100percentfedup.com
Megyn Kelly Tells Mark Levin to “Put a F*cking Lid On It!”
Megyn Kelly just let lose on Mark Levin telling him to “put a fucking lid on it” with regard to his dangerous rhetoric basically calling anyone he disagrees with a “Nazi”.
And for the record, here’s a screenshot of just some of those:
Step back and think about this for a second….
Who is the one person that it’s kind of ok to admit you would kill if you had the chance?
Hitler, right?
Don’t people always say that?
“If I had a chance to go back in time and kill Hitler, I’d do it!”
There’s a sense that there would be a much greater good if Hitler was killed early on, so then it would be socially acceptable if not encouraged to do so. That’s the general thinking.
So what happens if you start calling other people Hitler and a Nazi?
Over and over and over and over?
They get the idea that maybe we should kill this new Hitler! Certainly if they’re already living on the margins, perhaps on SSRs, perhaps suffering severe mental stress and disorder, we’ve certainly seen that happen haven’t we?
So on the heels of Charlie Kirk literally being assassinated potentially because similar rhetoric, Megyn Kelly has finally had enough and she just told Mark Levin to “put a fucking lid on it”.
Watch here:
For more on the feud here, read this:
TUCKER vs. LEVIN — Fully Explained
In case you haven't been paying attention, there is a growing feud/debate between Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin.
But do you know what it's really about?
No one is perfect, and I'm not here to say one man is entirely 100% right and the other is entirely 100% wrong, but I do think it's important to lay the debate on the table. Not ad hominem attacks, but the actually debate on the merits.
And so that's what I want to do in this article.
I know some of you will not read past this line because you follow anything Mark Levin says verbatim and think it's somehow sacrilegious to dare even question him, but I've been "daring" and pushing the limits here for over 10 years so here we go!
I'm going to do my best in this article to just show you clips from each man and not provide any commentary, just let you watch and listen.
Listen to the merits of what they both say...
Listen to who sounds angry and off the chain and who sounds calm and collected...
Listen to whether you hear hate or love in their voices...
And then decide what you think.
Also, as Tucker explains in one of the clips I am about to show you, the debate is NOT about Israel or "The Jews" -- no, not really.
The debate is simply about what "America First" means, because that was the platform that gave President Trump three election wins, so maybe we should all figure out what it means?
With that I'm going to start with Levin and show you two recent clips from him:
One:
SHAMEFUL: Mark Levin Leaks Tucker Carlson’s Private Text Messages
Two:
Mark Levin Absolutely UNHINGED In New Speech
Ok, now let's shift to Tucker and a new video he just released.
This is Tucker explaining what he believes the debate is about, at least in his mind and where he stands on things.
I am curious to see what you think in the comments -- is this a reasonable position to hold or does he just "hate the Jews"?
Watch here:
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Pretty much every morning you wake up and open your phone and think to yourself, I wonder if this roiling fight on the right is still ongoing. The fight over who's a Nazi and who's Nazi adjacent and who should be platformed and who should be deplatformed? That fight, the one that has mesmerized ex-users across the world. What is that fight actually about and how long will it continue?
Well, the first thing to know about it is that it didn't start three weeks ago with Nick Fuentes's appearance on a podcast. No, this has been a fight taking place mostly behind the scenes since January. And that tells you a lot about what it's actually about. So, here's how it began.
Donald Trump inaugurated January 22nd of this year. Almost immediately after he is visited at the White House by the first head of state to come to Washington, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. And the visit is not simply a congratulatory visit. They're not actually allies in any sense.
Remember that Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the very first to congratulate Joe Biden after the 2020 election. So there's probably not a lot of warmth there. Just guessing. No, there was a purpose to the visit and the subsequent visits by the prime minister of Israel to Washington. And that was to get American support for regime change war in Iran to overthrow and replace the government of Iran, which the nation of Israel sees as its primary regional threat.
