YouTube Transcript:
turning point
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Available languages:
View:
Over the weekend, Charlie Kirk's alleged
murderer was caught. His motives are
indecipherable, and he is not
cooperating with authorities. I assume
you've already seen my first video on
Charlie Kirk's death, but I'd like to
reiterate that what happened on that
regular day in any Town, USA, was
appalling, even for America's standards.
Every nation has had its moments of
self-inflicted shame. That's undeniable.
But what other developed nation
routinely flirts with staying there?
What other developed nation insists on
degrading their democracy did that of a
third world banana republic where
assassinations are seen as just another
campaign tool? As an outsider, I can
assure you that the rest of the
civilized world has always looked on in
morbid curiosity at the United States
who seem to not only tolerate but expect
a certain level of political violence in
its democratic process. As if this were
almost an experimental element of free
speech. But the fact that the commentary
almost as quickly as the bullet had
exited Charlie's neck immediately
shifted to questioning whether or not
Charlie Ko deserved to die or further if
violence is now justified I think anyway
if you will pardon the phrase is a
turning point when John F. Kennedy was
assassinated, leaders from across the
aisle and newspapers, regardless of
their affiliations and leanings,
condemned the act and somberly called
for national unity. Not that this was
needed as the citizenry itself by the
faroff minuscule fringes were already a
mourning. There wasn't an air of
partisanship about it because they were
civically minded enough to know that
they weren't just mourning a national
tragedy. They were mourning an attack on
the presidency itself, an attack on an
institution vital for the democratic
process to function. No one had to tell
them this. They knew it. They understood
that Kennedy's assassination was bigger
than politics. It was civics. That this
wasn't just an attack on the player, but
an attack on the game itself. How quaint
that all seems now. As if civic decency
is a historical heirloom like a town
cryer bell or trier hat. For in today's
America, before the government was even
caught, before we even knew his name,
let alone his political leanings, you
had leading Republicans and media
figures quick to blame the Democrats and
calling for reprisals. Due to the
inundation of American politics that the
world consumes with relish, I think I
have a taste for what the average
American feels when there's yet another
school shooting. You're not shocked that
it happened. You're shocked that you're
no longer shocked. Charlie Kirk would
have had to have been one of the
Republican party's most effective
political warriors. Unlike most
commentators who take the coward's
position of, "Oh, I think they're all
the same." Charlie proudly wore the
title of Republican as a badge of honor.
He was a true believer in the cause. And
yet, as his body lay limp, they used his
carcass as a ragd doll to chuck into the
grinding mill of endless point scoring
processed into the new cycle. As if it
was a perfectly normal response from a
mainstream parliamentary party in a
western democracy that could gain
government, let alone is in government
to turn it into a partisan point as
unthinkingly as a reflex. Australia's
current ambassador to the US is a former
prime minister of ours. He would have to
have the exact opposite opinion to
Charlie Kirk on virtually any issue.
When he was shot, his response was, "The
death of Charlie Kirk today is deeply
distressing. There is no space for
political violence in any democracy. My
thoughts and those of all Australians
are with his family and loved ones."
Compare that response to Trump's who was
supposedly one of Charlie's best
friends. I can assure the Americans
watching that the response from
Republican leadership in Australia would
have been reserved only for the fringe.
Here you would have heard it from barely
elected swill in the rightfully reduced
crossbench like Ralph Babbot. That's the
same level a mainstream party is on now.
Crossbench swill, confoundingly with a
majority in both houses. I'm not going
to pretend, though it would be
personally convenient to do so for
maximum online engagement, the Democrats
return served. I'm more than happy to
note because it's important that
Democratic leadership was consistent and
uniform in their condemnation. If only
the leadership had anyone left to lead.
The usual Democratleaning commentators
that are of note in both the old and new
media followed what is the unequivocal
sane response template. They expressed
sympathy for Charlie's family, condemned
the act, said there's no room for
violence in a democracy. But to who?
Granted, their videos performed well,
but all of a sudden, the feed was filled
with a flurry of new commentators that
were previously non- entities competing
in viewership with the stalwarts because
the base was not buying what the saying
was selling. They wanted people who
reflected their view that I honestly
thought would have been relegated to
fringe forums, but apparently it's
mainstream opinion now. They wanted
someone to justify the Chardan Freud
they felt over Charlie Kirk's death. I'm
not including memeing on Charlie Kirk's
death in this. Dark humor is employed by
some of the best people in society.
