Den skitne kulturkrigen rundt Charlie Kirk (med Austin Rasmussen, Republicans Abroad)

Velkommen til Sidelinja, podkasten for politisk hjemløse.

Og for de som ikke får nok kulturkrig.

Rundt bor i dag kulturkriger Trond Sørensen, Åstin

Rasmussen fra Republicans Abroad Norge, og meg selv,

Vegard Nattnes.

Velkommen tilbake, Åstin.

Takk.

Vi kjører jo samme greia som vi gjorde

sist, du er mest komfortabel på engelsk, og

vi kjører norsk, fordi vi er litt skråtete

på engelsk, i hvert fall når vi skal

være precise.

Ja, ikke sant?

Og det er noe med det poenget er

å snakke, og få sagt det man ønsker

å si, og så tror jeg at det

er veldig få som hører på dette som

ikke kan begge språk.

Så da får vi være språkforvirret, og så

kommer vi sikkert til å, til og med

å begynne å snakke litt engelsk innimellom.

Det finnes til og med gamle folk over

åtte som har lært seg engelsk, har jeg

funnet ut.

Ja, det er ikke mange av dem, men

de finnes.

Jeg hadde en mor, jeg husker min mor

skulle til USA, jeg var midt på 80

-tallet, og hun er født i 42, og

da var det halvt år før jeg begynte

å kjøpe sånne der selvstudier med engelsk, med

kassetter og sånt, og hun spilte og lærte

seg engelsk før hun skulle på ferie.

Da kunne hun si, I am a boy.

Ja, hun var opptrent på det.

Hun fikk bestille seg mat, og det tror

jeg var bra.

Ok, bakteppet for å snakke med deg, Austin,

er jo selvfølgelig det litt mørke som skjedde

i USA her, drapet på Charlie Kirk, og

det er jo interessant, kjente du ham, eller

kjente til ham?

Jeg har følget ham i mindre enn 10

år.

Jeg har ingen personlig konneksjon til ham, men

jeg har sikkert sett hans forandring i karrieret

og organisasjonen han har bygget i ganske lang

tid.

Jeg skulle si, i de første fem årene

trodde jeg ikke så mye av ham.

Jeg tror ikke jeg var hans target audience.

Men som det er med mange mennesker i

hans profession, jeg delte mye av hans verdier,

og selv om jeg ikke har vært hans

target audience var jeg glad han gjorde hva

han gjorde.

Jeg tror han brukte mye positiv utvikling rundt

kollegiske debatter på universitetskampene.

Da han ble åldre, og da jeg ble

åldre, han var 5 år yngre enn meg,

jeg skulle si i de siste 5 årene

har jeg virkelig fulgt ham.

Jeg så en av hans debatter på telefonen,

da nyheten gikk over notifikasjonen han hadde fått.

Så her ser jeg en debatt som nok

skjedde en år siden, eller 6 måneder siden,

og da jeg ser ham, ser jeg nyheten

gå over telefonen.

Og det var faktisk ganske surrealt.

Det var litt sprøtt, og så var selvfølgelig

reaksjonene sprø også.

Litt absurd å følge med på, for det

er liksom, mennesker er skutt, og det ser

alvorlig ut, og så begynner man å vitse

med det.

Det som har slått meg, og det som

hadde vært interessant å høre fra deg var,

han har jo blitt bokstavlig talt svartmål til

Norge, som en ekstremist, eller en langt ut

på fløyen.

Anders Behring Breivik.

Ja, ikke sant?

Som er helt vanvittig.

Men som deg, så har jeg ikke fulgt

ham tett, men jeg har sett ham i

mange år.

Fått opp noen klipp, og sett en og

annen debatt.

Og min subjektiv opplevelse av det, er at

han har fylt en konstruktiv rolle.

Det kan gå til at han hadde enkeltstå

steder som var ekstreme, eller utenfor, eller hva

du vil.

Men det er liksom helt åpenbart for meg,

at han verken er rasistisk, eller seksistisk, eller

noe annet.

Han har litt konservative synspunkter på en del

ting.

Han er en konstruktiv debattant, han tar debatten

åpent, han møter folk i øyehøyde, som er

litt vanlig å si.

Og jeg er litt opptatt av å få

fram den funksjonen han har spilt i kulturen,

og i deres bevegelser, altså republikanene i USA.

De som diskuterte Charlie Kirk den dagen før,

eller den dagen etter, eller de dagene til

nå, hadde enten aldri hørt om Charlie Kirk

før han ble mordt, eller hadde kanskje hørt

om ham i forhold, men hadde ingen realitet

om hvem han var.

Så da var det litt som å kramme

for eksampen i universitetet et par tider før

du må ta det, og så vise deg

som om du er den eksperten på det

spørsmålet.

Og jeg tror at litmustestet for det er

hvordan han har blitt framt i det norske

medielandskapet.

For faktet er, at hvis du hadde noen

forståelse om republikanene i USA, eller bare konservativer

i generelt, så skulle du også forstå at

Charlie Kirk var faktisk en ganske moderat republikan,

en ganske moderat konservativ, i den måten at

hans verdier hadde blitt delt som en standard

utgangspunkt på hva konservative republikanske verdier er.

Selvfølgelig med tro på kyrken og Gud, kyrke,

men også om familieverdiene, og virkelig bare den

standardbaseringen på hva det er å være en

republikan.

Så å bare malte han i dette livet

at han var en rasist, han har ikke

ennå, over årene, og du kan finne mange

spørsmål og snakker som han har hatt, hvor

han åpenbart sa at han ikke ennå trodde

i konseptet av ras.

Han trodde at ras var en sosial konstrukt

på den måten vi trenger det i dag.

Og det er mange publiske tilfeller hvor han

ble oppført av noen i lgbt-kommunen, og

i hver fall kan du se at han

har velkommen dem med åpne arme a.

til å diskutere ham, eller b.

til bevegelsen selv.

Han hadde veldig mye åpnet døren for noen

som skulle komme og kjempe for tradisjonelle konservative

verdier, og han hadde et åpnet døren for

de som ville diskutere ham på disse temaene.

Det som var mitt subjektive inntrykk var at

hver gang han møtte noen som var en

nominell meningsmotstander, og spesielt hvis du var svart

eller trans eller et eller annet sånt, så

ble du møtt med en ganske sånn betydelig

omsorg.

Han la et par lag med vatt rundt

for å behandle deg ordentlig, og høre deg

ut og hele den greia der.

For meg, de bruker det der sitatet om

svarte piloter og sånt, og det har vi

i og for seg forklart før, men driver

det ut av sin kontekst, og så etterlater

et inntrykk at han var rasistisk.

Det var nøyaktig, 180 grader motsatt, ikke sant?

Hvis noen, selv en annen svart person, i

den situasjonen hvor du vet at strukturen er

der for å glede seg på grunn av

fargens farge, så trenger du å undre instinktivt

om den personen er kvalifisert til å være

der eller om det burde være noen annen

som var mer tilgjengelig.

Det er ikke en rasistisk poeng å gjøre.

Det er en naturlig, tror jeg, respons til

systemene han diskuterte.

Systemene som ble implementert som gav preferensbehandling basert

på rasismen.

Han advokerte for avgjørelse av sånne policy, fordi

han trodde det var bedre at folk ble

behandlet basert på merittet av sin individuelle karakter,

i stedet for immutable karakteristikker som ingen kan

forvandle.

Det er også interessant, man ser jo i

disse viralklippene fra Kirk, og det er jo

gjerne et eller annet lite uttrykk av debatter

med ulike, men du ser jo de som

kommer inn med dette synspunktet for DEI eller

kvotering, eller hva det er for noe, ofte

ikke skjønner implikasjonene av policyen de argumenterer for.

Så du ser liksom, han må hver gang

forklare dette er konsekvensene, ikke sant?

Og du må bruke litt tid på å

forklare at jo, du diskriminerer faktisk basert på

hudfargen din.

Sånn er det helt absolutt.

For en kvinne i denne posisjonen er det

ikke nødvendigvis å forstå at hun ikke er

kvalifisert, men det er stadig en spørsmål, er

hun der for å fylle den kvoten, eller

var hun der fordi hun faktisk er kvalifisert

til å sitte i denne posisjonen?

Og det er det disse typer av policyer

gjør, de instillerer disse spørsmålene i menneskene, av

alle om disse situasjonene.

En annen kvote som jeg vil si er

nok den mest abuserte kvote i eftermiddelen, var

hvor han diskuterer at han ikke liker ordet

empati, og han sier at han synes at

empati er et nyårsord som gjør mye smerter,

og de bare bruker den delen av kvoten.

De gir ikke noe mer kontekst.

Hvis du skulle lese det i sin helhet,

går han på til å si at jeg

synes at empati er et mye mer passende

ord.

