggressively to fix specific issues. Don't pass omnibus bills. Don't pass these big sweeping things that are hard to explain. Don't bury it as an amendment in some spending bill that no one understands. I mean single issue up or down votes all the time.

And that will highlight a party that is. trying to solve problems that are real, where they have a big advantage over the Democrats in the public sentiment, and a party that just wants problems. Another issue that's possible, gas prices. Yeah, gas prices are up due to Iran. They're up due to the war in Ukraine. But they're also up because we haven't built a refinery in the past half century. And that's due to environmental rules, bureaucratic obstacles. We haven't tried really to build one. So what if Congress was having up or down votes? We're going to try. We mentioned the gas tax. You could repeal the gas tax or sunset it, you could also be doing, hey, here's our big initiative, build new

refineries, make more diesel, this will make things more affordable for Americans. If they were coming out and voting on this every day and making Democrats vote against it, then you're sending this message, extremism party versus help Americans party. I'm not sure if this will work, but I think it's something that's worth trying because we have to overcome this problem of how do we make voters care about the issues that we have solved. How do we send the message that we are the problem-solving party? 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-shaped 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 Charlie for Hillsdale.com. Learn deeply. Think clearly, lead boldly and carry it forward just like Charlie.

So a lot has been going on in the world of artificial intelligence. And an interesting thing about it is it's become an issue that's crossing the usual partisan lines. So, for example, Politico had a poll recently that asked, do you think AI is going to destroy humanity? And basically, it was identical numbers between Donald Trump voters and Kamala Harris voters from 2024. They asked, do you think that we should slow down the development of AI? And it's actually very similar numbers between Republican Trump voters and Harris voters, a plurality of both of them say yes. But there is one person out there who is very adamant that we should keep going as hard as possible on artificial intelligence or, as he calls it, superintelligence. And that is

President Trump. He had a summit about AI or SI, whatever you want to call it, with tech leaders. And this is what he had to say. Let's play clip six. Look, if we want to destroy our country, that we should stop. This is bigger than the Industrial Revolution and largely for good. And if we start doing what some people would like us to do, I mean, Bernie Sanders said, stop all work immediately. Well, if you stop work, somebody's going to do it. And whoever wins, super intelligence wins. That's it. You know, I used to say whoever wins the other. But whoever wins, super intelligent wins. And right now there are two players. It's us. and China, there practically is no third.

It's between the two of us. It always will be. And remember, whoever wins superintelligent wins. So that's the president. He's saying go as hard as possible on AI. We need to win it. So what's driving this? And is the president correct?

We're joined by Tim Parrish. He is the vice president of the National Artificial Intelligence Association. Tim, thank you for joining us. And first question, is it going to be renamed the National Super-Intyreiber? Intelligence Association? Well, we are exploring that. Blake, thanks for much for having me on with you. We actually talked about this right after the president's summit and kind of joked about it, that we might actually change the name. But on a serious note, industry hasn't quite embraced this yet. I understand why the president's doing it, but we're still having those conversations about

if we want to change the name. I like the name personally, super intelligence, but we're going to work with industry to get to that point. Well, what's interesting about it is, as you say, it gets at a real phenomenon. The reason he's talking about this is it's actually not like Gulf of America where it feels a little eccentric. It's getting at something, which is, I think, the president recognizes artificial intelligence as a label has a PR problem. Over the past year, somewhat out of nowhere, we've seen this huge explosion of people being opposed to data centers, for example. Those are the supercomputers that they build, and it's the engine of AI development. and that's not just an issue on the left.

It's not just an issue on the right. It's blown up among both of them. It's basically become an 80, 20 issue against them. And President Trump says, this has a branding problem. People are turning against it. And what do you think is driving that? And is this a real phenomenon? And are tech leaders serious about addressing it?

Well, let's address a few of these things, Blake. I think the president does have a legitimate point, right? There are some concerns around the branding issue. that we've seen sort of take over the AI conversation. And communities have real concerns, right? You get these data centers that are being built next to schools and churches and communities and they're loud and, you know, these monstrosities. And so there are some concerns.

And with the use of natural resources like water and electricity. So there are some real legitimate concerns. I think what the president has done is a great job bringing industry leaders together and saying, hey, maybe we should consider a rebrand. Maybe we should look at a new name or a new approach to this. Where the president is also correct, and most industry leaders are correct, is there is absolutely a national security imperative here with AI. The president is 100% correct.

This is about China and the United States. Obviously, we want the United States to be dominant in the AI space. And so I do think it's an all the above approach. Maybe we do have to look at a rebrand. We do have to address the concerns that many communities around the nation have. And simultaneously, we still have to win this competition. So let's build that out. We say we have to win.

What are the stakes here? If China were to, let's say we reverse the situation where China was now the dominant player in AI, our models are not as good, not as efficient, not as powerful. What does that mean for the country in specific terms besides just valuations of stock market companies? Sure. So again, going back to the national security imperative. China is our near-peer, you know, bipolar, hegemon country in the world. And I think when you look at how China operates, right, it's a communist state, it's a dictatorship with a horrible record on human rights and all those types of things. So if you want that kind of group to be leading AI with all the vast capabilities, then there's an issue there. Or you could have a constitutional republic. like the United States with all of our freedoms and our liberty and our, you know, we've got the smartest people in the world right here in the United States that also believe still in liberty. We still have a constitution that governs the way that we operate. And so if you want those people to be the dominant forces sort of leading and developing AI, that's, I mean, that's what I want.