Paramedics and nurses that are
confronted with horrific deaths on a
daily basis use dark humor as a coping
mechanism because by its nature, it is a
tacit admission that the event itself
was twisted. I'm talking about the sea
of chronically online freaks who
sincerely think that Charlie Kirk's
death is deserved. always with the same
pattern that these hypocrites have
smuggly derided for years in
Republicans. I'm not a racist, but their
version is confoundingly more
unsettling. It's I don't condone
violence, but the butt is followed
always by eight paragraphs explaining
why they think that it's not only
justified, why they think they're
morally superior for justifying it,
always with the fig leaf camouflage
spllayed over the top, which is, "I said
I don't condone violence, therefore you
can't accuse me of condoning violence."
You will see what I'm talking about in
these very comments. long elaborate
paragraphs always followed by the
template of he said X, he was insert X
label. Very often they try and make
themselves out to be the victim of his
hateful tirades because Charlie getting
sniped to the neck is obviously about
them. Of course, some of them are so
noble in fact that they don't even have
these opinions for themselves. They have
it on behalf of ex agrieved minority
that Charlie kills with his Instagram
reels. They might have even chucked in
insert X country has political killings
all the time and yet you never talk
about that. In fact, even caring about
this is the Chronically Online's
favorite dismissal. Some sort of
right-wing grift. Awful lot of words to
say I condone political violence. On
that last point, the reason Charlie's
death is significant and not in country
X is that the United States is not
country X. It is supposedly the leader
of the free world and it plunging to the
democratic doldrums of a Colombia or
Pakistan where killing is as acceptable
in the so-called democratic process as
voting. That's globally significant.
rightly or wrongly from the endless
brainwashing of friends repeats. The
rest of the world looks to the United
States for cues of normality. Speaking
of Pakistan, you will notice the
political and religious assassinations
there are like the democracy sausage in
Australia. It's part of the process.
You'll notice that every single time a
MU is killed, it follows a very similar
line of reasoning to those justifying
Charlie's death. This MUI said X. He was
insert X label. If anything, my sect of
Islam is the real victim. So be sure
Americans, Charlie Kirk's death is not
the end of democracy. But it's that kind
of democracy that you're heading for.
Naturally, like with everything else,
these people will fall back on blaming
their favorite nebulous flavor of the
system. Some will blame the gun lobby,
economic inequality, the radical left,
which appears to be a cheap rebrand of
the 50s retro charm that is communism.
Again, it's deeply concerning, but not
surprising that many suspect that it's a
false flag operation staged by the
government. Yet time and again you have
the killer come from comfortable
economic circumstances. While commentary
on the so-called politics, if we can
even call this event political, is
widely consumed by the middle class or
higher. The problem is not the man. The
problem is the everyday man. This is
something that is deeply sick within the
citizenry of the United States. And like
all mental patients, of course, they
want to externalize the blame into some
invisible enemy that only they can see.
Many will claim that the man was quite
literally the man. rationalizing their
shardan Freud by saying that this is the
society that Charlie Kirk wanted. So did
you. Only 67% of millennials and just
44% of Gen Z, that is less than half of
Gen Z, think that violence is never
acceptable against an elected official.
What's the common denominator within
these two demographics? They're the ones
that are the most online. In fact, you
have a third of American students, not
exactly an economically disadvantaged
cohort. University is a thoroughly
middle class endeavor. And yet you have
a third of that widely comfortable
cohort believing that violence is an
acceptable response to speech. They're
not all watching Charlie. There will be
all sorts of barely coherent non-Ch
Charlie related ideological
justifications across the quote unquote
political spectrum justifying violence.
And I can assure you very little if any
of them held the exact same poisonous
combination of talking points as Tyler
Robertson because they've got their own
Reddit forum for that. They've got their
own personal curation of ex-
commentators that gaslight their rapid
descent into Pakistani style extremism.