Empati betyr at du føler hva noen annen

føler, men du kan ikke muligvis føle hva

en annen person føler.

Empati er et mye mer passende ord til

å bruke når du sympatiserer med en annen

person.

Jeg uttaler kvoten selv, men det er poenget,

at han kontrasterte ordet empati til sympati, og

når du har den tilgjengelige konteksten, så lytter

det ikke så hjemmeløst og kjærlig som det

er når du bare gir teksten til den

første delen av denne uttrykken.

Litt til reaksjonene i USA, for en av

de tingene jeg har sett en god del

av de siste døgnene, er at det settes

opp små minnesmerker med noen blomster og et

lys og noen bilder og sånn, og så

kommer det noen fra den tolerante siden og

sparker og ødelegger dette her.

Jeg synes jo det er ille å se

på det i Norge, altså hvordan man håndterer

dette på, men det ser ut som du

har en ganske stor komponent i USA også,

som rett og slett ikke behandler dette med

en særlig verdighet.

Ja, så lenge det gjelder for å se

hvordan individene og memorialene går, men også i

den veien, er det å se denne åpne

masse-feiringen av døgnet.

Det var en nydelig poll som ble løst

av YouGov som møtte republikanske demokrater forløp eller

rasjonalisering eller justifikasjon for politisk violens, og det

var en serie spørsmål som ble spurt.

Og demokrater var 4-6 ganger mer likelige

til å si at politisk violens er akseptabelt,

og at politisk violens kan bli feiret.

4-6 ganger mer likelige enn republikaner.

Republikanerne var i de nære, enkelte digitene, 4

% sa ja til disse spørsmålene, eller 5%,

som fortsatt er 4-5% for høyt

selvfølgelig, men det var oppe i 20-tallet

for demokrater.

Det er ikke en mindre del, men det

hjelper også å fortelle oss at en majoritet

av demokrater ikke støtter dette, og en majoritet

av republikanere ikke heller.

Disse menneskene som har en plattform for å

snakke veldig lydelig, og fordi det er så

utrolig og kontroversielt, får det mye oppmærksomhet.

Vi er...

Jeg lytte til en av dine episoder nødvendigvis

om dette eventet, og jeg tror at det

var deg som brukte opp Konstantin Kissen, og

hvordan han artikulerte det, og jeg så på

det, og jeg tenker at jeg har vært

en nyheter, og politisk aktiv, i hele min

adultliv, og kanskje også i min adolescens.

Så jeg er ganske nødvendig for nødvendige eventer.

Det tar mye å løpe meg rundt inntil.

Men i sammenhengen han gjorde at han ikke

kunne huske den siste gangen han følte denne

måten siden den 11.

september.

Og jeg kan si at jeg gjerne deler

denne artikuleringen, denne interne følelsen.

Dette hadde en effekt på meg selv.

Jeg følte for dager etter at jeg var

virkelig opptatt av dette.

Og jeg kan ikke huske at det har

hatt den samme effekten Jeg må si at

jeg har noe av samme følelsen, og det

er ikke nødvendigvis for drapet i seg selv,

for det er sånn grusomme ting som skjer

hele tiden.

Men det er reaksjonene på det, at det

sakte går opp for deg, hvor mange gærninger

du deler samfunnet med.

Det er det som er problemet nå i

USA.

For det siste året har konservativene vært gassløse,

og den venstre har, til og med presidentielle

kandidater, og presidentene selv, til Joe Biden, tilbake

til Hillary Clinton, og da til og med

mediepersonaliteter og tenkeledere i venstre, har helt normalisert

dehumaniseringen og dæmoniseringen av konservativene sammen med den

generøse bruk av ord som nazi, bygget, utfordringer,

alt dette.

La oss si at her i Norge, hvis

vi ble fortalt fra toppen at Russland infiltrerte

vårt regering og krosset bordet, og at vi

skulle forlore vårt land og vår demokrati, hvis

jeg konsumerte denne typen innhold, nærmest eksklusivt, og

trodde det, det skulle være en følelse av

nødvendighet til å ta opp armene og gjøre

noe om det.

Og jeg tror at det er i slutten

hva denne dehumaniseringen og den kontroversielle språken har

gjort til mange mennesker over de siste 10

årene.

Det er jo et eller annet med at

hvis du overbeviser noen om at dette er

Hitler, så er det jo ikke galt å

skyte Hitler.