I think that's what most of the free world in the Western world absolutely wants, not a, not a communist state who sort of has this heavy hand, top-down approach to how they would use AI. They are our near peer militarily when it comes to that. And so when you look at the global competition, when you look at what could come out of a conflict potentially between the United States and China, you definitely want the, at least I want, and I think majority of Americans would want the country like ours who believes in liberty and ingenuity at the enterprise level and free markets. We want those.

We want a society like that to be the ones that are advancing AI. Well, I think the free market issue has become a source, unfortunately, of some of the concern reticence people have had. There was this exchange. Elon Musk has reconciled with the president. They're collaborating on superintelligence. And Elon Musk had this exchange with a reporter about the benefits that might come from this. Clip five. When you have robots and you have superintelligence, it means that everyone in the world can have better medical care than anyone here, including me. And wouldn't that be wonderful?

No, if they haven't got a show. Well, jobs are going to change. Jobs have always changed. So that's already a welcome improvement from what I think we heard before. Tim, do you think there's a real case where basically because they needed to hype their models, because they wanted to get attention, maybe raise an IPO price, a lot of these companies came out and they started saying stuff, 50% of white collar jobs will be destroyed in five years. All of these other jobs will be destroyed.

And people are hearing that and they're not thinking we're getting way richer, we're getting way more prosperous. They're just hearing this is going to completely blow up my life. Did they misplay that? And should we be more optimistic that this will create much more prosperity than it will create misery? Yeah, that's a great question, Blake. And I think that the latter part of your question is the most important part is it, is going to create a lot more opportunity and prosperity for industries across the economy.

It's not going to take away jobs. It's actually going to make people's ability to do their jobs much more effective and much more efficiently. The Elon talking about the advances in medicine that we can make. We're already seeing breakthroughs in cancer and research and certain types of diseases that are breaking through. He also makes a very good point about every time our country has sort of embraced a new technology, we've not lost jobs, but we've sort of evolved. The American people are extremely resilient, and we're extremely, we're proud of our workforce. We're proud of going to work and doing a hard day's labor.

And the American people are going to move right along with AI and its ability to increase their ability to be effective and efficient and to produce at their jobs. I don't think you're going to see very many jobs lost, quote, unquote. I think that people, Americans are getting extremely resilient and they're going to keep up with the technology and they're going to be positioned to be more effective and and produce more efficiently within their job markets. All right. Everyone out there, if you have questions about AI for Tim, if you want to understand something

more about it, shoot one over. I might be able to ask him that. But a very funny thing, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, he has issued an executive order saying that in his state, it shall only ever be called artificial intelligence, never super intelligence. It's kind of a stupid clash, I think, between the U.S. and between Gavin, but are we going to see, are we seeing the left in America become anti-AI, kind of just as a way of signaling against Trump?

Well, we don't, you know, hopefully AI doesn't become a partisan issue, right? It shouldn't be left or right. It should be about American dominance across our economy, no matter what political that you come from. But I agree. I think it's a waste of time that the governor of California put this out. The president is trying to do this, not for Republicans or Democrats, but he's trying to do it for the longevity and the prosperity of the entire country and positioning us to win a global competition.

So I do think that's a waste of time and we need more politicians who are taking this serious. It is fascinating. It is fascinating because it does feel like President Trump is clearly just doing this because he thinks it matters for America because the polls say his position right now is not the popular one. And I think that's very interesting. We got an email from one of our listeners, Kyrie, and she says, artificial intelligence is artificial. To call it something else is deceptive and it is dangerous.

And what does the president mean when he says we have to win the artificial intelligence thing? In fact, I think this is actually a good question for you, Tim. What does it mean to win artificial intelligence? What does having one look like? Because Kyrie suggests that might be a terrifying thought. What is the end game? Is there a point at which you have won the AI race? Or is it sort of a Red Queen's race?

race. You just endlessly have to run faster and faster. Yeah, I don't think that there is necessarily an end to artificial intelligence. It's such a vast and sort of always ever changing, every evolving system or, you know, piece of technology that I don't think it'll ever have an end that you sort of won, which is a good thing, right? That means that the investment and folks continue to work on artificial intelligence or super intelligence will stay at it. But look, I want to validate the concerns.

I understand why people sort of have. these concerns about AI, was sprang on us kind of, sprung on us kind of quickly. You know, it came out of nowhere and then it took off and we're still trying to get our head trapped around it from a societal standpoint. So I get the concerns, but, but yeah, I think it's going to continue to be something that we'll have to work at for years and years to come. That's a good thing. Yeah, we got another one from Aaron who says, he has no problem with any Democrats using artificial intelligence. Isn't that what Democrats are? Artificially intelligent. Wonderful to use the term super intelligence. That's

That's a funny line. Something interesting, though, we were talking about how it's becoming a more partisan issue. And this happened in Minneapolis, their city council the other day. They passed a bill. I'm not sure if it's final legislation yet, but they're working on it at least, to require that any AI-driven cab, a driverless cab, would have to have some humans seated in it, just as a driver sitting there doing nothing but occupying it. And I think that's an interesting illustration of this temptation we're going to see, which is to generate make work jobs to offset AI, try to basically make it illegal to get rid of certain jobs.

Is that the sort of thing that you would say is a threat we should worry about, that we're going to hobble AI out of concern to preserve jobs that it might make more sense to retire those? I mean, I think with cabs, we've had endless immigration from the third world to drive Ubers, and we could just stop. not doing that instead. But we're seeing the opposite. We're seeing we have to protect all of these jobs that Americans didn't want to do in the first place. Yeah, Blake, again, I'll just reiterate, nothing about AI should be partisan. But we definitely want to get government out of the way of industry. We have a saying in our organization that Washington doesn't know AI and AI doesn't know Washington. We've seen in the past, just like we're seeing now, that when government gets too involved, when the heavy hand of government comes down and tries to overregulate, that it makes it just

burdensome on industry. We need to get governed out of the way of these industry leaders and let their ingenuity and their innovation flow because that's going to keep us dominant in this global competition. So I don't think you're going to, again, I don't think you're going to see people lose their drives. I think what you're going to see is the cab driver get much more efficient at his job. It's going to produce better and faster routes for him or her to get people from point A to point B and to get paid for it, right? I think that we believe in free market. We believe in capitalism and people making money. off of their labor. And AI is just going to make that ability that much stronger. We also believe in the human element. We don't want to see humans removed from decision-making,

especially critical things like driving. So, Tim, you mentioned we don't want regulation throttling the industry, but probably the most interesting development of the past month or so is you've had AI leaders like Dario Amade, he's the CEO of Anthropic, probably one of the five most important people in the world right now for all of you who don't follow this. It's worth being aware of it. And he came out and he said in an essay that actually did read like he probably wrote it with AI assistance that we should, they called it Pace the Frontier, that we should deliberately slow down AI development, create more moats, create more regulations and inspections. So it sounds like some industry leaders are saying there should be some regulation. Is that coming from real concern over what AI might do if it just grows unchecked?

Or do you think it's, as some people have suggested, they're trying to. trying to throw up moats so that now they can kind of, if you're anthropic, if you're open AI, you are sort of established as the industry leader and no one can do what you did in order to become a top player. Yeah, look, I can't speak for him specifically, but I will tell you that we have thousands of members that are a part of our trade association. And the general consensus is not that we don't want any regulation. We just don't want overregulation, right? We know that the government's going to get involved to ensure safety, to ensure fair practice, for fair play and those types of things.

But we just don't want the government to get in the way and hinder these innovators from innovating and creating good, high-paying jobs for the American people. And so we're not calling for no regulation. We're just saying we don't want to over-regulate it and overburden these innovators and get in their way so much so that they can't, they can't produce, they can't innovate and create, which we know creates jobs and keeps us, as I keep reiterating dominant in this global competition for AI. Let's see. Do we have any more from people? We have Abby says, I think renaming it is fine because it's not 100% artificial. It is programmed by humans. It learns from humans and from the internet. So we shouldn't call it artificial. It is merely super. But speaking of super, I think one reason President Trump is going for that label is this sense that it's not merely a replica or replacement for human beings, that it has potential to exceed us. Should we take that serious?

Some people like to come out and say AI is going to cure cancer. It's going to create, they talk about a singularity where the AI keeps making itself smarter because it's smarter than us and can develop itself faster and will reach some sort of post-scarcity utopia. Is this something we should take seriously as something that could happen? Or is this a marketing pitch for Anthropics IPO? Look, I would say, like I've said in other shows, leave that stuff to the movies, right? I think Will Smith did a movie about robots taking over and leave it on the screens. This is not real.

Humans will always be involved in the development of AI. AI works off of human input, right? And it does sort of take all that data and respond to it, but it works off of human element. And again, the people that are developing, the American companies that are developing AI are some of the smartest engineers, some of the smartest operators and developers in the world on planet Earth, right here in the United States developing. and they are putting safety mechanisms and stop gaps in place to ensure that we don't get to this sort of robots taking over type thing. So now, I would say leave that stuff to the screens. What AI is going to do, what it's doing now, what it's going to do in the future, is this is going to aid humans in being more productive and being more productive efficiently.

That's it. It's a tool that people are going to use, just like a hammer or a saw or what have you. It's going to be a tool that people are going to use to be much more effective and no one should be afraid while we value. validate we understand, no one should be afraid of AI taking over the world. All right. Well, thank you for joining us, Tim. This is a super important topic. I think if we look five years in the future, what happens with AI will be the thing that impacts all of our lives the most. So we need to be talking about it. And we'll be continuing to cover this. But Tim, thank you for helping answer some of our viewers' questions.

I had the honor of a lifetime to call Charlie a friend. And what I remember most wasn't just what people saw on stage. It was what was behind the scenes. That was an unwavering commitment to his faith, his love for his family, and his genuine desire to encourage others to live with courage and conviction. Charlie believed that following Christ wasn't something you compartmentalize. He didn't put it in a box. He lived it out loud. It shaped how he lived, how he served, how he treated people every single day. Charlie Kirk, American martyr, captures that heart. This documentary isn't just simply about remembering Charlie. It's an invitation for each of us to ask what kind of legacy we're building and whether we're willing to stand firm in our own faith when it's tested.

I hope that you'll watch it with your family and have those conversations together. Go to angel.com slash kirk. That's angel.com slash kirk. Become an angel guild member. Watch Charlie Kirk, American Martyr, and help bring more stories of faith, courage, and conviction to audiences around the world. We're going to have a very education, a very America's school-focused hour here because we have two excellent stories that merited it. When I was out for one day last week, I was going on Jeremy Boring's show at the same time. I was super bummed because I missed out on the Nicole Hannah-Jones story. She wrote an incredibly viral article about sending her daughter to a failing school in New York City,

how her daughter kind of called her out and said, you sabotaged my education for political reasons. Whole big thing. And Andrew got to talk about with Helen Andrews, and I wasn't able to participate. So I am incredibly grateful to Evan Barker, who's been on our show a couple times because she wrote an article of her own

for The Times in Britain, I was a white girl at a majority black school. Here is what the education debate gets wrong. And it's very much a response and a follow up to Nicole Hannah-Jones article. So Evan, are you there? Hi, hi, Blake. Thanks for having me. Welcome back. It's great to see you again. And so I'll throw it to you. What describe your experience because I think it's one, a lot of Americans don't necessarily know about and understand. And what can we learn from it?

Yeah, it's interesting. I actually looked up the statistics. Only about 7% of white people in America have the experience of going to a majority black school. And even just saying that, You know, the title alone can be a very taboo thing for some reason to a lot of people. But I think it's important to discuss and to talk about. You know, I started the article by juxtaposing the decision that Nicole Hannah Jones made to send her daughter to an inner city lower performing school. And then the decision that my mother was forced to make. I think, you know, the prime differences being that she did.

decided to do this, essentially, you know, what I wrote on my piece, was to virtue signal to her elite friends, that she was a good person and that she was doing the work, right, by integrating her daughter from a more wealthy and privileged background into a school, you know, with kids that were, you know, living in poverty. And my mother lost her job in the early 2000s, and we fell behind on rent and we were evicted from our apartment and we had to move in with my great grandmother and we shared a bedroom for two years and I was no longer allowed to have friends over during this time, you know, because my mom was embarrassed of our living situation and she enrolled me in the local schools due to not having any other options. And she, you know, I went to a majority black school

and it was a one out of 10 rated school in Kansas City, Missouri, and I experienced what that was like. And I experienced just the sort of chaos and disruptions that happen on a day-to-day basis. You know, Blake, and I actually think it's kind of, people don't realize, 90% of those kids actually do want to learn, but there's about 10% of them that are just constantly causing chaos, and they are never reprimanded. So let's build that out because a lot of people,

they make that mistake, they think it's the 60s or the 50s, and they'll say the problem is these schools are underfunded. It's been pointed out. They usually are overfunded. They have a lot of money going to them. And lack of money is not the problem. So can you describe in more detail when you say 10% or so of the kids are disruptive,

what's happening? Because I think a lot of people, they lack any sense of perspective for what's going on. You're in a math class. What is happening that is keeping you from learning math? Yeah. So I went there in the sixth and seventh grade, and that's actually in Missouri,

the time when algebraic concepts are first introduced to children. So it's a very critical time, right? And it can really build upon, you know, the rest of your educational career. And I remember, you know, in our math class, we had an excellent math teacher. I really, really liked him a lot. And we had Palm Pilots, actually.

I don't know if you remember the Palm Pilot. But it was like an educational. Pretty smartphone smartphone. Right. So every student got a Palm Pilot assigned to them. You know, the school itself, if you just drove by it, it would not look like a bad school to you. Like it is, you know, newer facilities. I actually looked into the specific school that I went to.

And they spend on average $5,000 a more per pupil than all other, you know, Missouri schools combined and it's in the lowest like five percent of schools in Missouri. The average teacher there has 10 and a half years of experience. That was another thing that Nicole Hannah Jones put in her article is that these teachers don't have experience. That wasn't the case for me at all. My teachers were very experienced. So as you say, it's still hugely disruptive. So again, let's circle that. What is happening in the classroom that is making it? We can say they're disruptive that they don't want to learn. But what are they actually doing? Are they just making huge amounts of noise? Are they hitting people? Are they attacking the teachers? What's

physically going on? Yeah. So for me, every day almost was like a fight for survival. There were days where I really did not want to go to school and my mom would keep me home. But, you know, we would be in class like learning and a child would just start a fight with another child or spitballs or, you know, say something. Honestly, like, it felt like at times like my teachers were being abused. You know, I actually had a lot of empathy for the teachers in these situations because the students would stand up during class and just start yelling at them and cussing them out. And I remember one time I saw a student get physical. He tried to like push, you know, his hand up against the neck of my math teacher. And, you know, they did call the, you know, it's called an SRO officer.

They did call him. But, you know, it's like I would hardly ever see these kids. Like, they might be removed temporarily from class, but usually not unless it got really extreme. You know, unless it did turn physical. But, you know, they could just sort of have these emotional outbursts in class. And the teacher would just have to deal with it on their own. And I think that, you know, what people miss is that the teachers are outnumbered oftentimes. and they're not empowered. There was a situation for me towards the end of my seventh grade year

where there were like two or three kids that had collectively kind of decided to target me for what I was kind of a scrawny, nerdy kid, to be honest with you back in seventh grade. And they wanted to pick on me and I had an asthma inhaler, you know, but they wanted to pick on me. And so they, you know, started harassing me every day threatening to jump me. And I remember I was scared. I'd be sort of like dodging people during the passing periods. And I stopped going to my locker. I saw a friend of mine actually get like beat up so badly by his locker that he was laying on the ground like passed out. And there was a pool of blood forming around his head. And so, you know, you would sort of see these things happen. There was at least a daily fight that would break out in the hallways, alarms, blaring. Towards the end, you know, this was happening where I was getting threatened to be jumped. And my mom had almost daily meetings with the school's principal. She even threatened to call the ACLU. This is back in the early 2000s. Very different ACLU then. Yeah, very different. I think

she might have contacted them, actually. But they would not expel the students who were harassing me, Blake because they said that they couldn't do so until they actually beat me up. An aspect of this outstanding mind. Do you feel you were the target of race-based bullying in your school, that you were a white girl and they went after you for that reason? I do think that there was some of that, yeah. In the instance that I'm specifically talking about, though, there was another white kid involved in bullying me.

But I did experience, yeah, I did. I did. And this is a tough thing to talk about, right? You're not really supposed to talk about stuff like this. But it's the truth. I did get comments on a regular basis from other kids about the color of my skin and being too pale or too skinny. Like literally, that was something, you know, I was a scrawny kid. And yeah, I mean, that was a very real part of it.

And, you know, but what should really outrage people? I think the most about this story is that, you know, the educational system, you know, due to the permissiveness in these schools, due to wanting to be equitable, you know, we are basically sacrificing 80 to 90% of the kids who really do want to get an education for the 20% or 10% that don't. And I think that that is what is saddest of all about this whole situation. you know I ended up leaving that school at the end of seventh grade and I went to a school in the suburbs. You know, my mom actually like remarried and I think a part of her calculus truly for doing that. She admitted this to me years later. I know that people don't like when I say this either, but was to get me out of that school. And, you know, I ended up going to a school to suburbs.

And when I got there, I had absolutely no idea what was going on. They were so far ahead of me in math. I never cut up. When I got to my freshman year of college, I had to take remedial math because my ACT scores and math were so low. And I went to a majority white school in the state of Kansas. And when I got there, I noticed that the only class where half of the children were non-white was actually the remedial math class.

And I remember looking around very first day of school and noticing that. And I was like, oh my God, it's because they went to the same school that I did. They went to the same types of schools. You know, they were able to manage to make it to college like me. And they went to these same schools and they were failed as well, probably for the exact same reasons that I was. And I think that that is the greatest injustice of all. And it was so frustrating to me to read this article from Hannah Jones where her own group has advocated. for less punitive measures for classroom disruptions,

and for her to not come to this conclusion herself, but instead to blame the teachers and paint them as lazy or bored or disinterested. And that is just absolutely the wrong takeaway. And you know what? Nicole Hannah-Jones blocked me, Blake, about two years ago after the election. I think we got this sort of...

Yeah, but you know what? Since this article's come out, she's unblocked me. Kind of interesting, right? Maybe she saw it. But I think it's sad. It is. I think it's such a good, it's kind of a good comparison, a miniature form of what we say so often on crime, that when they, when people want to go very easy on criminals, when they want to let a bunch of people out of jail, when they want to dial back sentences and they send crime up, the biggest victims are everyone else who lives in high crime neighborhoods. Because most people, even in the most dangerous neighborhoods, are not criminals.

but what they are very often is victims. And it's so depressing here. As you mentioned in your article, 29 states and D.C. have laws that deliberately restrict formal suspensions and expulsions. In California, our biggest state, it is illegal for a school to expel a pupil for just willful defiance. That's really what you were describing when kids are aggressively disrupting class

and refusing to learn and making it impossible for everyone else. and disruptive behavior. You can't expel kids for that. And it's sort of this, this total capitulation. Eventually you get these fake schools. They are at best a form of really bad daycare. They're going to pass everyone regardless of what they can do. They're going to just, it's like a holding pen. And it's indefensible because it's basically, as you say, sacrificing 80 or 90% of kids for the worst and most disruptive 10% who themselves would be better. are served by facing accountability for once in their lives. I want to ask, you wrote your book, nothing left. It is about you. You were a Democrat activist, a Democrat campaign worker and so on, and you left them behind.

Have you ever told this story to people on the left as it's something that gave you concern and education? And if so, how did they react to it? I actually did not the specific stuff about the lack of funding or sorry, the not being lack of funding, but I would sometimes bring these stories up in reference to them saying that it was impossible for white people to experience racism. Because I knew from my experience at a young age and being a minority in that school that that's not true, and that I did experience racism in that school, and that I was bullied because of my race. And so I would tell them that I had the

experience of going to a school where I was in the minority as a white person and that, you know, other black kids, yeah, they bullied me because of my race. And of course, it would always make them very uncomfortable. And they would not ask questions. There would not be follow-up. It would just be kind of like them staring back at me and not really knowing what to say. Have you gotten any interesting communications from any of those people over this piece as an example? or the opposite people lashed out at you and said, what are you doing? Yeah, no, I had, none of my former colleagues have talked to me about this piece.

It's something that's still so taboo to talk about. I think mostly just people on the right have actually engaged me over it. But I think we need to talk about it. We can't be afraid to talk about race. We can't be afraid to talk about these issues. You know, we are sacrificing whole generations of black students, you know, mostly, that want to learn. You know, we are setting them up for failure for the rest of our life,

the rest of their lives, because we're not implementing things like alternative schools. We're not telling kids that if they behave this way, they're going to get kicked out of school. They're going to have to do homeschooling, right? They're going to have to do virtual school. They're going to have to go to an alternative program. They might go to prison. Right. And I'm not saying that you can't create some sort of system where these kids can prove that they can get, you know,

reintegrated back into normal school. Right? There can be some sort of second chance program, right? I don't think that just because you make a mistake when you're 11 or 12 that that means you can't ever, you know, prove that you're able to, to be, you know, mature enough to go back into a regular school. But I think that it has to shift from being like, we're not going to grade. We're not going to ever discipline to, you know, okay, we're actually going to present consequences to kids and then give them the opportunity to prove. Evan Barker. Check out her book, Nothing Left. Check out her article. Thank you for joining us again. I talk about jobs and industries on this show all the time, but I didn't expect to find an entire skills trade community on TikTok. Plumbers, electrician, builders, and contractors sharing the work they do every day. And it went way beyond tips and tricks. People were sharing their craft, connecting with local contractors and talking about how they were building their businesses and growing their teams. It opened my eyes to how people in the trades are using TikTok to share their skills, make connections, and find new opportunities.

I remember thinking, this is exactly what we need more of, people sharing what they know and creating opportunities for others. And I never expected to find a community like this that's the thing about TikTok. You start with something you know, and suddenly you're finding a whole new side of it that surprises you and leaves you wanting to know more. Your next discovery is waiting for you on TikTok. Learn more at TikTok.com slash discover more. So we've talked a lot about AI.

We've talked about our elementary in high schools. We're talking about the border. We're talking about the economy. There's a lot of things going on. But right now, if you go to the New York Times, the biggest paper in America, the lead story is none of those things. If you go on TikTok, the biggest source of chatter is none of those things. The biggest story unfolding this week is happening at the Ivy League School of Cornell University.

I don't want to get too into the details because it is very graphic, but to summarize it, a girl at Cornell went to a frat party. She is claiming that she was sexually assaulted by seven different men, but it's causing a massive debate and how people feel about this is reflecting a lot of other, a lot of their other political priorities. And so I thought that big picture take at least was very interesting. And so do we have Scott ready? We do not. All right, we're waiting on Scott Greer to join us. So while we wait, I'm going to summarize this a bit. And so as I said, this hell happened in 2024. A girl, she drank a lot. She did some drugs. She did ketamine. She went to a frat house at Cornell University. The specific fraternity was Kai Phi fraternity. And she arrived there. She took more alcohol. She took more ketamine. And she was a parent.

asked if she wanted to participate in a group sexual activity, which she says, actually, she agreed to. This led to multiple things. She eventually went to the police afterwards, but it's all become very sordid. It's become an interesting display, frankly, of how our sexual morality today, I think, leads people to disaster. That people are told, the only thing that matters is whether you consent to things. The only thing that matters is, did you, in the moment say yes to it when in reality as charlie would point out so often this is a very important thing this is something that deeply affects your psychology it affects you spiritually we believe it affects you at the deepest level and so what seems to be happened here the new york times has

done detailed reporting on this what seems to have happened is this girl she had some form of sex with five six seven different men are involved in this afterwards she sobered up and she realized This was disgusting. This was humiliating. It's really hurt me. And the only way she has to process that, unfortunately, is to believe, well, then it must have not been consensual. But it ultimately seems that it was. But this is something everyone's arguing about. They all have takes.

And if you have a take, you should email us. We do have Scott Greer now. The reason I reached out to you, Scott, is you're the author of White Pill. We had you on to discuss that. But you also had a post on your highly respected substack. That's the name of it. And you also, I remember your first book that we talked about a decade ago, no campus for white men.

Why don't you set the stage for us? Why is this creating a giant reaction, especially on the left? And what is it? What are they kind of trying to revive for those who don't remember what it was like a decade ago? Well, what they're trying to revive is the campus rapist area of the mid-2010s, which if you guys, if some of you guys might remember this, but in the mid-2010s, there was this huge concern, especially within the media, of a campus rape epidemic.

They claim that one in five young women are getting raped on college campuses, and this was a hugely important issue to the left and the media. There was a hunting ground documentary that was very popular. You had the rape on campus hoax, which turned out to be a huge disaster for Rolling Stone, but that gained international attention. And for those who don't remember, but a rape on campus was a famous hoax where in University of Virginia, a young woman claimed that she was gang raped as part of a fraternity initiation ritual. It turned out to be completely made up that the woman had never been at the fraternity house.

But all these fraternities were suspended at UVA and the fraternity in question was harassed and had news cameras outside it all the time in relation to this hopes. So really what we're seeing is after 10 years of this, and it was spurred on by an Obama administration director. in early 2010s, where they changed your ruling on Title IX saying that now schools in an effort to combat sexual harassment had to have a higher standard for consent, for what's considered consent, and now that gave university administrators greater power to prosecute and persecute young men who were accused of dubious sexual assault allegations simply because they said, well, we feel you didn't have affirmative consent.