The point is that a third of them think
that Tyler had a point. The only point
uniting them is that up to a third of
Gen Z can all agree that Tyler was
acting within the acceptable democratic
bounds. Children are our future. And
that's what we're witnessing. The
sprouts of that line of thinking.
Everything about this was internet-aged
brain rot. This was an internet
celebrity making content for a
chronically online audience killed by a
chronically online man with memes
engraved into his bullets that are so
indecipherable to authorities that they
still don't understand what his
political ideology was. And that's
because I can assure you neither does
he. His ideology is what political
scientists will one day refer to as slob
souprained. It is nothing more but the
result of American culture colliding
with 21st century brain rot. As is now
becoming a cliche, the global experiment
of social media is not even two decades
old, and it's already proving to be the
human equivalent of when you put a
dolphin in a tank in SeaWorld and its
own echoes bounce off the wall and
slowly drive it insane. We have our own
echo chambers that we voluntarily put
ourselves in. You can blame anything you
like on the demise of the US in recent
decades. Every boogeyman is probably
going to have some level of validity to
it. But that mindset right there,
Charlie had it coming, that's going to
be the nail in the coffin. It won't have
the effect that they think it'll have
either, as has already happened. He's
become far more influential than he ever
was alive. He's been elevated from
commentator to martyr. What did you
think was going to happen? Is that
mission accomplished? Is it Tyler? This
is being seen as permission for more
violence, which of course is going to be
condoned and draw sympathy from, as
potentially half of his generation
thinks Tyler has a point. I know this is
of no concession. In fact, it might even
come off as gloating and perhaps it is.
But I was the target of a failed
assassination attempt. What always made
me feel like Australia is a good place
is the fact that even my political
enemies, and I can assure you I have
many, they came out and publicly
declared, even if it was for internet
clout, that it was unacceptable.
Regardless of how self- serving and
click-thungry the performance was, the
performance still had to be performed to
an audience that believed that political
violence cannot ever be justified. It
cannot be rationalized. Yes, we have
violent political outbursts every now
and then. Every country does. But it
will find no safe harbor here. It is a
line in the sand that the general public
will not cross. What's startling is even
many Australians who would have agreed
with the basic premise of our democracy
not condoning the violence not condoned
the violence buted their way out of
Charlie's murder. And that's because
America, just so you know, you give off
the cue to the rest of the world that
this is how your democracy should
function. These people clearly consume a
lot of your media bile and that's what
your media bile has taught them. As you
will expect, these chronically online
freaks, due to their confounding
solicism, expected that I would make
them feel okay for having the sick view
that Charlie had it coming. And because
I didn't, they freaked out. QA
paragraphs justifying in their own minds
why they're morally superior for
thinking that Charlie deserved to die.
But I said, I don't condone violence.
So, I'm right in both ways at once.
Unsubscribed. If only that were true. I
know that they're basically a heroin
addict for Twitter. they will be back
because they enjoy finding reasons to
have fits over. But believe me when I
say I sincerely wish they didn't come
back. I don't want an audience filled
with the likes of you. I don't want to
pander to your mental derangements for
views. There are many others who do, but
I don't want to be subjected to an
audience capture that is that easy to
please, that monetizable due to the
amount of content they consume online. I
don't want to be held captive to those
freaks. I would hope that I'm striving
to appeal to the same, those who
actually believe what I thought were
basic conventions like it's not okay to
shoot someone for an opinion and it's
certainly not okay to shoot someone else
as some sort of retort. For any American
that is watching that belongs to this
ever shrinking voting block it appears
to be these days that is the same. I'm
sorry that this is happening to your
country. I truly am. I think it must
have been a gradual decline where all of
a sudden you felt an air of oppression
that you couldn't feel before and that's
because a nation's atmosphere is made up
of its citizens. I'm sure that you've
gradually grown fearful of what you can
say around your friends, family, work
colleagues, and neighbors because that
half of the country doesn't just sprout
out of nowhere and any one of them could
be the next Tyler Robinson. I can't say
that I would be surprised either if this
is how the great American experiment
ends. An attention fractured
kaleidoscope of echochamber narcissism.
But unlike Charlie Kirk, you don't have
to prove me wrong. I hope I am. If I'm
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms
Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!
YouTube
←
→
↻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
YoutubeToText
←
→
↻
https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc