Tucker on Trump’s Anti-Christian Death Cult Leading to Nuclear War

If you've ever been around politicians or government bureaucrats who are about to deliver a statement or hold a press conference or give a speech, there's a sense in the room from the politician or bureaucrat that like this is really important. The world is watching. But when you're not in that world, you realize like nobody's watching. Nobody has any idea what the Secretary of the Interior said yesterday, what he's working on, even what his name is. People don't even know what the president says or sends out on his true social or social media or whatever. It's like most of the stuff just kind of goes out into the ether and only political reporters read it. But if there's one statement from an administration official that you might have caught because it was a little bit jarring, it was the announcement the other day from the secretary, well now of war, formerly of defense, Pete Hegsth, that the man responsible for the massacre of military personnel some years ago, Nadal Hassan, is finally going to be executed. He's been under the death penalty for quite some time and it's the process is reaching the end of its course. And then not only is he going to be executed, the execution is going to be live streamed. You're going to get to watch his killing. Boy, they don't say that kind of thing very often, but Pete Hexath did say it. Here's exactly what he said. Watch. But >> Major Hassan, this news that came down regarding firing squad, can you tell us about how that came about and and what led to that decision process? >> Nobrainer. Execution by firing squad. Army major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of Americans at Fort Hood. Of course, we're going to do it at Fort Hood. Going to do it on a Thursday. We're going to do it at 1:00, which is when he did it, and it's going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad. Uh, it hadn't been since World War II since we've done that. Well, I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was win. We know we know what it is. It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks. And so, he's going to get a firing squad of soldiers as it should be. and we'll make sure that people are able to to watch it, that it's public, uh because people need to understand that this is a there's serious consequences for these types of things. >> So, in general, it's not worth parsing these statements literally because they're not meant to be taken that way. Though, it is kind of hard not to pause on the phrase, we win, and ask the obvious question, which is how does executing this guy who's been in prison for more than a decade constitute a win? Win what? Against whom? He's a federal prison inmate who's going to die. Okay, you could argue, I guess, the morality of that, but it's hard to see that his death will lead us any closer to a victory over what. But none of the stuff is ever defined. You're not really supposed to think about what it means. But consider for a moment the idea that the US government will publicly execute a prisoner. So there are two levels on which to assess this. The effect on the prisoner and the effect on the rest of us. Now, for the first, it's pretty easy to make the case that this is a bad person. He is after all a mass murderer, an admitted mass murderer who murdered 13 people and shot 30ome others at a military base. He was a military officer. So, as Pete Hexath correctly said, this was not simply a murder. It was a betrayal of the country whose uniform he wore. So, there's something especially ugly about this crime. He wasn't fighting combatants. He was fighting people just standing in a room who were unarmed. So, it's awful what he did. And it's hard not to argue that the guy doesn't deserve to die for that. Well, of course he does. Of course, he took 13 lives and wrecked many others. So, on that level, okay, but that's not really the question. There are a couple other questions that aren't getting enough attention. Maybe the most deepest question is, okay, he's guilty and needs to be punished. But as you assess that, ask yourself, am I guilty of anything that I haven't been punished for? Have I gotten away with anything? Not mass murder, of course, but like there is a deep sense on which there aren't a lot of truly innocent people in the world. All of us get away with stuff if we're being honest with ourselves, including the person you just heard say this and the person he works for as well. And so while you always want justice to be done and wrongdoers to be brought to account and certainly you want the rest of us to be protected from murderers, you never want self-righteousness to creep into your assessment of other people because in the end you may not be a mass murderer, but are you anyone to judge other people? No. You should always extend grace to everyone because again just to restate all of us and if we're honest with ourselves, we know this is true. are getting away with things. Just a fact. And so it doesn't mean you shouldn't punish murderers. Of course you should. It just means dial back the self-righteousness a little bit because who are you? Who am I? Who are any of us to stand up and pretend we're God? Well, of course, we're not in a position to do that. And we should never forget that. But the second question, which hasn't gotten enough attention, is okay, that he's a bad guy, killed all these people. We're going to execute him. Okay. but do it in public. So, we don't do that in this country and we haven't in a very long time, a hundred years. The last e public executions in this country were in the 1930s. I think the last one was in the late30s uh in the south for rape. It was a real rape. The guy deserved it, but it was in public and they shut down that process. No more public executions. In Europe, same thing. Hasn't been done in about a hundred years. In Britain, it hasn't been done in 150 years. And so you have to ask yourself why. You could say, well, these countries have just grown weak. They don't punish the guilty anymore. Yeah, maybe. Okay, but there's more than that. They continued executing people, but not in public. Why? Cuz they want to humiliate the condemned. Well, he's dying. No. The reason that we don't conduct public executions is because of the effect of the spectacle on the rest of us. Is it good for your society to have people gawk as a bound man is killed? Whether or not he deserves to be killed, that's a secondary question. Is it good for you to watch it? I don't know. Probably not. Is pornography good for people? Does it enhance your sex life? Probably not. Is watching ugly things inherently virtuous? No. But in the case of public executions, we know pretty well because there's a long record of them because they have been a staple of civilization since the very beginning. There's a long record of what they do to people who watch them. And if you're interested in the topic, it's really worth taking 20 minutes and reading an essay, really a letter to the editor that Charles Dickens, the one of the most perceptive novelists ever written in English, wrote in 1849 after seeing a public execution in London. Without getting boring about the details, was a husband and wife, a pair of murderers who had killed a guy who was actually the wife's boyfriend at one point, stolen his money and buried him under the stones in their kitchen. And they got caught and they were executed. And no one really argued that they didn't deserve to be punished, maybe even executed for what they did. Dickens didn't make that argument. He made instead the argument that doing it in public brought out something ugly and dangerous in the people who watched. It lowered them almost to the level of the people they were watching die. It incited blood lust in them. So you will hear the argument made by dumb people and really dumb people the only people with power right now. So, that's the argument you're likely to hear that this will deter crime. Well, if that's true, do videos of people getting killed deter violence? Have you ever seen a war movie? People get killed in the war movie? Is the lesson of the war movie that if you're at war, you could be killed? No, of course not. Every person in the audience takes away the same lesson from any war movie, which is it's good to shoot bad guys. They incite an animal instinct in all of us and that instinct will never die. We can either encourage it or we can do our best to suppress it or encourage other people to suppress it within themselves. But the last instinct you ever want to encourage if you want to keep your society orderly and happy, if you want brotherly love to reign, is bloodlust between citizens. Now again, there you can make the case there are plenty of Americans who deserve the death penalty for sure, but watching it makes Americans much more likely to hurt each other. And if you deny that, then you're denying an obvious reality that people have blood in them and you probably don't want to incite it any more than you have to. So it degrades the people who watch in the same way that pornography degrades people who watch. Same way that snuff videos degrade people who watch. Child pornography is illegal. Even child pornography that's AI generated. Why is that? No child is being hurt. Because we collectively understand that watching something like that is bad for the people who watch. In fact, it may be dangerous. You can inspire people to become pedophiles if you play them enough child pornography. That's just true. Anyone who claims it's not true doesn't understand human nature and has some reason to lie about it. But that's a fact. So how are public executions different? Well, they're not. And it's not clear that Dickens understood that before he saw one, but after he saw one, he said, "No decent nation should allow this. This is worse than what heathens do. And our people are behaving as heathens do as they watch these people march to the gallows and swing." And so he began a campaign to end it. And the parliament responded about 20 years later and ended it in Britain in the late 1860s. And so it ended for a reason and we should think about why the idea of it is now being resurrected. It's important to pause and ask why did the Secretary of War just suggest this? Now whether he'll be able to pull it off is an entirely different question. There's reporting today that apparently the president had no idea that Nadal Hassan was in a wheelchair. He was struck a number of times by bullets which ended his murder spree low those many years ago and he's been a paraplegic ever since. And do you really want to execute a parapolgic on camera? Not that it makes maybe a moral difference but it looks kind of bad. And so it's possible that Trump will shut this down. But it's really interesting in the meantime the number of people who endorsed it which is pretty much everyone in the administration. Mark Wayne Mullen who you know it's not a minor fact that he is the head of the department of homeland security and also a committed neocon and there is a connection between neoconservatism and the worship of violence which we'll get into in just a minute. It's very obvious. Mark Wayne Mullen was asked about this and it commands a lot of armed federal employees. He's one of the biggest ammo buyers in the United States. And so when I asked is it a good idea to publicly execute someone on a live stream? He said, 'Yeah, of course. Now, it's probably not a coincidence that someone like Mark Wayne Mullen, who believes that killing foreigners is a great idea just because they're foreigners or whatever, who has the kind of callous attitudes you'd have to have to support neoonservative foreign policy, would be for this. It's also true that Mark Wayne Mullen is a part owner of a company. Without getting too far a field, what'sratum is a as yet not banned by the feds substance that's sold in many convenience stores that acts on the brain much like opiates do. It's addictive. It's fatal in high doses and it's in a lot of places completely legal. So, this is the guy who runs the Department of Homeland Security, our second biggest law enforcement agency, who's invested, personally invested in a drug that is addicting kids and killing kids in the country. He's already rich, by the way. So, you have to ask yourself like, what kind of person would invest in something that killed American kids? and not just invested in it, but has, according to news reports, personally lobbyed throughout the administration to keep it legal so he can keep getting paid. So, imagine the sensation of going to sleep totally sober, feeling like you're floating, and then waking up rested with no soreness from a stiff mattress. You can do that. All you got to do is switch to Brooklyn bedding. We guess you're probably thinking, "A mattress like that is super expensive and made in Bangladesh." But no, Brooklyn Bedding is an American company, hence the name. It's got a 650,000q ft facility in Indiana. A guy called John started it and built it from the ground up right here in the US. No college degree, by the way. Brooklyn makes mattresses for every sleep style and body type. Plus uses temperature regulation to make sure that you stay cool throughout the night. No hot nights. 365 night a full year sleep trial so you can return your mattress if you don't love it. We don't expect that to happen, but you could. Brooklyn Bedding has been awarded the best mattress by CNET, the best hybrid mattress by Wire Cutter. It's totally real and vetted. Brooklynbetting.com is the address. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for 30% off sitewide during this fall sale. That's Brooklynbetting.com, promo code Tucker, 30% off sitewide. If you see a survey after all of it, let him know that we sent you. Well, it's up to God to judge that behavior. But I think we here on earth can say that's not a guy you want to hand guns to or give the power of life and death over because that is clearly a sign that this is a callous, cruel person who just doesn't care about other human beings. So that's the kind of person and those are the kind of people who think there's no problem at all with supporting public executions. And what's interesting is because this is a Republican administration and because there are still people out there who support them on the basis of the idea they're conservative, you have to ask yourself like is this the conservative position that you execute people in wheelchairs on camera for the what edification of your population that bread and circuses are okay? These are people who on whom it hasn't dawned that like executing a guy in a live stream is not that different from I don't know feeding people to the lions. So is that the conservative position? Well, I mean conservative like so many other words in our language doesn't have a precise definition. But I mean you can turn to people who are widely recognized as conservative leaders and ask them what they think. And we found a clip from Charlie Kirk because we checked. Kind of interesting to know what Charlie Kirk thought of this. you know, he's not the the end all source of what's conservative, but you know, the guy thought about it a lot. He was the single biggest conservative political leader in the United States, and he was asked about this not that long before he died. What do you think of the death penalty? And it's worth watching his answer and paying close attention because there's some really interesting observations in this. Here's Charlie Kirk on the death penalty. >> What was the exact wording of the question? >> Death penalty is wrong. >> The death penalty is wrong. Well, that's a moral question. So, you did answer correctly, but I would say it's political. I would say in America I would oppose the death penalty for a very specific reason >> because right now the trend >> is this current government will use any power we give them against us that so I am and this is the Patriot Act argument right the moral argument I'm totally on board if we had a government that was ethical and understood you know duty and use >> you're saying just you think the government's so far gone that they they could in the >> practically right now in America I think we should oppose the death penalty we should >> because they could start executing Charlie Kirks No, they would. They they absolutely mean they would. >> I don't know if it's that far. I mean, like it's pretty bad, but I'm just saying, you know. >> No, no, it's that bad. >> They're not But they're not They're not doing it yet. At least they >> What? The death penalty part? >> Yeah. They barely carry out the death penalty at all. >> No, because right now opposing the death penalty fits their agenda, which is to try to have compassion supersede justice, >> right? But make make no mistake. As soon as the actual Bolsheviks take over, they're going to want to bring back the gonna come to the table. The idea that Michael Nullles and Charlie could still be in a goolog on Alba is like, "No, no, no, no. We got to wipe him off. He's still a threat. He's still breathing." >> Two things jump out of that clip. Uh the first is his statement, not even a prediction, a statement of fact. There are people who want to kill me and if they have the power, they will. Poignant to see that. Now, the second is the word he used to describe the people who will use the power, government power, to kill people. and he called them Bolsheviks. And that's more right than we acknowledge. So one of the great lies of history is that the Bolevixs who took over Russia and then the entire region in 1917 were ideologically motivated. That boleism was an economic program. Well, of course it wasn't. They were agnostic on economics, the people who began that revolution. The Bolevik Revolution was a revolution against Christianity and the Christian order. And it replaced God with what? Well, money and power. And it used violence as a kind of secular blood sacrifice both to terrify the population into submission but also for more power because that's what a blood sacrifice does. You kill in order to receive power. And so that word which is not used often enough kind of describes what we're living through now. This isn't ideological when people are calling for killing. And as you'll hear it's much more common than it ever has been in this country. The idea that killing is itself a good thing. There's just something innately satisfying in killing, taking life. That's not an ideology, of course. That's an ancient religion. It's the religion of blood sacrifice, which is still common, by the way, around the world today. Wikipedia doesn't spell that out, but it is. But the idea that you get powerful by killing is the oldest understanding of the supernatural. But in modern terms, in modern secular terms, which of course are never really secular, it was the Bolsheviks who embodied this. Replace God with money and power. And of course, that's what they were after. And they gave themselves both money and power. How was that different from what we're watching now? Well, it's not that different actually once you take out the window dressing of Marxism and Mars and Engles and what's, you know, power of the proletariat and all the slogans that obscured what it actually was. It was a revolution against Christianity that began with the murder of the Christian regent of Russia, Thesar and his family. You see it clearly. And how is that different? Well, it's different in scale and severity than what we're living through now. But the idea is not different at all. Overthrow the old moral order which is rooted in Christianity and replace it with blood, money, and power. So that's not a conservative idea. The conservative idea at its core, at least always has been, these things are moving fast and changing, has always been equality. How could you say that equality? Are conservatives racist? Well, yeah, probably some of them. But the idea, that's kind of not the point. The point is that at the root of the worldview we have called conservative for so long and certainly at the root of the founding documents of this country is the belief the bedrock belief that God not just a higher power but the highest power created every person. And because God created every person, people are imbued with what the documents call in rights, rights that cannot be taken away. So while there's massive variation in ability of course and appearance of course there is no variation at all in moral value every human being has a soul. And so on the most basic level we are all equal. It's the basis of the idea of citizenship. Of course it's that idea that is evaporating before our very eyes and being replaced by exactly what you would imagine to be replaced by total callousness for human life. because not all lives are created equal. So, it's interesting that this whole moment began, you could say this on a lot of issues, with exactly the opposite promises. So, it's it's hard to believe this is real, but it is. Here's the current president at a pro-life event of some kind explaining, well, really reading words other people wrote, but he read them explaining why life itself is the most important thing. Watch. Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life. When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation. I notified Congress that I would veto any legislation that weakens pro-life policies or that encourages the destruction of human life. the destruction of human life. So that's the key right there. Not simply, you know, whatever Trump believes personally and he's obviously not opposed to abortion. That's pretty clear now or for human life. But the idea exists outside of Trump and outside of the moment in which we're currently living because it's an eternal idea and it's true. We don't seek to protect just American life or value just American life or life that contributes meaningfully to GDP or non-Palestinian life or whatever. But life because every human being is inherently valuable. Life itself is valuable because we didn't create it. And sorry AI guys, we're never going to be able to. So that right there underpins the entire American project. And that's why and it goes downstream to every interaction that you have with your government or did until recently. That's why the police can pull you over for a broken tail light, but they have to be polite to you. They can't violate your rights because they didn't grant you your rights. God did. And you're a citizen of the United States, but you're also a human being. And once again, those rights are inaliable. So when that goes away, the deal changes completely. When the people in charge no longer see other human beings as human and feel that they can kill them without apologizing for it, everybody's in peril. Everybody's in peril. Well, when does that happen? How could that happen? How could something so foundational, a belief that really kind of describes every part of our country, that but the belief that every life is sacred, how could that belief be overturned? Well, of course, by war. Things change fast in war. Attitudes change. Realities change famously on the ground. But we change, and that's what we don't perceive. We change as we watch the brutality of war. Our expectations change. Our understanding of other people changes. Even our views on the humanity of our fellow human beings change very very fast. This is one of the reasons you don't want to have wars if you can help it because they make you callous and brutal. You become the monster you're fighting. This has been noted since ancient Greece. It's not a new concept but every generation forgets it. But if you doubt it, ask yourself in say 1985 or 1995, during the 1980s and 90s, if the secretary of then defense stood up and said, you know, we're going to execute this guy by firing squad. You must fine and we're going to do it in public, there would have been an outcry. What? No. And debase us. Even people who are for the death penalty would say, "No, no, you can't do that to us. You can't put this on a public medium where my kids can see it any more than you can stream pornography because we're not going to be degraded by you. So, most of the snacks you could buy at your local corporate grocery store are not real food at all. They're made of weird chemicals, kinds of ingredients you can pronounce. You don't want to put that in your body. All those dyes, red 40, yellow, five, no thanks. Grass-fed beef sticks from Paleo Valley are totally different. Unlike most beef sticks, they are completely natural and entirely free of something called encapsulated citric acid. Zero encapsulated citric acid. Paleo values is oldworld natural fermentation. That's a method that people have used for centuries. And that means what you eat is totally real. It's healthy. Tastes good. No sugar, soy, nitrates, or any of the stuff you'll find at gas station meat sticks. It's quick. It's easy. And it's good for you. The original flavor is our favorite. It's seasoned perfectly. Throw a few Paleo Valley beef sticks in your bag, in your glove box, and desk drawer whenever you need protein quickly. It's worth it. paleo valley.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker at checkout for 20% off your order. paleo valley.com/tucker. Code Tucker at checkout. 20% off. But nothing like that happened. I mean, there were, of course, people who were texting each other and saying, "Can you believe Pete Hegsth, the Secretary of War said this, but there was no attack on Pete Hegsth really by anybody because nobody in power saw it maybe as ugly or whatever, but as shocking. No moral Rubicon was crossed in their minds." Now, why is that? Well, there are a lot of different reasons, but partly it's because war changes all of us. We see incredibly ugly things and the more we see those things, the more we accept those things as normal. And that's why you could see a man like that, that video that you just saw was shot in 2020, become the man you're about to see. This is the same man, President of the United States, Donald Trump, responding to a question about the Iranian girls school that the United States apparently bombed, vaporizing over a hundred little girls in class. His response to this reveals what appears to be a completely different man. Watch. >> Now that you're approaching a new phase in this conflict with Iran, can you now say whether you will hold anyone in your administration accountable for the strike on a school that killed more than 100 children on the first day of the war? >> No. If it if it was a fault and as you know that's under investigation. Uh, it's such a strange question to be asked at this stake talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose. Uh, I guess you'd have to say about them. What about the thousands of soldiers that they blew up when they opened their car door? What about the thousands of people that were killed by Iran? No, mistakes are made. The war is nasty. But uh I know it's under investigation and I could have a report for you tomorrow or I'd ask I would ask Pete I would ask Pete Hex at that question cuz they have it under investigation. >> Yeah, it's under investigation. Just like every time settlers shoot a Palestinian, including Christians, it's under investigation. Yeah, it's under investigation. Can't talk. Active investigation. Can't talk about it. Well, it's probably a lie. Maybe it's true. Who knows? But you don't need an investigation to reach a quick and certain response. And it's one rooted in your own decency as a human being. And the response is that's awful. You know, I hope we didn't do it. If we did it, you know, we're going to apologize for it immediately because girls are never a legitimate target ever in war or peace. You can't kill little kids ever. And so we just