Iran has all kinds of very dangerous conventional weapons. The United States spends a lot protecting Israel from those missiles. And Israel is also concerned that at some point Iran will either make or buy a nuclear weapon, leaving Israel no longer the only nuclear armed nation in the region. So that's what it's actually about. And to be honest, you can see from Israel's point of view, if you're trying to identify long-term serious threats to you, Iran would be at or near the top of the list, especially since Israel has taken out almost all the other threats. But really, it's just Iran.
The question is, is it in America's interest to participate in that war? And make no mistake, Israel wouldn't last 3 days in a war by itself against Iran. In fact, probably not even 24 hours. Israel's population centers would be taken out by Iran's conventional weapons. And at that point, the Israeli government could either nuke Iran, starting a chain reaction that, you know, you can't really predict once it begins, uh, or allow hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, certainly tens of thousands, to be killed.
So, Israel could not do it alone, and no honest person suggests or would suggest that it could. It needs the United States. So the question from the American perspective is, is it good for America to get involved in yet another Israel inspired regime change war in the Middle East? There have been quite a few, most notably Iraq. Is that a good idea?
And so that debate began and it mostly began behind the scenes. It didn't sort of peek out into public view very often. But when it did, the people who wanted the regime change war against Iran almost with almost zero exceptions almost never admitted what they actually wanted and they certainly never acknowledge what the debate was actually about. It was about one nation's interest versus another nation's interest. Do those interests convene?
Are they the same thing or are they at odds with each other? I can see why it'd be a good idea for Israel to want this. Is it a good idea for us? That's the debate that never took place. And it didn't take place because almost from the beginning, the people who wanted regime change war with Iran made the debate instead about why do you hate the Jews? You're a Nazi.
And of course, that was never what the debate was about because Israel, the nation of Israel, the one with the parliament, the Knesset, and the military, the IDF, and lots of people and tech firms. And he's not, by the way, exclusively Jewish. And it isn't actually the same as all Jews in the world at all. And in fact, there are a lot of Jews around the world who have mixed feelings about Israel or certainly don't want a regime change war in Iran. But the people who do want that in the United States, Israel's proxies in the United States, its defenders, its professional defenders in the US, immediately made the debate about the Jews. It wasn't the anti-semites who did that. Actually, it was the defenders of Israel in the United States, not all of whom are Jewish, to be clear. They're the ones who made the debate from the first day. Why do you hate the Jews?
And so, for those who were hesitant to get into another regime change war, it's intimidating because you're happy to have a debate any time of day about what's in the interest of the United States, when should we project military force, what can we learn from the last 25 years, etc., etc., and you'd probably win that debate because there's no evidence that any regime change war we've engaged in in the past couple of generations has helped us. Zero evidence and everyone kind of knows that including the president of the United States. But if you make it a debate about why do you hate the Jews, then most people are going to opt out because they don't want to deal with it. Most of them don't hate the Jews. You hope no evidence that they do, but nobody wants to be treated as a bigot. And so very few people pushed back. Very few.
In fact, as far as I know, only two people, me and Charlie Kirk, actually went and spoke directly to the president to make the case that no, you shouldn't get involved in this war because its aim is not actually to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. That may be a virtuous goal, but that's not really what this is about. What this is about is luring the United States into yet another regime change war. And if you do that, it's bad for everybody, including you. That's the case that we made. Charlie went to the White House to make that case, and God bless him for doing that. And he was hated for hated for doing that. Hated for doing that. But he did it. Very few other people did. In fact, as far as I know, none.
So, of course, in June, the debate ended and the United States did commit military force to Iran. It bombed Iran and spent billions to protect Israel once again from the inevitable, the predictable conventional response from Iran, etc., etc. And in the end, thank God, we did not get lured into a regime change war. But the bitterness lingered and the total unwillingness of the people pushing for that war to state their aims to be honest about what they wanted and to defend what they wanted remained. They understood from the very first day that they could not win that debate. They didn't want that debate. They wanted another debate where they felt they could win or at least cow their opponents into total silence.
