The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - The Babylon Bee's Seth Dillon Speaks His Mind on Today’s Right—and Refuses to Flinch

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon joins Live From The Table to talk about the emerging splits on the political right—Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, anti-Semitism, and the responsibilities that come with free speech. Topics (AI gleaned): The Babylon Bee and modern satire Trans debates and free speech Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Turning Point Anti-Semitism and cowardice on the right Religion, truth, and respect in public debate

This is live from the table, the official podcast of the World Famous Comedy Seller, available wherever you get your podcast, in particular, available on YouTube, which I think is the preferred way that people like to enjoy it. You know, nowadays, it's all about the video. This is Dan Natterman here with Nome Dwarman, owner of the ever-expanding world-famous comedy seller. New location soon to open on 6th Avenue and West Third Street at the former McDonald's. We have Periel Ashen brand here, wearing her Henrietta brand t-shirt.

Thank you. Henryetta? And we have via the miracle of, what do we call it? Not teleconferencing. Yeah, teleconferencing. Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon B, your trusted source for Christian do's satire, is joining us.

That's our old tagline. Well, what's the new tagline? That's the tagline Peryl gave me. I just took that off the website. Fake news you can trust. but um is no i like it that's the original your trusted source for christian news satire that's where it started but it's not really christian news satire anymore it's just like news satire right well i mean we're christians writing from a christian worldview perspective and we do a lot of church

jokes a lot of inside humor you just don't see them as much because they don't go as viral i see all right well listen i'm very very pleased to meet you i i you become like a hero of mine because uh in a in a world of uh right wing people who are turning, at least, you know, to my eye, turning towards a dark place when it comes to a lot of things, but especially my parochial interests, you know, the Jews and Israel, you have not been afraid to stand athwart this trend. So, there's a new word. And should we start with that, or actually, let's start with something else.

Because very rarely do we have a political guest who's also an expert in comedy. And the Babylon B, for years. they told us the right couldn't be funny. And all of a sudden, the Babylon B cracked the code, and the Babylon B is out funneying anything on the left. So, Dan, I don't know. Well, they also said that, but the right all says that the left can't meme. So which is it? Well, the left started to struggle to be funny when they decided that the things that were most deserving of mockery were like sacred cows that you couldn't touch. They stopped making fun of the things that deserved mockery. And so I don't know that you don't really have to be a great comedian to be like

funny these days. You just have to make fun of the things that deserve it that no one else is willing to make fun of. Well, I think Noam, because, you know, the right was always associated with the power structure and this notion that it's making fun of the power structure is going to be funnier than the power structure making fun of, you know, the disenfranchised. The punching up thing you're talking. Yeah, so, you know, I guess there's some validity to that, but not, you know, I don't know that that holds true anymore. There's validity of punching up and punching down? Well, I think there's some validity. I think making fun of people that are disenfranchised or, you know, less fortunate, you know, is going to obviously

be upsetting to a lot of people. So the Babylon B had some headline making fun of Rachel Levine, was that her name? His name. A trans person who won woman of the year, and that's punching down, but that was considered... And by the way, just so you know, the comedians... Look, there's no hard and fast rules.

The comedians find that stuff funny. Would you agree, Dan? Even the comedians who are left of center, they can appreciate a good joke coming from any direction for the most part. I don't think that's accurate. Well, let me tell you why I actually think that joke is punching up, because

that joke is first of all this is a white male high-ranking government official and the idea that this person is actually a woman is an idea that came from it was first published in USA Today you know Rachel Levine was picked for Woman of the Year

USA Today so this is coming from the media the cultural and institutional powers that be you know the president at the time this was everywhere it was coming from the top down this idea was being imposed upon us to the point where if you even joked about it you'd go in Twitter jail for forever like we did. So I think it's punching up to engage these ideas. Now, you can make the argument that this is a marginalized person. You know, they're oppressed and powerless, whatever,

but I don't think that works either because this is a person who you so much as joke about them and you lose your voice in the public square. Like, that is power that I've never had. I don't have power to, you know, take out people that make fun of me. So I think if you have the kind of, if you have both the will and the power to just punish and destroy anyone who's so much, just laughs at you, then you're the tyrant. You're the one with all the power. So I think that's punching up. And I think it's funny largely for that reason because you're pushing back on something that's being forced on you from the top down. There is some legitimacy, I think, to that idea of, you know, when we make fun of the people in positions of power, it's, it's something

that we can all relate to. You know, your average person sitting in an audience somewhere is going to want to laugh at the people that are above them in the, you know, stratosphere up there, you know, looking down on them and lording over them, that's just, you know, it's good for comedy. But I do, I disagree with the idea that the jokes that we were telling that we're characterized as punching down actually were punching down. I also disagree that we shouldn't punch down on principle just because I think that we should be able to make fun of anything. And, you know, if you don't think it's funny, don't laugh.

Yeah, I agree with the latter that people should be able to make fun of anything. Well, the question is, is will it get a response? That's the question. Yeah, exactly. in some audience school. But I would just, I push back a little bit on the punching up, punching down because, yes, Rachel Levine is a powerful person, but she is also kind of a synecatee, like a stand-in for her people, as it were, who take that personally, who feel like this is contributing to

them being treated with disrespect and be kind of considered a... a laughing stock and this whole trans issue you know i have i have to say although that i i was as peri'll knows i was totally against the idea of um trans women competing against what's the proper terminology cisgendered uh women in sports and and i didn't want my daughter in a locker room and seeing a penis and things like that um there's another side of me which was kind of off put by what I just smelled as a kind of bigotry, for lack of a better word. It was kind of a supercharged motivation that disturbing. Because after all, I don't know if you agree or not, but after all, my worldview is that

trans people are real, you know, people, like I know people, a lifelong friend who left his family, left his children, went through terrible stress, obviously because of a psychological state, which he had no control over, and is now living as a woman says she's happier. And that the yearning there is for fulfilling lives. Respect, to be respected. Yeah. And to be able to live a carefree life the way I'm able to live. And, you know, I want them to have that, right? And there's always going to be a tradeoff there. We can't legislate it, but it would be nice if the social norm was to roll out the red carpet

for them every bit as much as we can and that's reasonable so so so because we want them to be happy people right uh yeah i mean i i disagree with you on some of those things i think that i i agree with you on one let's find where we have common ground we have common ground and like people should feel respected as people right they shouldn't feel we we shouldn't be going out of our way to just make people feel like garbage or dehumanize them or uh or bully them into you know fear and and you know whatever at the same time you know it's this is one of those difficult things where it's like there's truth and there's falsehood and in reality does matter and there's consequences to denying reality and you end up with all kinds of situations like the men and women's sports thing

men and women's locker rooms all of that stuff when you start condoning that in sense of you know you're affirming it on a societal basis and and putting all your rules and regulations in place where you're honoring this, even at the expense of people, other people who are now feel uncomfortable and unsafe in that environment. I see it as like, because this is a mental issue and we're not actually dealing with reality, we are dealing with delusion in this case. And you probably would maybe disagree with me on that, but I think we're dealing with delusion here.

It'd be the same as, you know, someone with an eating disorder, affirming them in their eating disorder because they believe they're fat even though they're not. They've been bulimic for two years. they're anorexic, whatever, and you just tell them, well, this is what you believe about yourself, I'm going to affirm you. I don't think that's the loving or compassionate thing to do. And I think sometimes we make the mistake of trying to be loving and compassionate by affirming someone in their wrongness, in a false idea, and that actually doesn't help them. And so from my perspective, as a Christian, you know, ascribing to like a biblical worldview,

I think the more loving thing to do is to tell the truth and to find ways to do that that are effective so that we can, you know, actually help people that need help rather than continuing to affirm delusions, which are ultimately harmful, especially in children when you end up going down that path of, you know, sterilization and genital mutilation and all of that stuff, you know, that's very dark and destructive stuff. And a lot of people really regret it when they go down that road because they set themselves up for a life of despair and pain and discomfort. And they might change their mind later after they go through puberty and all of these things. So that's a big topic, but

we do at least agree that people should be respected. I think the way to respect somebody is to tell them the truth, but you know, I really disagree on that. I don't think we disagree, although there's just a way of putting things that I would you know, that I would hedge on

just to be kinder. You know, you use the word delusion and if I'm being perfectly honest, I mean, Jim Norton, the comedian is married. Do you know that Jim Norton, the comedian is married? Yeah, I know, Jim. Yeah. Trans woman. I like, I like Jim a lot. Yeah, he's, and they did an interview together. What's her name? Nikki. Nicky, yeah. I'm sorry. She'd been in my house. Anyway, and she says, well, you know, I have mental illness. And the interlocutor is, what do you mean? You have mental illness? And she says, I think I'm a woman. So I believe that it's called transgenderism, F.64 or something. It's an actual mental illness. And I believe all trans people should have that diagnosis.

I sincerely mean that. So you think that being transgender is a mental illness? Yes. I wouldn't say yes five years ago, being young and whatever, but a hundred and ten percent. So what's changed their mind? Just because you realize that if depression can be a mental illness and classified as that, then how the hell is this not? Don't you get it? If that's that mental illness, what is?

So yeah, like even a trans woman, man's woman in good state, well, hold up, let me finish, can agree that it's a, it's a delusion, whatever it is, but, but you know, I can hurt my wife with the truth and I can help

my wife with the truth and you can hurt a person who's overweight with the truth and then you can also want to help a person by tough love as it were. And so let me ask you a hypothetical question then you tell you. So I own the comedy seller and all the

comedians sit around at the table. We have a transcomic there. And if one comedian at the table insisted on calling this trans woman by male pronouns, I would throw them out. I say, no, if you're, if you're going to sit here with this comedian, you have to leave because, you know, and he'd say, well, but she's not a woman. It's not true. I'm like, yes, but that's not, you're not, that's not what's going on here. You're being mean, you know, and would I be, would you agree with me or disagree in me in that situation oh man that's a tough one uh well it could absolutely be a real situation it's yeah it could be it could be no comedian here would would do that but but i get it that it could happen yeah well um i would find ways to avoid doing something that's like

purposefully provocative but if someone tells me you you you know you have to say these are like compelled speech like you have to say something that you believe is false or you can get out And I'm going to be like, well, you know, you can't compel me to say something that I believe is false. So I guess I'll leave voluntarily. We don't have to have a fight about it. Right. Because I would, I said you can't call something. I wouldn't go out.

I guess I wouldn't go out of my way to try to make somebody feel uncomfortable or less than or whatever, like make a scene or something like that to like make a point in the context of that situation. But I wouldn't want to be strong armed into, you know, I consider it misgendering to refer to a male person as a woman or as a she. I consider that. And I think it's harmful to use that language and communicate to the world that that's even possible. I have kids that I'm raising. I don't want my kids to be raised in a world where they believe that boys can become girls. I think it's a harmful ideology. I think it's a really harmful ideology. So on a very fundamental level, I object to that. But I would not, again, to just repeat myself, I wouldn't go out of my way to make a scene in that situation. You know, this is one of these things. I mean, I take your measure and I followed you online, and I feel confident that you are a well-intended, good, and decent person. And this is not, I'm not setting you up for a butt. And from time to time, no, no, from time to time, I think a difference of opinion,

if these things are a constant in you and in me, really just come down to just a difference in your life experience. I mean, I grew up in Greenwich Village, right? and you grew up in a Christian environment. And if we were reversed, I think keeping our same personality attributes, we just probably see it differently. Yeah, I think you're a well-intentioned person, too. And the question is just, you know, who's right about that? Who's really, ultimately, you know, who's doing more harm and who's doing a better service to society?

The people going along with it and affirming it are the people who are saying, no, we need to take a stand on this as a culture, and reject this ideology, that's a debate. And that's a debate that we have to be willing to have rather than just saying, no, you're wrong, I'm right. You're not allowed to take the opposing side here. We shouldn't be able to have this discussion. And that's where we found ourselves with Twitter's rules was you could either be silent on this issue, or you could affirm, you know, the ideology, but you couldn't oppose it in any way, even with a joke, or you would get kicked off. And that's really what I object to more than anything else. And I'll tell you one quick story, I knew we get to the...

Saw this friend of mine who was a very, very dear friend of mine who became trans in her 50s. Well, arguably, it was always trans. No, no. She says no. Okay. She said she didn't used to feel that way. Okay. We had her on the show. You were there. So we were talking about politics or something, and she says to me, well, you know, no, I'm trans women or women.

And I said, because I have a streak of you with me, and I said, no, trans women are not women. And then she said, well, trans women are trans women. I said, yes, trans women are trans women, you know. And that, but she did not take that at all as me being mean. Or she understood, like, I know you so well. I'm not going to say something I don't believe to you, you know, because that would be, in a certain way, in a very deep way, disrespectful. Because at that point, I'm manipulating you.

And that was a cost of the trueness of our relationship I didn't want to pay. So I express, like, I don't actually think that. But, yes, behind her back, even when I'm alone with my wife, I refer to her as she because that's also a matter of my love for her because that's where I respect. I think there could have been a lot more, there could have been a lot less tension on this issue if the respect was going both ways where people were saying, well, you know what, I'm not going to try to get control of your tongue and force you to say things that violate your beliefs, your values, you know, like, I'm not going to try to force you, compel you

to adopt my ideology. You know, we can agree to disagree. Like, where were those conversations? You never heard those conversations happening. It was always, you must comply or you must be silenced. And then on the other side, it was, you know, no, I'm not, you know, denigrating and bigotry and hatred or whatever coming from some people. It's like, where is the willingness to just say, let's respect each other enough to say, you have the right to believe what you want and say what you want. So do I.

So do I. So let's, you know, we can debate it if we want to, but we don't have to force each other to say or believe certain things. You know, related to that, it's just like the dark ages we live to. and Coulter got in a lot of trouble, I don't know how it was like 15 years ago, 10 years ago, because she said on some TV show about Jews, you know, if they're not baptized, they won't go to heaven. Okay, take the Republican National Convention. And people were happy. They're Christian, they're Christian, they're Christian.

They defend America. So we should be Christian, it would be better if we were all Christian? Yes. We should all be Christian. Yes, we'd like to come to church with me, Donnie. So I should not be a Jew. I should be a Christian and this would be a better place. Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

I actually am, that's not true, I really am. You just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians that mirror. Yeah. Really? Well, it's a lot of you here. It's kind of a fast track. Really? You have to obey. You can't possibly believe that. You can't possibly. You're too educated. You can't, you're like, you like my family? Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

No, no, no, but I mean. We have the fast track program. No Jews? Um, no, we think we just want Jews to be perfected as, as they. What really said you? Yeah, no, that's what Christianity. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. In my old days, I would argue.

When you say something absurd like that, there's no... What's absurd? Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try and perfect... Welcome back to the big idea. Break, Anne said she wanted to explain her last comment, so I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive. No, I'm sorry.

It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way. But that is what Christians consider themselves, perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all of the laws. What Christians believe, this is just a statement of what the New Testament is, is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our Testament. You said your exact words were, Jews need to be perfected. Those are words in your mouth.

No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is. Don't you see how hateful and anti-senerical answer? How do you not see you're an educated woman? That isn't hateful at all. But that's even a scarier thought. Okay. And the president of interview was shocked. And Han culture says, what's the matter with you? Don't you know? That's what Christians believe?

Like, why are you acting shocked? And my attitude was the same as this. Like, well, of course, why shouldn't she be able to say, I wasn't offended by her saying that? She's trying to help you. Well, whatever it is, like, does she have to lie? Like, are we unaware that there's a couple hundred million people who are Christians who believe something? they have to, they have to clean it up from my sensibility? No. Yeah. Not everyone's trying to help you in that. A lot of genuine, sincere Christians would say, hey, I want you to be saved, and I think

you need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. You know, like a Christian would say that from a place of love and wanting to see the best for you and to see you in a right relationship with God as far as, you know, what they believe that to be. Others will adopt the, they'll put on the, you know, the disguise of Christianity, they'll act like they're Christians so that they can be anti-Semitic in Christ's name and be like, Christ is king, you dirty Jew. And I don't think that's very

loving. Can I ask... That's exactly what I'm saying about the trans thing. Go ahead. Can I... Well, first of all, I want to go on record as saying that when I talk to a trans woman, I feel as though I'm talking to a woman. I mean... Dan, just because you had a relationship with a trans woman... I never had a

relationship with a trans woman, but to me... He's cleaning it up. To me, you know, to me, it's less of a mental illness than a physical illness. They're physically not what they're mental, you know, where they're at mentally. But anyway, but my question is, is do I have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, or I just have to meld the words? Or I actually have to believe it.

You're asking me? Yes. According to Christian doctrine. Yeah, the Christian doctrine is you have to recognize that you're a sinner. You have to repent. Well, that's easy. That's easy. I recognize that, yeah.

Yeah, you repent if you say, I'm imperfect, I don't deserve, I'm not righteous enough to earn heaven, I'm not good enough, I've fallen short, I'm a sinner. Someone is righteous enough, that's Jesus. He lived a perfect, sinless life and sacrificed himself so that sinners could place their faith and trust in him. And he would be the substitutionary atonement for their shortcomings. And if you clothe yourself in the righteousness of Jesus, rather than trying to dress yourself up in your own and be a good enough, person, then you can actually be reconciled to a holy God who's perfectly just. So it's the combination of God's justice and his mercy that makes salvation both necessary impossible.

How are you feeling, Dan? Well, what I'm getting at is, is if I just have to say it, then there's really no downside because the, you don't just have to say it. It's not a matter, it's a matter of the heart. See, this is the Jewish, it's got to be genuine. Yeah, I'm trying to negotiate with it. This is the conniving Jewish mindset we have. You know, we have Shabbas, we're not allowed to do it on you, but if you get

someone else to press the elevator button. This is a part of the orthodox. Oh, I get it. Yeah. I've never respected that about my own people. All right, let's talk about my own people. Now, what is going on on the right? You know, you fought a righteous battle for free speech.

You were banned off Twitter. Elon took over. He pulled out the stops. And now in some way what's going on in the right with Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson and Nick Flentes, this is a tradeoff for the win that you and I have had in terms of opening up the spigots on free speech.

Yeah, you mean like it's the downside of free speech, right? Yes, yes. And it's more down and worse than I, although I always worried about it. It's, I don't think anybody thought that Candace Owens could be saying this crazy stuff and being the top five podcast news podcasts in the country. So talk about this issue in whatever way you want to. Well, I would start by saying that this, that censorship isn't the answer. You know, I am a free speech advocate. I believe in the right to say things that I don't like, that I personally find abhorrent, disgusting, reprehensible. You know, like, you have a right to say those things. I have a right to find them objectionable. I can tune out and not listen to you. I can

ignore you. I could refute you. I could ridicule you and respond. I have a lot of options other than silencing you. I think that, yeah, like free will is a good, like we have free will. I think God gave us free will. We can do the right thing or we can do the wrong thing. We're morally responsible, free creatures that can go the right way or the wrong way. Obviously, the downside of giving us that freedom is that we often do the wrong thing. And we create all this pain and suffering and hardship and commit crimes and abuse and all kinds of things. And it makes for a very messy and pain-filled world. That's the downside of having free will. Of course, the upside of free will is that it makes all good things possible, like joy and love and sacrifice and compassion.

None of those things would have any meaning if we could only do them and had no free will to do otherwise. You know, courage is only a good thing because cowardice is one of our options and we choose not to be cowards. We choose to be courageous. So there's always that downside to freedom at every level. And in the case of free speech, you know, opening up the forums, the platforms to allowing people to say these things means that the really gross and nasty stuff is going to come to the surface and we're going to engage. counter it a lot more often. But then it's at least out in the open. It's not hiding in the shadows somewhere and it can be confronted. And the thing that I'm most frustrated with is not that these things are being said. I am frustrated with that. I'm deeply disconcerted by it, but

that there's so few people who are really taking a stand against it. There is a lot of cowardice in the face of it. There are a lot of people who are like, well, this is the way the wind is blowing. And I don't know that I want to be on the opposite side of that. I want to remain popular. and I don't want to alienate people and I don't want to upset these really powerful, nasty people who might attack me. And so I'm going to stand down and just let them say their peace and not confront them. I know there are a lot of people who find this stuff really reprehensible, but aren't speaking out. And that's the way, and that's the way to actually put down bad ideas is to confront them in the marketplace of ideas. There's not enough confrontation taking place.

And so, I don't know. I mean, part of my reason for engaging the way that I do is I've always believed that if, you know, that when people are kind of like timid and on the sidelines, if they see someone courageous and bolding going out there and doing and saying what needs to be done and said, then they will also speak up and do that. I've seen lots of examples of that happen in my life. And so, you know,

I'm hopeful that people will continue to speak out and that that will spread so that the bad ideas are confronted because they need to be. That's the way to defeat them. It's not censorship. I'm not calling for censorship of anti-Semitism. No, I'm not either.

Did you want to say something, Dan? Well, I just said it was a last, week, Brett Stevens was saying that, well, he feels that people at the extremes naturally are more charismatic. And then that was, at least according to his assessment, part of the problem. Yeah. So, you know, you could imagine an academic conversation about free speech and what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. And then somebody would give the ad absurdum hypothetical. Well, what if somebody says that every year at Passover, Christian babies are disappearing because the Jews

are actually pedophiles that to this day they're killing Christian babies and hauling them off. Meaning like it's I say I'd absurd them because it's like you can't get worse than that right. Like that's really as far as it goes. And yet, this was presented to, you know, my

friend Megan Kelly and her answer was well, you know, she's under a lot of stress. She's got young kids at home as if when my wife is stressed out, she starts denying the Holocaust on it. And then, you know, this unfortunately leads me in my own mind to concerns about this whole Charlie Kirk thing. And I want to talk to you about that as well. And by the way, let me just stipulate that I know people, a number of people already, I know you two who knew him. And everybody adored him. When I've expressed my reservations, and I'll express them to you too, they have said to me,

no, no, you don't understand. You know, you had to know him. And so because I respect these people, I have to respect that they're telling me this stuff. But I will tell you what my concerns were. But what do we do? Like, there's no limiting principle. And if there ever was one, it's been thrown to the side of the road. If people like Megan Kelly will not say that what Candace Owens is saying is too far,

where do we go from there? Well, the reason that's tricky is because you end up in a situation where, you know, a lot of people want to pressure Megan Kelly to take a stand, and they're calling on her to do that, and they're basically demanding that she condemn some of these things. And, of course, her response to that is, you know, screw off. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, why do you say, of course? Well, because this is the, it's, I say, of course, not because that's, that's the right thing or the obvious thing, but it's the common. response among people on the right right now that I see is to double down. If you tell me that I should do something, I'm going to do the opposite. I'm going to do it even harder. I see that everywhere. It's not just, I'm not singling out Megan Kelly. It's like, yeah. It's an explanation, but not an argument. I don't even believe it. Very common reaction. But do you actually believe that? I don't believe that's the reason at all. I think it's expediency. It's the response that you get. I don't believe it's an honest response. I think that. I don't believe it's an honest response. I think that. these people have put their finger to them. No, I don't think it's honest either.

Well, it's human nature, though. No, it's, I believe, I'll give you an analogy. I don't know, five or six years ago, the previous Gaza war, I noticed that Chuck Schumer, who had always tweeted out things like, there's no moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, blah, blah, blah, at the last previous Gaza war, he went silent. And I said to myself, oh, he put his finger to the wind, and he decided it's no longer in the world.

my interests to be mouthing off on this issue, especially when AOC might be wanting to run for Senate. I feel like, especially because Megan had a history of just, you know, just dumping on people who played dumb about Farrakhan and really like excoriating them, I think she had decided, I hate to say this, but I'm sorry, it's what I feel. I'm totally happy to be disabused that she put her fingers to the wind. And in that world, what she is, her bread is now buttered and It doesn't, I don't just mean financially, her social life, you know, her access to power, for whatever it is that she enjoys in her life right now. And it's probably not money because she's got a lot of money.

She's decided, I don't want to be at the center of the Civil War. Last week I compared it to a Jenga game. Like she's a Jenga block and she knows if she pulls out her Jenga block, the whole edifice is going to come tumbling down in some way. And she doesn't want that. And so what does she say? She says, well, you know, Candace is stressed, and if you tell me to do this, I do the, that's not, I don't think that's, so what do you say? No, I, no, I think you're, you're absolutely right. I mean, I'm an example. I'm someone that they've tried to make an example out of because I have pushed back. I have criticized some of these prominent figures who are saying these outlandish things, things like, you know, oh, you know, well, Hitler maybe wasn't the bad guy in World War II or, you know, or they'll deny the Holocaust or whatever it is that they're saying or doing that's, that's outrageous.

or false or immoral, I push back on some of these things, and I get attacked ruthlessly. I mean, I'm mischaracterized. I'm smeared. I'm called a free speech hypocrite, a hypocrite, like I'm calling for censorship just because I'm criticized. They love to pretend that criticism is censorship. Yes. And these are these, you know, these are their defensive responses to try to put you on your back heels and to try to gain sympathy from their audience that cares about censorship. They pretend they're being censored when they're being challenged. And so there's all these tactics that they use. One of the tactics that they've been using, though, is to attack people like me so aggressively and so repeatedly. Like I hear it all that my name is being mentioned all

the time by these people who really, like, how much of a threat really am I to them? I'm one of the only people who's standing up to them, but they're trying to make an example out of me. I'm now getting death threats. I've got multiple people that are being investigated right now because they've explicitly called for my head. You know, they want to kill me. Um, as a a result of these attacks. So an example has been made kind of out of me where I think it's chilled some speech. People are seeing, well, that could be me. I could be, if I stand up to this, then this is what you get. You know, you get the Twitter mob after you. There's all these, there's the combination of the bot armies, but also the Groyper army and all of that stuff that'll come after you in the comments

and they'll start wrecking you. And then these prominent voices with these big platforms will attack you personally and smear you and call you names. I don't want to deal with that. I don't want to have, you know, that target on my back. And so maybe I'll just stand down and act like, you know, this is someone else's problem or that it's not my job or that we should be uniting together on the right and not, no friendly fire allowed so that we can defeat the real enemy, the left. Those are deflections. I agree with you. They're deflections. Yeah. And, you know, I'm profoundly disappointed. And by the way, leaving the Jewish issue aside, you know, she was also very, very, very offended that people were saying that Charlie Kirk might have been killed by some

right-wing people, and she called a blasphemous. Who are we talking about, right now? Megan Kelly. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I don't believe Megan Kelly's anti-Semitic, by the way. No, absolutely not. She's 100% not, 100% not.

Yeah. No reasonably. That's not just, so, but Candice Owens is also kind of making the case that Turning Point USA was behind and could have been involved in this, in this, in this. murder and that I was and I didn't even and then you were and and she won't even you know stand up on that and listen I have to say and I bet you're going to agree with me I have people around me that that I trust and that I agreed with for many many years and if I got wind of the fact that I all of a sudden was at odds with all these people who I trust and they were demanding is is you

know and they were saying noam you need to say something about this My instinct would be immediately to go into myself and say, okay, what's going on here? If these seven or eight people who love me and see the world as I do, if they're all saying that I'm the odd man out here, maybe I need to think about this. I don't think I would get defying to say, nobody demands what I say. But that's your reaction. I think a lot of people just, they don't like to be scolded. They don't like to be reprimanded. They don't like to be told you're doing something wrong.

All right, all right. So, not that it's an excuse. These same people will be, they scold and reprimand everyone all the time. I get scolded and reprimanded by some of these people. So it's like they're not against scolding and reprimanding. I do, I just want to say, I agree with the, if you have people that you trust, that you trust their judgment, they know you well, you know them personally, they're friends of yours. And they're coming to you with a sincere concern. They're not just, they're not calling you names and they're not, you know, attacking you personally or, or smearment.

hearing you, they're saying, hey, I'm concerned that you're not speaking up about this. I would like to think that I would have an ear for that, too. I think that's the mature response. It's certainly not the mature response to say, you know, I won't be bullied into standing up to this stuff, you know, and just because you're telling me that I have to, I'm going to stand down even more. Or it may be that they've hit a nerve, that she knows she's being cowardly, I guess, for want of a better word, and when she's called on it, it hits a nerve.

and then so the reaction is going to be yeah psychologically what's at play there is really interesting i think that's i think that's a big part of it i think it's a defensive response um from from people that know that they should be doing something that they're not and you often get that response and we often find ourselves responding i've responded that way in cases where i was you know defensive about something that uh i should have been doing i know i should have been doing it someone called me out on it and i get really defensive um do you think that is that is that is human nature yes agree. Do you think that this right-wing fever now about everything, like I hear now John Mearsheimer is saying that, I saw it at least I saw a headline today, that Israel has something over on Trump,

and that's why he's involved in this peace deal. And Mirschimer also said that Israel killed most of the people on October 7th. I mean, you know, the sky's the limit right now. Do you think this is going to calm down now on the right now that the war in some ways winding down, we hope? Or do you think it's taken on a life of its own? I think it's taken on a life of its own. I don't see it calming down. I think this is this is the issue that we have to confront right now. It's a big issue, especially with young people. In very, very large numbers, you know, young people have adopted a very different mentality. They consider it an old boomer, you know, mentality to side with Israel on anything. All of those claims, though, have to be based in something. You can't just

say, oh, yeah, Israel's got something on Trump, and that's why he's him. Well, maybe Trump has other reasons. You know, maybe Trump actually believes that Israel is an ally, and he wants to support them. Like, how is that not a possible explanation? You know, maybe I'm not being paid by Israel to give my opinions. Maybe they're just actually my opinions. Could you be charitable enough to give me that, that I might actually reach this conclusion on my own? I don't see that. I don't see the temperature coming down on this, no. And you see, and the the biggest tell for that is the fact that we actually achieved this peace agreement where you know humas agreed to release these hostages they went through with it and did did release

these hostages and there's and there's the ceasefire right now that's in effect and you know the people that were clamoring for this conflict to end they supposedly wanted it to end they were never willing to call for the hostages to be released and for Hamas to surrender they didn't want it to end that way but they supposedly wanted it to end and then it does and they're still not, you know, they're not satisfied, they're not celebrating, they're not happy. They're like, they're doubling down in their positions and they're continuing to make this more of an issue. I don't see it going away at all. I think the reaction to the peace agreement and the ceasefire is the evidence of that.

It's not going away. So, but in some way you're mixing up to me or maybe I'll mix it, the left and the right, because the people on the left, the ceasefire now people, river to the sea people, they seem to really fit. exactly the description you just gave about you know you're getting what you said you wanted you didn't really want it did you it was too much fun being involved in this movement you didn't want to see it end i feel like to them well i'm not i'm not mixing up the left and the right because a lot of the people on the right have aligned with the left on this you know they're they're they're they're part of the pro-palistine this is a genocide uh Israel is evil the zionists are you know

let me tell let me tell you why i see it that we need to so on the left um and by the way i think that for you know this is like this is a challenge for all of us actually is to not see the world as a movie that kind of entertains us and involves us and emotionally stimulates us you know they they say that they're outraged by all the killing but in a certain way I feel like it's still just a movie to them with their outrage about the killing on the screen so that now that it's going to end, it's not real enough to them to generate the emotions that it ought to be generating, which is tears of relief. And thank God, these people I love, I actually, I actually care about them and they're actually going to stop dying. It's just like, oh, I don't think it, I see, I, I think

it's worse than that. I don't think it was just, and entertainment is the wrong way of putting it from my perspective. I thought, I think it was a, it was a money-making, attention, gaining, grift it was it was some people it made they made it their entire lives they built huge audiences being opposed to what was happening and and if it comes to an end then you know that's the golden goose that was just killed that's it's like they don't want it to end if they if it ends then they have nothing to complain about and that's why i don't see it going away is because they have to try to find new ways to make this an issue if there's going to be some breach in the ceasefire, of course it's going to be Israel's fault, even if Hamas provokes it. It's like, oh, well,

Israel responded in the wrong way. You know, there's going to be, they're going to be always looking for something that they can tap into, some new conspiracy theory that they can float, because the engagement you get from that is massive. There's a huge audience for it. The wind, it has shifted on that, and they know where it's blowing. And so, you know, this was a massive opportunity. These people were opportunistic with this. There is that. I think it's just gross. I think it's morally gross. There is that, but there's also, you know, I came up with a word it's called indignagasm, and that's when people derive great pleasure from being outraged. Yeah. That's my word. So,

that's no, pleasure and, the combination of pleasure and profit. So, if you can, you can experience pleasure while also making money. So the, so the, so the, so the, so the, just to do it to put it all out there. So on the left, you know, they hate Israel and they're fueled by all sorts of, you know, they put Israel in this settler colonial and black, white, and all the paradigms that they see the world as, but on the right, and then that, as the war ends, that will in some way subside, although they still see Israel as this apartheid, South Africa, Pariah State. But on the right, what I'm seeing is an attack on the Jewish people themselves. I mean, you see Ian.

Carol and Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. This is not about Israel. Israel is just one of their exhibits in this feeling that they have about the Jews. And like the typical left-wing college student, I don't think they think twice about bringing a Jewish girlfriend home to their parents, as long as they have the right belief system. But on the right, they have very strong feelings now about anything Jewish. If Israel could go into the sea tomorrow,

and they would still be every bit as, exercised by this. So that's well that's that's where there there's still similarity though between left and right there because it's the framework right this is the the woke moral framework the oppressed oppressor thing you know um Israel is the to the colonialists the oppressors the ones who are keeping the marginalized and powerless people marginalized and powerless and and and you know abusing them and um that is the that is the the left has always tried to the the woke left has viewed the world through that lens where they divide people into the oppressor and oppressed categories. And they have the whole intersectionality score or whatever. And you can be more and

more oppressed or way up here where you're, you know, so oppressive and powerful that, you know, you can do no right. And if you're way down here, you can do no wrong. That was the woke left framework. I think the right where there's great similarity is the right has adopted a very similar framework. They just have a different scapegoat. Their scapegoat is the Jews. The Jews are the ones who are the oppressors, you know, they are the ones who are pulling all the strings and controlling the world. Trump himself is controlled by them and the porn industry and all of the, you know, feminism and all of the bad things in our culture that have led to all this degradation and suffering are all because of the Jews. It was, and it's just like the lefts of you where that's, you know, the white man, you know, the straight white man has, has, has, is the patriarchy is oppressing everybody, you know. And it's exactly the same framework just with different – the blanks are filled in with different plug-and-play aspects.

And in this case, from the right, it's just the Jews that are being scapegoated as the oppressors. And so, yes, you're right, but it's also the same thing as what's going on on the left. Same system. So I want to ask you these questions, but if you don't want to talk about it, I'll move on. But I am curious. it was clear to me before Candice Owens started saying

all this other stuff that just by the emotion that Charlie Kirk displayed in that interview with Megan Kelly that he was pissed at the way he was being

you know Buffaloed by whatever happened at that retreat in the Hampton I think that I believe that you were there where was he coming from

who crossed the line with him do you think they did cross the line with him why was he so upset? Well, it wasn't the retreat that upset Charlie. That's, you know, the timing of it, it has led people to reach the conclusion that something bad happened at that retreat. And now, you know, you see Charlie changing his tune.

Charlie has long, Charlie spent his life being a very vocal supporter of Israel. He based a lot of that on just his moral clarity, his assessment of the situation, the conflict itself, who's responsible for the conflict. You know, he said repeatedly that, you know, if Hamas lays down their arms, there will be peace. If Israel lays down their arms, they will be annihilated. Like, he saw all of that very clearly. That's not a biblical argument. You know, it didn't come from his Christianity.

But he also had a biblical argument. You know, he ascribed to a view that saw great significance in the nation and the people of Israel, the Jewish people. He believes that Christians have an obligation through their faith, through God's word and the promises of God's word that there should be love and concern and blessing for the people of Israel and a desire to see them flourish, a desire to see them safe, a desire to see them ultimately come to faith in Jesus. So that was Charlie's view on Jews. It was Charlie's view on Israel. And he was consistent on that, where Charlie became frustrated. And I know this because I had many conversations with him, and he expressed himself in some of these interviews.

Charlie was primarily frustrated not because he had changed his mind about whether or not he had respect for Jewish people or love for Jewish people, and not whether he had decided he was going to turn his back on Israel. He was just really frustrated with the donors, some of the donors that were giving money to his organization were. holding that money over his head, basically with some of the choices that he had made. He had Dave Smith on, at one point at one of his events, doing a debate with Josh Hammer, and Dave Smith obviously has a very different opinion than both Charlie and Josh. He didn't just give Dave a microphone. He brought him up there to have a debate. He got a lot

of pushback for that. He was having Tucker speak as a headliner, and Tucker's continuing to speak for Turning Point, and he was getting a lot of pushback for that. Understandably, You know, that's free speech at work. People have every right to object to that. I think his donors had every right to say, look, I mean, I donate to a lot of organizations. If an organization is doing things that I don't like anymore, I might decide to withhold my money from them and say, I'm not giving money to you anymore. I don't think that constitutes blackmail. I think that's just the way things work.

Like, you donate to organizations that are aligned with your views and values, and you don't donate to ones that no longer do or that don't. and so but Charlie felt a lot of pressure there because some of these were large donors and they were telling him that they were going to withhold funding or pull funding because of some of these things and Charlie's reaction was very similar to the reaction that Megan had to her critics Charlie's reaction of being told do this or else is to say you know you can't control me that way I don't want to be controlled that way and fine he doesn't have to be but the cost of you know defying them or disagreeing with him is going to be that you lose that money. And so he was facing a lot of pressure and a lot of frustration with that. And then as far as

Israel goes, how Israel is communicating with the public, you know, he expressed some frustration to me about how they don't have very good PR that he's out there doing. It's a beautiful letter. It's a beautiful letter. Yeah, it's a beautiful letter, very heartfelt letter. He expressed a lot. His concern in that letter was to say, hey, look, I'm trying to help you. I'm out there defending you. I'm on the front lines taking all these arrows. I'm taking all this heat defending Israel. And I'm doing a better job of it than you guys are, I could use a little help. And here's how you could do a better job so that I can defend you more easily. You guys need to present yourselves to the world better. He was deeply frustrated that they weren't doing that. It wasn't that he was saying,

hey, I think you guys are wrong and I'm turning on you. He's saying, you're just not going about it the right way in terms of how you defend yourselves and represent yourselves, and you're making it harder on me and it's creating a lot of pressure and difficulty for me. It's making it harder for me to be out there for you. I'm out, help me help you, like the Jerry McGuire, line, right? That's what he was saying to Netanyahu. So yeah, Charlie was, Charlie was deeply frustrated. But, you know, in the Hamptons, it was not like the Hamptons was portrayed as that meeting was portrayed very falsely as some sort of intervention where people who are pro-Israel, people like myself, Bill Ackman, whatever, staged this intervention. We called Charlie to this

meeting. We told him, you need to get, you know, you need to stop hosting certain people. You need to get on board with Israel. If you do, if you, if you, if you, if you just, if you go the way that we want you to go, we'll give you all this money. And if you don't, you know, you don't get any money. In fact, we'll take money away from you. And Charlie said no to the money and then he ends up dead. You know, that was how it was portrayed. That's not how it was at all. Charlie invited everybody, Charlie put on this event. It was a turning point event. He personally invited me and other people there we were debating a lot of different issues we were just talking about how what like what are the threats to western civilization and how do we deal with them

and he was at the front of the room with a microphone asking us questions we were all engaging in debate with each other uh it was a very positive interaction the whole time there were no behind closed doors meeting no strong arming no blackmailing nothing like that charlie did have frustrations of course which he voiced um but this meeting had nothing to do with any of that So this is my question. So like in there's a text message, just lost another huge Jewish donor, two million a year because we won't cancel Tucker.

I'm thinking of inviting Candace. So I understand it's frustration. But was there other conversations where he would say to people, Tucker is putting me in a really bad situation. Tucker is talking about Zelensky being a rat-like. Tucker is blaming our support for Ukraine on Israel. Tucker is talking about Israel wanting to destroy Al-Axa.

Tucker is, you know, saying all sorts of ominous things. The Jews are not imagining it. I mean, you know, he's really saying these things. He's like, why was the frustration at the, if he understood that Tucker was saying these things, why was the frustration at the donors who, as you say, rationally don't want their money to go towards amplifying? Dave Smith debate is different, but actually a featured speaker who's saying things antithetical to the things they believe in, why is there not a text message or were the text message saying Tucker needs to stop this because look at the position he's putting me in.

Was there frustration in the opposite direction? There was very little of that expressed. I don't know what he talked about with Tucker personally. I know that he was good friends with Tucker, knew him for a long time, looked up to him, respected him tremendously, and wanted him at his events. That's all true. whether he had concerns about what Tucker was saying or the direction that he was going

he wasn't voicing he wasn't willing to voice them I think that I think that Charlie really saw himself as a coalition builder who wanted to pull people together he didn't want infighting on the right he didn't want to confront people and call them out by name if he did have any anything to say about Tucker I'm pretty confident he would have said it privately to Tucker and maybe he did

maybe I don't know and and Tucker hasn't revealed that um what's frustrating what's frustrating here is that you know Tucker has this kind of plausible deniability i see right through it you see right through it but i don't demand or i i i can understand or i could sort of understand some people who don't want to see right through it but then when he adds i'm thinking of inviting candis that's a bridge too far for me to have a benign interpretation of where he was kind of maybe just spot you insightful in some way, but certainly there's no way Charlie Kirk did. Yeah, I saw that as like a flippant remark, like, oh, what would make them the angriest?

What could I do that would be the most provocative of them? I could invite Candace. You know, I think he was saying that in a moment of frustrating. He wasn't seriously saying we should have Candace. Yeah. I don't believe that at all. I mean, I spoke to him a lot. This Hampton's event took place in August.

This was recent. It was just before all of these things happened. But it was before those messages were sent. I wasn't in that chat, by the way, so I didn't see those messages until they were leaked. But I don't think that he was sincerely saying that he wanted to do that. I do know that he was frustrated and that his mentality, like a lot of other people's mentality on the right, was, you know, the minute you start making demands of me, I'm going to double down on where I'm at. And that seemed to be his mentality. And I think that's regrettable.

You know, I wish that hadn't been his reaction. I wish that he'd been, because he was hearing from a lot of people and he was hearing. I will say this, though, he wasn't trying to shut us down. You know, he invited me. He knew that I'm, you know, what my stance is on Israel, he knew where I was coming from on these issues. He personally invited me to be there and repeatedly threw it to me in the room. He would say, Seth, what do you think about this?

Seth, what do you think about this? He wanted to hear from all. He was polling the room and he was asking us questions and he wanted to hear a variety of perspective. So, you know, Charlie was really trying to feel out where everybody was and where they stood on these things. And he genuinely wanted to hear where we were coming from on them. he just didn't want it in the context of me he certainly didn't want to hear from me and

I never did this but he certainly didn't want to hear from anybody you know I demand that you do X Y or Z right Charlie you must do this he didn't want to be controlled in that way he was happy to have a debate but he didn't want to feel like people were holding money over his head or that anybody was trying to tell him what he needed to do that was what he bristled at and had the strongest reaction to and so whoever was doing that to him I don't know who that was I didn't encounter that myself but he did have a reaction to that So I reached out to you online

We had a few chats Before this awful murder And I wanted you on the podcast So when I first wanted you on the podcast We never imagined that the conversation would be About this let alone that you would have Personal knowledge about one of the biggest stories Of the last 10 years right

So maybe you regret doing the podcast. I do have one other question about this because it's burning at me. I'm full of regret. I shouldn't have done this. I have somebody who can shed light on it. And then that's the last question I'll ask about this. And I do appreciate you answering these questions. Early on, this is to try to understand not just Charlie Kirk,

but maybe it would give insight into the general evangelical view of Israel. So early on, like October 9th or October 10th, 2003, Charlie Kirk was ready to believe that Israel, Netanyahu, had given a stand-down order. He couldn't understand how Hamas could rampage, you know, for five hours. I'm sure you've seen this video. And I was floored by that in the sense that- Was this the Patrick Bet, David?

Yes. Israel many times. The whole country's a fortress. When I first heard this story, I still had the same gut, instinct that I did initially. I find this very hard to believe. I've been to that Gaza border. You cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier. Right? The whole country is surveilled. And so let me just kind of go through this. We don't talk about Israeli politics very often. And most Americans don't

know this. The last nine months, Israel was on the brink of civil war. It's not an exaggeration. This judicial stuff, there were hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets. because Bibi Netanyahu is basically redefining the Israeli constitution. That's not an exaggeration, right? He said the judicial branch has too much power. There were protests planned this week against Netanyahu where they anticipated tens of thousands of people to take to the streets. That's all gone, Patrick.

Netanyahu now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead. I'm not willing to say, to go so far that saying that Netanyahu knew or there was intelligence here. But I think some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order? was there a stand down order six hours i don't believe it israel's the side of new size new jersey when i took a helicopter ride from jerusalem to the gaza border it's 45 minutes six hours they're live streaming the killing of jews was that somebody in the government say stand down that is a legitimate non conspiracy question the whole country is the idf

the whole country is yeah and you're trying to tell me that they're going to concerts and kibbutz and schools and by reports six hours let's say it's three hours that's suspect at god rob it's also not like a right wing reporting this is from the new york times the long wait for help as massive unfolds in israel nine hours i can't think of a more liberal news outlet than the new york and by the way i i'm actually very pro israel so let me be very i mean so i'm not exactly i mean we all are no no i just want to make sure my position is clear here, but I would, so Patrick, there are other explanations. It's possible that the Netanyahu government was double crossed by bad agents. Okay? That's dark, but it's not as dark as what we're

talking about. Okay? Another aspect is that Netanyahu might have traitors in his government, like legitimate traders that have infiltrated. I was texting with some senior people in the IDF and they said, Charlie can't say too much, but let's just say the same problem you have with the left in America we have here in Israel. Is there something to think about? Just something to think about, right? Is that maybe there are some people within those intel agencies that aren't as sympathetic. Or maybe, Patrick, maybe, they might have gotten a tip, they might have gotten whispers, but no one thought it would be 1,200 Jews dead. That's a potential, right? Because here's the, here's the essence of it. The essence is this. This is the closest thing to the Holocaust that any of us

have lived through. But the fact is now Bibi and the Israeli hard right government has a mandate I've got to be careful the way I say this to they're going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza I mean that that's and I don't use that term lightly okay they're talking about basically removing 2.5 million people from there okay and honestly they have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge they do there is this idea that they need to have a truce or a peace trade that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets But there are some serious questions here, Patrick. And let me tell you, my pattern recognition over the last five years has become pretty sharp.

COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein. When I see a story and it doesn't click, our guts are usually right. Yes, yes. Because I felt like he was in a cohort of like just one or two people who. who were vehemently pro-Israel, but that were ready to believe something so awful about Israel. And I remember saying to people, you know, in a matter of seconds, you could generate that this would be a conspiracy

where, you know, maybe thousands of people would have to know about it. Friends and relatives of victims would have to know about it. Opposition leaders would have to know about it. Soldiers, enemies of Netanyahu. It was completely, completely like zero chance that you could pull off a conspiracy like that, especially instantly, like, unless you think they were in on it beforehand. And yet he was ready to believe that, and he stood by it. I heard him later on.

He stood by it. And I thought to myself, this is a, this is a strain, like it appears to be the same pro-Israel view that I have, but clearly he's arriving at it in a different way, maybe the biblical way, but in some way he was ready to believe something truly awful about the Israelis that Ben Shapiro would never have entertained even for five seconds. So, you know, give me some guidance on that. And if you think it's a dumb thing, I'm saying, by all means, humiliate me because I know it's a deep thing. No, I don't. Yeah, that's cited as one of the examples to show that he was evolving on the

issue, right? I mean, that's one of the things that people point to. And I don't know. I can't, I can't speak for him. And unfortunately, he can't speak for him. himself anymore to elaborate on it. If he did stand by it, I didn't see that. I didn't see where he was asked about that a second time. I'll send it to you afterwards. I don't want to spend too much time on this story. I really don't because I don't know the truth of the extent of it. But I was attacked and I was called an anti-Semite and I am resolutely pro-Israel for the record. I love Israel. I want them to win and finish the war. But I was smeared and slandered by many people as being called an anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist for what is now reported in the

Jerusalem Post. The IDF knew of Hamas's plan to kidnap 250 before the October 7th attack. The IDF had precise information about Hamas intentions, but due to prevailing conceptions in the security establishment and possibly negligence by officials, the warning signs were not acted on. I went on the Patrick Bet David podcast. In fact, we can get that tape, Ryan. Can we get that tape, Ryan? Where I went on the Patrick Bet David podcast back in October, and I did not know all the information, and I have been in Israel's corner and remained the entire time. and then said, I do not believe what we are being told. And I believe that they might have had a heads up.

Was there a stand down order? And I was attacked by every possible direction. But now, in this court in the Jerusalem Post, a newly surfaced document has revealed the IDF and intelligence systems have detailed the knowledge of Hamas's plan to raid Israel and kidnapped before the October 7th massacre. The document was distributed a couple weeks prior and they knew that an attack was coming. But I'm doing this for my own sake to clear my name because I was. was so viciously attacked. I was smeared and slandered for a month. I was called an anti-Semite.

And it's not an exaggeration of Washington Times. I could go through all the different publications that published that nonsense. There was a document titled Detailed End to End Raid Training was distributed on September 19, 2020, and described in detail the series of exercises conducted by Hamas elite units. These exercise included raiding military posts and kibbutzum. So part of the government knew.

The question is, was BB Netanyahu briefed on this? I don't know, I have no idea, but it is something. It's quite interesting. This is me on the Patrick Bet David show. And I say this again, I want Israel to finish the war, to win the war, all in. But I said what I said and what I said is true. And it is a learning lesson that when somebody says something that is rooted in shared experience, And he's also on your side.

I was attacked by so many conservatives as being a conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones type, but I don't even know what that means. This is very important that we find out what the heck happened leading up to. Who knew that this was going to happen? Why wasn't this shared? We need resignations at a minimum and maybe people to go to jail for allowing this to happen. And maybe does this go all the way up to the top government of Israel? I don't know.

I certainly hope not. And I say that as somebody who is cheering for them to win the war. We should be pro-Israel. They are a beacon of civilization against mad, man, modern-day Nazis. We want accountability and we want the truth. And the truth, I don't know what that is, but according to new reports, is this was not a sneak attack. It was not a surprise attack. It was something that parts, at least of the Israeli government knew was going to happen.

The question is, did they let it happen? I do think that it's perfectly fine. I don't think that anybody should be so committed to defending Israel's leadership or the country itself, you know, the state in its policies or its military strategy or whatever. I don't think anybody should be so deeply committed to it that they can see no wrong or that they ask no questions or that they don't, you know, they don't care to look into it more to find out what really happened.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable. In fact, it's a moral obligation of ours to actually look at the facts and ask hard questions and try to understand what's really going on. You know, where's the propaganda on both sides? How do we identify the propaganda? What's the truth? The deepest frustration that he expressed to me personally was with, you know, poor communication coming from Israel because you have to then assess these things yourself and try to arrive

at your own conclusions. know what you know you're not getting the same you're not getting enough information and so the conspiracy theories and things can raise doubts in your mind and whatever and you and you have to kind of sort and sift through all of this stuff and his frustration that he expressed to me was that Israel hadn't done a better job of explaining themselves and defending themselves so that we didn't have to wonder you know whether you just you can take the wondering out of the equation if they do a better job with that that was the expression that he that was the

frustration that he expressed to me he never he didn't expressed to me that he believed that they were, you know, actually truly evil and doing terrible things. But, you know, if he's, if he's not feeling like he's getting enough information, he starts asking questions where he has people in his ear who are convincing him of some of these things, which, you know, he did have trusted people that see the issues very differently than I do that were in his ear and talking to him. They might have been persuading him or raising some doubts in his mind. I don't know. I really just don't know, you know. And at this point, there is really no way to know beyond what he said on the record before he was killed.

Well, I have to be very clear because it's very important to be fair to everybody, especially someone who can't defend himself, that for two years after this incident, he was a wonderful advocate for the state of Israel and didn't waver. So, yeah. And real quick, the last event that he went to where he was shot, he was prepping for that event by talking to his trusted advisors. advisors, which included people like

Josh Hammer, you know, who he was in that text chain and he was on a call, a Zoom call, with Charlie prepping him for answering tough questions about Israel. He was still, on his last day, prepping to defend Israel in the public square.

And the letter, the letter was, I mean, the letter was beautiful. It's horrible that Candace Owens characterized that letter as she did in such a cynical way, because the letter is exactly what Netanyahu needed to hear, and he needed to hear it a year ago. I mean, yeah, someone either misrepresented that letter to her or she just lied about it.

It's one of those two things. Did he express, at least to you or anyone else as far as you know, that he was in danger, that he needed to be careful, that, you know, speaking publicly the way he did, in the way he did, could pose a danger to him physically? No, not in any escalated way. What he did express, this is one of the things that we went over in the Hamptons when we were talking about the Israel issue, he expressed some frustration with the inability to speak freely on these issues where, you know, criticism, if you come out, in his position, if he were to come out and criticize Israel, if he were to criticize BB Netanyahu, for example, then he would pay a steep price for that. He wasn't talking about like he would be killed. He didn't take it in that direction. He was just saying that he would face a lot of backlash. He would take a lot of heat for that. And so it's because of the immense pressure to not criticize Israel, he felt like he didn't have free speech. So if he wanted to say anything

critical, he felt like he couldn't. He didn't say what his criticisms were in that moment. If he had them, he just said that he didn't feel free to criticize them if he wanted to. And so my response to that was, and I said this, and it wasn't just to him. We weren't having a private conversation. It was about 35 people in the room. I told him, you know, it's, These are, these are context-specific things. You know, you have, you have a reputation as being a defender of Israel. You have, you know, obviously donors who are supportive of Israel, who want to continue to see you support them. You have to weigh what you say carefully because of the context that you're in.

And there may be consequences for saying something like that. It doesn't mean that you don't have free speech. You're still free to do it, but something, you know, of course, yeah, you might get backlash. In my case, you know, it hasn't been criticism of. Israel that's gotten me the most backlash. It's been my criticism of the critics of Israel that's gotten me the most backlash and is now generating death threats for me. So, you know, it's, we all, whatever stance we take, there's going to be people on the other side of it, and we're going to get that pushback. That's their free speech in response to our free speech.

And so I disagreed with him that that was a speech issue because he was, he was framing it in terms of, you know, this is impinging on our right to free expression. And I disagreed with him about that. But he didn't say anything about how he felt like there was an immediate danger to his life that he felt threatened. He didn't seem like he was under duress or any, you know, any kind of like serious stress or anything like that. He was just, you know, on the topic of Israel, he was frustrated because of the possibility of pushback if he were to criticize them in any way, although he didn't voice those criticisms. And then, you know, just generally, you know, those donors apparently behind the scenes, you know, we're applying pressure on, I think primarily over the

the Tucker issue, hosting Tucker at his events. And my position, just to be very clear, because I said this publicly back in August, and I'll repeat it again here for you guys, you know, my position is, I disagree with a lot of what Tucker has said. I disagree with a lot of the things that his guests have said and the dark path that he's taking his audience down. I've said that very publicly. I also stand by the right of an organization like Turning Point to platform Tucker if they want to. That's their right. But there has to be understanding. This is the thing. Everybody has rights, right? turning point has the right to put him on stage and amplify his voice and and and and and and his

audience has the right to say I don't think you should platform this guy and here's why um and and the the problem is just that whenever that criticism comes back and this is the problem that that I've seen repeatedly especially like when I criticize Tucker Tucker accuses me of trying to censor him and that's not the case I'm not saying that he needs to be censored we need to take his microphone away take him off the internet don't let him on any stages sure you can put him up there if you want to but you are going to be criticized for it. And I think you should be criticized for it. And we have every right to criticize that decision. So the whole theory, freedom cuts both ways. That's the thing. And, and people really need to get that. They really need to get that. Well, yeah, the whole theory of free

speech presumes that we will be criticizing each other. This notion, I've heard this argument a million times. Oh, you're for censorship. No, it's a, it's a canard. And Tucker knows it's a You're not asking for anybody to censor him. You're asking people to speak up and have some courage to dispute what he's saying because the headwinds are strong here and a lot of people are afraid to and you're trying to motivate people. Look, I'm very impressed. This may sound, you know, who am I to say this?

But I'm just telling you honestly, I'm very impressed by you man to man because you are not mincing words on anything, including sharing your disagreements. with your friend Charlie Kirk. You're obviously a rare individual. I'm very, very happy to meet you. I hope to meet you in person. I have always, you know, I've always been turned off

by liberal Jewish people who kind of wrote off or even, you know, look down there, I don't know what the word is, we're arrogant about the tremendous support that the Christian religious community gave to the Jewish people and to Israel for years and years and years.

And I used to say that there, you know, that Jack Nicholson, you want me on that wall, that movie? I said, they are on that wall. We want them on that wall so you liberal Jews can indulge yourself and your social justice id in the Democratic Party that will never stand up for you. And who's the bulwark? It's these Christian religious people

who you make light of and roll your eyes at and, you know, and now they're crumbling, and now where are you, right? Now, if they crumble, you're in, big, big trouble. Didn't you see that? And I saw that years ago. So I mean, this is like one Jew thanking you, because you're showing real courage now, thanking your people. I mean this from the bottom of my heart, your people for their moral support. And it was not cynical. It's because they believed it and because they have faith. As, by the way, I used to say to people, really,

you're criticizing them for supporting Israel because they're religious. Why do you think the Jews support Israel because they're like Orthodox Jews support Israel many of them because it's the same reasons right so anyway this is emotional for me but I really do admire you and your people and I'm appreciative

of it and you especially because you are standing against the trends right now in a fearless way what is it then? Well I also want to say that many many of them are tentative in their embrace of Zionist Christians because they feel

like, you are, ultimately, you want us to embrace Jesus. Now, my question would be is if Jesus comes back, and I see him doing miracles, look, I'm a stubborn Jew, but I'll, if I see a miracle, I'll be right behind, you know, I'll change my mind. Would it be too late? Well, there were Jews who saw Jesus do miracles and followed him, and there were Jews who saw him do miracles and didn't. Those are our people, Dan. Well, you know, I guess they weren't that great miracle.

What do you? Water and wine or whatever? All right, listen. I don't want to make—go ahead. Sorry. The greatest of them all was his resurrection from the dead. It was the apostle Paul who said that if he's not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain. And so he rooted everything in that grand miracle.

But, yeah, I mean, I certainly hope that you haven't gotten the impression from me that I'm trying to beat you over the head with anything. You guys asked me questions, and I answered them. I answered them honestly. This is an issue that Dan is always interested in, and you have to be, so that he's bringing it up, but you have not beat us over the head at all. Dan and I, I mean, I think, I'm not religious. I don't think Dan is either, and, but I have tremendous respect.

I mean, my grandparents were religious, and I see the beautiful things that religious people do. I yearn I could have that in my heart to believe it in that way and to have that comfort that people clearly get from it. I don't. But there's another step that people take. I already said it, which is to now look down on it or disparage it. And this is horrifying to me.

And it always offended me, even at a young age for some reason, even when I was too young to have deep thoughts, I always had that. Well, the most important question isn't whether it will benefit your life in some way or make you feel a certain way. It's whether or not it's true. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. and each of us has to decide for ourselves what we believe and what we think is true. I believe that Christianity is true, and I'm happy to give reasons for that.

But, you know. We should do another show where we're actually discussed that if you want. Yeah, yeah, we could have a whole discussion about that. That would be actually a really interesting discussion. I'm happy to do it. All right, when do you come to New York, you don't want to even say on the air, but I hope you'll come to New York. Yeah, I'm in and out of New York here and there. So when I'm up there, I'll let you know.

I mean, you're in the comedy business. You've got to come to the comedy seller, sit with the comedians. Yeah, that'd be fun. Be safe and, you know. Yeah, did you have crazy world out there? I mean, I think everything's fine, but there's an extra concern that you have in your career that you never counted on, right? You didn't go into this business thinking, oh, my God, there's another thing I'm going to have to worry about, which is my safety. I'm very sorry about that.

Yeah, and I'm on campuses sometimes, too. I do a lot of public speaking. It's a scary thing, knowing that there are people out there that literally want to kill you and going out and doing this. But, you know, Charlie did it very boldly and courageously. He was unafraid. And I do think that, you know, the way that Charlie's voice was amplified so much by their attempt to silence it, you would just hope that it would give people pause

and think, you know what? maybe violence isn't the way. Maybe this is backfiring in the most tremendous way. Imagine being the guy who killed Charlie and then seeing that memorial service that reached so many people. And there's like this, there's now this renaissance of interest in faith. There's people, the churches were filled to the brim, you know, the standing room only because of what happened with Charlie. It was like you literally drove people into the arms of the churches and God himself by taking this one life. it's like that's a big backfire it's a big backfire and you just you you hope that people

start to realize that violence is not the way you'd really hope that but there's a lot of irrational deranged people out there yeah um and so you can't be too safe but at the same time you have to continue what what charlie would want is for us to continue to be bold and courageous and go out there and have these discussions and so we're going to keep doing that all right set dillon has been an honor and a pleasure to have you on the show good night everybody Thanks, guys.