And it also put more onus on these universities to tackle sexual harassment and alleged sexual assault, which led to a wave of young men being falsely accused of rape, such as we saw in the rape on campus story, as well as Mattress Girl of Columbia and several other cases of this, as I documented in my first book, No Campus for white men. So this became a big ordeal. And it seems that this attempt around Cornell, the intense attention around it, is an attempt. to revive that media hysteria of the mid-2010s. And it's happening at a weird moment, because for most attention on college campuses, it's about how kids aren't going out, aren't going on dates, aren't sleeping around,

aren't drinking. And now we're trying to revive a campus rape epidemic story in the middle of a previous media cycle, complaining about how college kids don't go out anymore, don't talk to the other gender, and don't go on dates. So I'm not sure how that's going to work, but they're trying to do this anyway. And in the middle of all this, we have this

growing man hate that is booming on social media, particularly female operated social media. We already witnessed this with the Lindsay Clancy case and numerous other stories where all the men are seen as the worst villains imaginable, the worst possible people, and there's a need to demonize them more. And so this story fits nicely in with that social media hysteria. bar time. Yeah, that's what's interesting to me. You remember, I was with you at, I was with you at the daily collar and I would cover the early days of this. It was, it's so funny because it feels like it just was this huge moment and then totally fell off the face of the planet. As you said, there was that hunting ground documentary. I think I actually wrote a review of that for, for the collar back in

the day. There was the UVA hoax story. The one that I remember very strongly was Ezra Klein, much like the establishment's establishment. I'm going to show what the respectable centrist, technocratic democrat thinks. And he had this headline that he wrote in 2014 that said, yes means yes is a terrible law and I completely support it. That was this attempt to rewrite the way consent works for human relationships where to kiss somebody, to touch somebody, to have sex with somebody. You had to at every step of the way say, like, may I do this and maybe fill out, notarize a form to make sure it was recorded. And otherwise, this could be used to charge you with a crime, with battery, with rape, with sexual assault.

And it was because of this one in five concept or one in four. I think I once saw one in three. They would throw this number out. And it does feel like an attempt to just revive all of this again and to link it to the present. As you said, there's this headline. Two-thirds of young Democrat women say men are to blame for most of society. these problems that if you're basically a Democrat women between ages of 30 and 49, 50 poor percent of Democrat women say men are a cause of their problems. But for women,

18 to 29, 66 percent are going to say that men are driving their problems. And this just seems perfectly primed to drive that on. What phenomenon are we seeing here? Are we basically singing an unprecedented rupture in the relationship between the sexes? Yeah, I think it is, especially among young people. And it's driven, as I was talking about previously, that they're not interacting with one another. As most headlines prior to this is complaining about good men scarcity and how there's not enough men around and how men are mediocre, there's this new trend in pop music, which is talking about how men suck. I mean, this has been common before in pop music, but it's very common now with Sabrina Carpenter and

numerous artists where all the songs are about how men suck. And that's also going along with a lot of the heteropessimism media trend that's also reflected in movies, movies, TV shows, and music. So I think that this is going in with there. There's now a split off in the genders and they're not interacted with each other anymore as much as they were in the past. As I was talking about with all the data with, you know, it's showing that young people are going on fewer dates. They're non-interacted with the other gender. There's much higher degree of them saying single much longer. And they talk about all the in-cell hate and all the rising misogyny and sexism coming from these angry young men on the internet and the red pillars. But what's less talked about is the

growing level of misandry among the side of women and how it's normalized and encouraged by the mainstream media. As you don't get that number of 66% percent, of young Democratic women thinking that all problems are men without that being normalized within society. You even have nearly 20% of Republican women thinking that in that age group. And when they asked young men about this, and this is a huge problem where they say young men, you know, they all hate women. They only got about a quarter of Republican leaning men to say that all their problems are due to women. And there's been other studies. This isn't just a one-off where they found other studies asking young women about this, and about a third of them said that they have

very strong hostility towards men. So this is a widespread phenomenon, and it's normalized on social media and within mainstream media to an extent that it would never be normalized for all the in-cell rhetoric and anti-woman rhetoric that apparently comes to the red pillars. But if you look at what's considered more of a social problem and a dangerous social trend, it's all entirely on the misogyny coming from these dark corners of the internet. But there's pretty much less concern from the anti-male hatred coming from your top 40 radio station, your big blockbuster film, your prestige TV show from New York Times, from New Yorker, from all the mainstream publications,

there's less attention paid to that, even though that's having a bigger effect on the population. Yeah, it does feel like we're in some sort of, for a better term, it's unfortunate to say, but a death spiral where relations between men and women are pretty bad, and a lot of it is because of years of attacks on men, demonization of men,

and then it's making people angry, which means there's more appetite for stories, that demonize men that make them look, bet and will make it worse. As you said, the problem is, college students, whatever the other flaws of college, one of the merits that even Charlie would bring up is it's a great place where you're around a bunch of other young people, you should try to find a spouse while you're in college, find a serious relationship in college, and instead they're super isolated, they're frozen away from people, and stories like this are going to drive that home, even if we don't actually want the stuff that's

going on in the story because it's very sorted. But I am interested. in how, despite their efforts to bring it back, it does seem like there's a cap on the history. It's unfolding in ways we might not expect. It is a story that I think if you read the details, it causes a lot of disgust. It's a pretty gross story. In contrast to, I think you'd agree, Scott, UVA or Duke, where they're 100% made up allegations that never happened. This one, it's a little more sorted. Like, it involves real behavior. It involves disgusting behavior. It's just probably not criminal behavior. And you've mentioned the left seems to have this desire, bring back the 2010s, revive this hysteria. But what's interesting is, I think it shows how things have changed,

that already they're encountering far more resistance from places you wouldn't have expected it. So as example, we have Sonny Hosten on the View. She's a former prosecutor. She said a lot of things we dislike. But she actually weighed in on this and said, I think this is going the wrong direction. Let's play clip 11. And under New York law, voluntary intoxication or drug use that merely impairs judgment does not legally constitute an inability to consent to sexual activity, right? So that means if you voluntarily ingest drugs, you voluntarily take alcohol, you can agree to have threesomes, which in her statement she agreed to have two separate threesomes. But I say all that to say the pictures of these young men who have not been. been charged, not been adjudicated, are being plastered all over the internet. I think people

are reporting this story inaccurately. I think they're reporting it unfairly. Now, I prosecuted sex crimes for 10 years. I believe women. I am not saying that we shouldn't believe her, but in 2024, she said one thing. And now in 2026, she's saying another. That's the view. That's the nerve center, I feel, of normal center left to far left, liberal women thought. And that's what Sonny Hosten is saying the New York Times, they've been investigating this, and they had an article out today that highlights, they dive into the details and they get text messages, they basically discover, well, the girl in this case, after it happened, she wasn't upset in the sense that I was assaulted, I was raped, she was upset. Everyone was laughing at her about what had happened,

and she was excited to go to another party at this fraternity, and then they disinvite her from the fraternity, she freaks out about that, and they have this line that's actually very remarkable that's like, by November 4th, she had concluded that she was assaulted at the October party. This feels different from how it would have unfolded a decade ago, doesn't it, Scott? Oh, 100%. And when the rape on campus story was published by Rolling Stone in late 2014, nobody was questioning it. Everyone accepted it as a horrific indictment on universities and America's fraternity culture. There were a few brave souls such as people, such as Robbie Suave at Reason, who was at recent at the time, and a few others who simply just said, this story isn't adding up. But when they said that, they were inundated with attacks. They were completely seen as the worst possible people to deny the story, to cast.

any doubt on it. But it turns out they were right once more people began investigating it. Once police began investigating it, they realized this whole story was made up. Now you are witnessing more mainstream investigations where there is more openness to doubt and to skepticism towards the story. And as more people investigated, I mean, this was already criminally investigated by the district attorney. And they found out, well, this was a gross act that certainly was. wouldn't be praised by normal and sensible people. There was no criminal wrongdoing done here, which the victim herself told one of the alleged rapists in a text message that nothing criminal happened, that nothing illegal happened. And this does just seem that this girl eventually word got

out. She had consented this. She agreed to it. And then she was being called, you know, the campus harlot for this act, for this activity. She felt horrified by it and embarrassing. by it and she felt the only way to reclaim her sense of honor and in and dispel the shame is a claim she was raped here but it turns out that you know that's not a credible reason for sexual assault under the law that you can't just simply consent to these acts be fully fine with it hope the fraternity invites you to a Halloween party then you get uninvited to it and then that's the cause for you filing a sexual assault claim yeah that's not how the law works and It is a good thing that you are seeing Sunny Hosten and other people say, like, hey, this is clearly, this is clearly not a crime here, which is very different from how a lot of these allegations were made in the 2010.

And even if you look at the Duke lacrosse case, which was completely made up, that was treated as sacrosanct as scripture when that was first unveiled to the public in 2006. A lot of things have changed in a positive direction. Three minutes left here, Scott. take it to a slightly bigger picture thing. In 2024, President Trump made remarkable gains with young men as voters. They voted more, more Republican than they had in basically a generation or more. It seems pretty clear from polling that a lot of that enthusiasm has ebbed away over Epstein stuff, over Iran, over a variety of things. Now we see, we're getting reminded that the left still views young men very much, a lot of the left, we're seeing some checks on this, but a lot of the left

still views them as the enemy in the House right now. The House Democrats are fighting to revive those Biden and Obama era Title IX rules that basically create kangaroo courts on campus, make it very easy to falsely accuse people and get them expelled. There is a piece in the New York Post of all places saying Cornell 7 highlights the voluntary intoxication loophole that as far as I exists everywhere that if you voluntarily drink that doesn't that you know that still allows you to consent to things that you maybe not would would not have done if you hadn't voluntarily intoxicated yourself one minute here scott is there an angle here where we can remind young men especially young white men guys and frats that they are this designated enemy

group for the left is there any sort of political angle to this or what's the situation how are young men thinking right now. Yeah, absolutely. I think that you can easily tell them that unlike Democrats, Democrats want to persecute you simply for being a young man and they view you as the enemy. They view you as the worst possible scum in America that they view you as the biggest danger simply for being yourself. And under Democrats, they are going to institute extreme draconian laws on campuses and in society in general that are going to target you at a much higher standard in a much more severe degree than they would under a basic rule of law system that Republicans promise. The Republicans aren't simply going to indict you because they want to

believe that there's a campus rape epidemic, that they believe that there's toxic masculinity that we need to keep in check, that we think that men, that young men are all the, are all the source of today's problems. Republicans just simply say that we oppose that, that we want you to have a fair hearing in campus courts and in courts in general, unlike the Democrats that want to persecute you simply for being men and simply because they need to appease their crazy cat lady fan base. All right. Well, Scott, thank you for very much. Check out his book, White Pill. Also, no campus for white men. If you want to go back to that nasty era a decade ago, thank you very much. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlie Kirk.com.

You know,