And that debate was about quote the Jews anti-semitism. And again, this is a country that hasn't had a lot of anti-semitism. Decent people are not anti-semitic. Christians understand that anti-semitic behavior or thoughts, attitudes are uncchristian because Christians are universalist in their thinking. Every person has the capacity to come to God through Jesus. Every person, no matter how they were born. And so, of course, no sincere Christian could be an anti-semite. And no sincere Christian would ever defend anti-semitism. In fact, he would call it out as he would racism or any form of discrimination on the basis of blood. He would call it out immediately.
So this was never about anti-semitism despite the fact there of course are anti-semites and all kinds of other people in this country. There are 350 million of them. But this debate was not about the Jews or anti-semitism. It was about when to use military force and to what extent should you follow the lead of a much smaller nation as you think about your own nation. And for a lot of people, this was enormously frustrating since Donald Trump was elected for the second time last November on a platform that explicitly promised, and this is why he was elected, to help the United States, which is in tough shape and getting worse. And everybody knows that.
And all of a sudden, this foreign prime minister shows up and starts hijacking the attention and the money of our country to his ends. And that could be any prime minister, by the way. It happens to have been Benjamin Netanyahu. But conceptually that's outrageous and people were justly upset about it. Absolutely they were upset about it. So where will this go? Well, of course the people who think the US government should act always and everywhere on behalf of its own citizens, the America first people, those people are going to win the debate. In fact, there's never actually been a real debate. But when people's mind fog clears and they can think about what just happened, they'll understand that this was never about the Jews or anti-semitism, much less Hitler who's been dead for 80 years as of April. No, it was about should the United States act in its own interest or should it subvert its own interests on behalf of a foreign power with a very effective lobby in Washington. That's exactly what the debate is and the answer is of course no.
So the America first people are the people who just think the government should serve its own citizens, which let me remind you is the only legitimate rationale for representative government. In other words, if the government is not representing its own citizens, if it doesn't care about its own citizens, it's not only off track, it's illegitimate. It has no basis to govern because it's a representative democracy. So you are morally bound, you're legally bound to represent your own people. That's the only purpose of having a government in our country is to represent our people. And if you're not doing that, you're not legitimate. So, they will win.
And in a year or two, we're going to look back on what we've been watching for the last month or last eight months and we're going to realize this is exactly like BLM or Me Too. You know, at the core there may have been a point, but basically it's buffoonery. it is an effort to divert your attention from the real crisis. And we're going to wonder, wait a second, since since when did the institutional right conservatives, people who run the think tanks and the dumb magazines nobody reads and the people with bloated on Fox News. Since when did those people become completely committed to identity politics and censorship?
Because they are committed to identity politics. That's what this is. It's identity politics. Of course, it's group over nation. Of course, it's another country above our country, a tiny country, an irrelevant country over our country. And people are going to look at that and say, "Wait a second. We thought, in fact, we voted for you because we thought that the two things we could be assured you believed were you were against identity politics. You lectured us about woke for like 10 years. You're against woke because you're against identity politics. You're against tribalism. And here you are not only embracing it, but using it as a cudgel to hit people in the face.
And maybe even more shocking, we knew for a fact you were against censorship. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the Trump election? We're against censorship. You can't censor people in a free society. You can't have censorship in a democracy. How will you have the information required to vote? Censorship is totally incompatible with democratic government. Period.
And it's also, by the way, illegal under the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. And Republicans just won an election on that platform. And all of a sudden, we learn there's really nobody in the world more excited about censorship than a Neocon podcaster or a National Review staffer. They just love it. People aren't going to forget that.
And in a year or two or five years or whatever, we're going to look back as we do on COVID and the BLM riots and the Me Too movement and we're going to ask ourselves, how do we fall for another moral panic? Another social media-driven moral panic. How did everyone go insane all at once denouncing each other and denouncing old friends and clowning themselves because they're caught up in this moment and they can't see that they're betraying the very principles they claimed like six months ago they would give their lives for. And those people are going to feel shame and many of us will feel contempt for them more than we already do. So that's going to happen. They can't win this debate. It's not actually a debate. It's them name calling.
So that's going to happen. Rest assured. But in the meantime, the rest of us have to listen to an awful lot of a man who a year ago was unknown to most Americans. Kind of a third tier podcaster, TV host or radio host or whatever. for a guy who was a weekend show on a cable channel, a guy called Mark Levin.
And for the last month, we've been watching Mark Levin say things that no one in my lifetime has ever said from the right like this. Watch.
Mark Levin: I don't know whether it's Jew hatred from the Marxists, the Islamists, the neo-Nazis, the grifters. I don't know where they're pulling us and pushing us. What do they want to do with American Jews? What do they want to do? Where are they taking this country? They're destroying it. Carlson, Owens, Kelly, Bannon. It is a time for choosing. You pick the good guys or the bad guys. You pit America or you pit the third right. They're not MAGA. They're not conservative. In fact, they're more Marxist, Islamist, America-hating, Jew-hating thugs than anything else. And let me educate them briefly. The Babylonians couldn't kill the Jews. The Persians couldn't kill the Jews. The Romans couldn't kill the Jews. Hitler couldn't kill the Jews. And by this I mean eliminate them. You think your puny little asses are going to be able to do it? Kill the Jews.
Speaker 1: Your first thought is, "Wait a second. How do we get to that?" No, just don't want a regime change war against By the way, a war in which Jews would die presumably both in the US military and the IDF. Like, no, don't want to kill anybody. Actually, that's kind of the point. You want to kill the Jews? So, the first thing you notice is like the total inversion of what the argument actually is. It's an argument about to what extent should US military power be used on behalf of another country, not the United States. That's it. That's the debate. and all of a sudden it becomes the Babylonians, the Nazis, trying to kill the Jews. So again, it's an inversion. He's accusing his opponents of really what he wants as always.
The second thing you notice is how totally personal this is. You're members of the Third Reich. You're Nazis. You're evil. You're an Islamist. You hate Jews. cuz you're an anti-semite. You hate America. Okay. None of I mean that's ad hominem. There's no even attempt to address the argument that anyone Mark Levin doesn't agree with is his making. Instead, it's just just attacking them as people.
And the third thing you notice is what animates this, which is hate. Mark Levin is filled with hate, obviously. And hate is one of those words that is thrown around a lot as a weapon. You're filled with hate. That's hate. It's hate speech. Therefore, you can't say it. etc. But that doesn't mean just because the word itself is used cynically that the term doesn't describe anything or that hate isn't real. Hate is absolutely real. Hate is absolutely real. And if you listen to enough Mark Levin, you yourself can become hateful. Reacting against it can turn you into what he claims you are. And that's just a fact of human nature. You stick your face right up against this, after a while, you will become hateful. All of us, even people are committed to not being away. It happened to me last week. Last week, a week ago tonight. I'm sitting on stage with Megan Kelly at an event she was doing in New York. And I think Dick Cheney had died that day. And I knew Dick Dick Cheney obviously.
And he had died. And I disagree with Dick Cheney, but I'm not going to criticize a man on the day he dies. Just not going to do that because I have reverence for death. But I had a lot of emotion on the topic. And so I said a few nice words about Dick Cheney. He was a great fly caster or whatever. And then I started thinking about his daughter, Liz Cheney, whom I also know. and have disliked for intensely for quite some time because she slandered me and because I think she is a violence espouser and I I disagree with that and I have contempt for it but rather than say that I just attacked in a vicious way Liz Cheney and I said something awful about Liz Cheney actually didn't explain why I was mad at Liz Cheney I just slandered Liz Cheney basically and I said that her father would be ashamed of her and if I had a daughter like that I'd probably kill which is an awful thing to say.
It's kind of hard to believe I said that. But in my mind, I was thinking of all the people I dislike, Liz Cheney would probably be at the top of the list. And so therefore, because I dislike her personally because I know her personally. And because I so disagree with everything about her political views, I'm the opposite of Liz Cheney. If you were to graph it out, be I'd be on one side, Liz, the other. Because we disagree so profoundly. I told myself, clearly I must have told myself that you could say anything you want about Liz Cheney. She's not really human. You can say anything you want, including something really awful and nasty like, "If I was her dad, I would kill myself."
Who thinks like that? Who talks like that? Well, I did. And so, I just want to say I'm sorry to Liz Cheney. And I mean that, too. I mean that. I shouldn't have said that. I'm sorry I said that. I'll I will not stop disagreeing with Liz Cheney until she changes her views. I hope that she does. But there is never an excuse to talk about people like that. And that kind of is the trap here. Mark Levin is almost 70 years old, you know? I mean, no one's going to eat the dog food here, okay? That that is not a message anyone's going to buy.
So, the fear is not that Mark Levin will take over American politics. That's not going to happen. The fear is that we become Mark Levin by staring at Mark Levin too much. We become him. Another way of putting it is the fight is not against Mark Levin and the many Mark Levins out there, the screamers, the slanderers, the imputers of character, the liars. The real fight is within ourselves. The real fight is against our own nature, our own natural inclination to in the face of Mark Levin become Mark Levin. And the cost is to us. You You hurt yourself. Don't become evil because what's the point? What is the point?
And the only way to prevent prevent yourself from becoming that person is by admitting that you've acted like that person and apologizing for it sincerely, not in a fake way. Oh, I'm sorry if you didn't like it. No, I'm sorry because that's wrong and it's exactly what I don't like about someone else and I don't like it about myself when I do it and I'm going to try not to do it again. And of course, I will do it probably by the end of the show. I'll do it again because I'm prone to that because I get mad. But we need to say every single time we do that, no, I'm sorry I did that and I'll try my best not to do it again.
So really, just to keep in mind as things heat up, don't become the people you despise, or else what's the point? We wind up I mean, the Second World War is that story. We're fighting for freedom, but we're arming Joseph Stalin to do it. Really? We sent more money and airplanes and tanks and jeeps and boots and food to Joseph Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in history, in order to bring what? Freedom to the world. It's not a defense of Hitler, of course. But that's shameful. The Roosevelt administration did that with a full support of his party. It's like, don't become the thing that you hate. That's it.
And if you don't do that, if you allow yourself to get carried away so mad that you start mimicking the hate that's coming at you, what happens? Well, of of course it flowers into violence. Like that's inevitable of we're very close to that now. In fact, we're there in some ways. It's happened. We just we're still talking about a political assassination, a friend's political assassination on September 10th. Charlie Kirk was murdered because of this. So it can happen and it will happen unless all of us prevent ourselves from becoming that. And by the way, you can't control other people. All you can do is control your own behavior. So if you act like that, apologize for it. I'm going to really try and do that.
But we are absolutely moving toward violence. And it should be really clear. That's the other thing is you don't want to espouse violence because where does it go? It always begets more violence 100% of the time. September 11th led to millions of deaths in the Middle East. Yeah. October 7th led to Gaza. Like this all once the violence begins, you can't predict its course, but you can be fairly certain it will accelerate. And when that happens, all calculations change and people change and the feud becomes irresolvable and more people die. And that could happen in our country. So the only way to stop it is by controlling your own behavior so you yourself don't become evil.
So Mark Levin is already there and we know that because Mark Levin has repeatedly and he's not the only one but he's the most blunt has repeatedly called for just murdering civilians children in Gaza because they're Amalech or whatever they're stained by blood guilt. Prime Minister of Israel said exactly the same thing. They are guilty by virtue of how they were born. So that by definition includes women and children. So Mark Levin is not clever enough to keep the implications of these views to himself. And he said them repeatedly on television just to give you a sense about how Mark Levin feels about human life and the human soul. Watch this.
Mark Levin: And I'm supposed to what? Shed crocodile tears for what's going to happen to these people? I'm not. Maybe I'm the only one who will voice it, but I'm not. Israel has every right to throw every damn thing it has at barbarians and if there are innocent people quote unquote civilians who are killed, then maybe they ought to organize to take out the government they elected. Tapper and the others are saying there's 2 million Palestinians in Gaza. They're not all terrorists. They don't all believe in Hamas. They really have no choice. Let me ask you a question. Is that how we treated the German people when we were fighting the Third Reich? Well, they're not all Nazis. I mean, you got to fight to win and survive. You can't sit there and figure all that stuff out. Well, but don't hurt the civilians. Look, we have to defend ourselves. The Israelis have to defend ourselves. The free world has to defend itself. And if there's collateral damage, well, that's too bad.
Speaker 1: 25 years ago in this country, people didn't talk that way. They didn't. It was a different It was a different landscape, different expectations. The idea of blood guilt, because that's what he's describing there. You should be killed by virtue of who your parents are, who your grandparents were, by virtue of how you were born. You should be killed. You don't have a right to live. You're guilty because you were born. And which of course leads to collective punishment and genocide. That's the basis of genocide right there.
That attitude that was considered totally uncchristian and unamerican because it is. And if s someone said something like that on television, I mean, he'd be probably pulled off the air for that. you should kill kids because you don't like their parents. That is their attitude. That's the Israeli government's attitude. Well documented attitude. We're paying for that. And you could say, well, you know, you don't have to hate Israel. But that behavior is not better than Hamas at all. In fact, it's kind of the same, right? Killed civilians. They came in and killed people at a music festival. BB turns out let them in. Um, we found out today in the Knesset, but whatever you think of what happened on October 7th, you know, Israeli civilians were killed. That's terrible. We're against that.
We have to be against that. And we're no better than the people we're fighting. Of course, what is the difference between us and them? We're in different groups. That's not a meaningful difference. The difference is we're committed to a set of Western principles. And those principles begin with we reject blood guilt. And because we do, we reject collective punishment and genocide. A lot of us thought that was a consensus after World War II. That was the lesson of the Nazi regime. Should have been the lesson of the Soviet regime, which of course practiced collective punishment and committed genocide against Christians. Most people don't even know that it did more efficiently than the Nazis did.
But all of it is terrible. All of it is awful. And a lot of us thought that was the main lesson that we were supposed to take away from the war. And by the way, that's a great lesson. That's an excellent lesson. We should take that lesson from the Second World War. And then you wake up and there's Mark Levin. Not just Mark Levin, but our policy makers, our members of Congress, most of them are not Jewish, by the way. This like infected everybody. That's okay. It's not okay. It'll never be okay. It's a shame. It's shameful behavior. It's a stain on this country. You You can't fight people unless you think you're morally superior to them. You shouldn't be.
And how can you say you're morally superior if you're operating from the same assumption, which is that everyone on the other side should be killed because of how they were born? But that is absolutely Mark Levin's assumption. And he said it out loud. Look at this Twitter exchange. Watch this. She's basically saying, "I don't understand like why we're getting involved in all this stuff." And Mark Levin is saying, "Well, you're a Nazi." And someone writes in and says, "Mark, I'm not even, you know, I may be on your side or not, but what you're saying is actually creating anti-semitism." And he's saying, and I'm quoting, "At anti-semitism is quote, in your family's DNA."
Who thinks that? Who would say something like that?
In the wake of his former boss's passing, tensions come to a head as Tommy and Demi Moore's Cammy Miller struggle to maintain control of Mtex Oil, the company at the center of the drama. And with his father coming back into his life, Tommy must juggle both his role as an oil man and a family man as worlds collide. A familiar story, but never better told than in this hit series. A lot of people are watching this and for good reason. Land Man season streaming November 16th only on Paramount Plus.
Guilt or virtue are not in your DNA. We don't believe in a chosen people and we don't believe in a damned people. Period. We don't believe that in the West. We don't believe that some people's are inherently better or worse than other people's. We believe in individuals in the capacity of every person to make individual choices and change for the better or the worse. And on that basis they are judged but not on how they were born. And if we don't believe that, if we think that some people are just like inherently bad because their DNA as Mark has said and a lot of other people like Mark have said, then what's the point of all, you know, what's the point of all of this? At that point, it's just like, well, my group has more guns than your group and we're in charge.
That attitude gets people killed and it rots your soul. That's why we say anti-semitism is bad in the first place, isn't it? You can't judge a whole group of people by how they were born, by their genetics, by their DNA. But there's Mark Levin doing it. So, it shouldn't surprise you that of course if you have those attitudes and you think there are Americans, and he clearly does, whose DNA makes them less than human, unsalvageable, inherently evil. Well, it shouldn't surprise you that he'd be calling for violence against them. And he is. And this isn't like your kind of classic like, "Oh, everyone's out to kill me. I'm so important. I despise that." But it's a fact. And we know that from what he says.
So, here's Mark Levin about two weeks, in fact, I think exactly two weeks after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and he was trying to explain how this happened. How did Charlie get killed? Here's what he said.
Mark Levin: The call to violence. That's what it is. You're calling people Hitler. It's a mass murder. You're treating ICE like it's the Gestapo or the SS. Then you're free to shoot them.
Speaker 1: There you go. You call people Hitler, they get killed, right? You you torque up the rhetoric to we've all decided Hitler is the worst. Okay, great. Hitler's bad for sure. So once you call people that, you liken them to the person we collectively agree is the worst person ever, person we collectively agree if you had a chance to kill baby Hitler, you would. Then why wouldn't you kill the people who were Hitler in your own society? You probably would and you'd feel justified in doing it. Yeah, fair point. You know, you hope it's not used to censor people. You're allowed to have ugly thoughts, by the way. They're constitutionally protected, but you should be discouraged from it for sure. And as Mark Levin just said, they lead to violence. calling people Hitler leads to violence.
Wow. Well, since that's his description in his terms, consider this clip about a month later.
Mark Levin: I would ask some of these people who say, "Look, I I'm going to stand by Tucker." You know, he's just inquisitive. He likes to have these people on and ask them questions. Really? But I'm not going to platform them. No. So Tucker is a racist. Is that okay? First of all, how many of you have friends who are racists? Isn't that a fair question, Mr. Producer? How many of you have friends who are racists and are proud of it and talk about it on a national platform? This is what I get now. Will you debate him? Will you debate Tucker Carlson? I don't debate the Klan. I don't debate Nazis. I don't debate Nazis. He texted me that.
So, Mark Levin, I think, and those who agree with him, those who take Mark Levin seriously, are doing enormous damage to themselves, and to the country. It's a very small group. They're mostly confined to Washington, which tells you a lot. But they will disappear.
The lesson of this period is that the people who told you they were against identity politics are actually for it. They're just for different identity politics. They're for the identity politics of the American security state. And the people who told you they were against censorship are actually for it. They are the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of censorship since the Soviet Union collapsed. They just want a different kind of censorship, one that benefits them.
And that is a lesson that will stick. And it's a lesson that will eventually make the people who are doing this kind of shouting and slandering and character assassination irrelevant.
And of course, they should be irrelevant. And Mark Levin is a perfect example of what will be washed away by the tides of history.
Mark Levin: I don't debate the Klan. I don't debate Nazis. I don't debate Nazis.
Speaker 1: So, you can't be surprised. This is the whole point of this show: that those who accuse others of what they themselves are are doing are always, inevitably, doing it because they can't win the argument on the merits. They can't win the argument on the truth. They can't win the argument with data. They have to change the subject.
The subject is not Mark Levin, his obvious personal problems, his emotional problems, the fact that he's filled with hate, and is trying to get other people to hate, too, because he thinks that's a good political move. The subject is: Is it a good idea for the United States to subvert its own interests for a foreign country?
And because they can't win that argument, they've got to change the subject. And you can't be mad at them for trying, but you have to be mad at yourself if you fall for it. Don't fall for it.
We'll be back tomorrow night, 6:00 p.m. Eastern. See you then.
Love to get your thoughts below.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