Hvis du tar ut Hitler, så slipper vi

2.

verdenskrig.

Dette er en fyr som er du skjønner

at han har Karajan foran seg, selv om

han har gjort det bra i forklant.

Vi har bruket den retorikken over tid, så

ja, du vil overbevise folk.

Han ringte meg noen år siden med en

liste spørsmål og han vil bare kjøpe det

i munnen min.

Han var på vakasjon nederst nydelig, han var

med noen andre norske venner og han sa

der, nødvendigvis, mens de spilte på etter avslutningen,

at hans venner hadde rett til Charlie Kirk

som Hitler.

Det overrasket ham.

Han sa, jeg forstår ikke hvorfor det er

så mange norske venner som bare kan bruke

denne språket til å beskrive noen.

Som om, a.

om de virkelig tror på det, eller b.

om de virkelig ikke vet mye om Hitler.

Og hvis du tenker, dette er Hitler, hva

har noen til hans rett?

Jeg hadde en opplevelse for noen år siden,

vi sto på gata for liberalistene på Karjohan,

ikke sant?

Så kommer folk inn og da får du

en sånn temperaturmåling på folkedypet, om du vil.

Det er kanskje spesielt interesserte som går inn

om valg, både på Karjohan, men like fullt

at du får et ganske greit spektre av

ting.

Hvis du husker tilbake til 2019, så var

det den svære saken med disse Covington kids.

Det var en 16-åring som hadde litt

sånn dra til trynet, og hadde en Trump

-lue.

Og de sto der sånn og mindet their

own business.

Og så ble de egentlig omtrent overfalt av

en sånn der Native American-type, og det

ble en sånn svær mediesakuttale, fullstendig feilfremstilt.

Alle som ville finne ut av det kunne

finne ut av den kvelden.

Ingen gav det, ikke sant?

Så det ble jo presentert i Norge som

om det var noen sånne oppstørnasige, frekke drittunger,

som drev av å plage en gammel indianer,

og det var ukesvis, og ingen som korrigerte

seg selv, ikke sant?

Fullstendig.

Men det fascinerende for meg, for det var

i 2019, jeg sto på gata til kommunevalget

i 2023, og så var det en dame

som kom innom, og så begynte vi å

snakke om mediekritikk, og så tok jeg opp

denne saken.

Så jeg bare nevnte det, men det er

litt lav sannsynlighet for at en tilfeldig nordmann

på gata skal huske den saken, og hvem

han er, og hvis jeg sier navnet han,

så sier han «Nei, jeg aner ikke hvem

det er».

Hvis du husker han der guttungen med dra

til trynet og Trump-lua, «Åh, han, mini

-Trumpen, hvor faen tar han?».

Og det er liksom fire år etterpå, så

er det tilfeldige mennesker på gata i Norge

som har et aktivt hatforhold til en 16

-åring, som hun har sett på TV.

Og det er noe med ikke bare tar

hun feil på det, ikke sant?

Sånn at det er fullstendig urimelig å hate

han.

Men det er også den virkningen media har

på å forme så mange mennesker og hvilke

holdninger de har til ting.

Og så er det den der konsekvensene og

følelseslivet fra det, som kommer ut av det.

Og den generelle holdningen til ting som skjer

i Amerika, ting som skjer med sånne, Arne

formulerer det som at man ser på sånne

mediepersonheter som tegneseriefigurer.

Så man kan ha litt sånn utrett menings

- og følelsesutbrudd overfor dem.

Men en sånn ting som virkelig...

Man så den der videoen med Kaur som

lo av dette, og mange andre som lo

av dette, og uverdig opptreden, og den der

hele kvalifiseringsmarathon Olympiaden som alle driver med.

Og så blir du litt sånn satt ut

av at dette er uverdig, det er skjevdekning,

men det er vi jo vant til, ikke

sant?

Og så så jeg denne saken fra Oxford

Union, den der lederen av Oxford Union, som

også hadde reagert på den måten og le

av drapet og liksom high-fivede det.

Og så skjønner du etterpå at han, lederen

for Oxford Union, har faktisk debattert Charlie Kirk

med en meters mellomrom, så han har stått

og sett dette mennesket i øynene.

Så det er ikke den der tegneseriefiguren engang.

Det er et menneske du har møtt, hatt

en høflig debatt med, og så jubler du

over drapet hans i dag.

Vi har ikke møtt hverandre.

Jeg finner det, og i alle mine politiske

aktiviteter, jeg har krossført med mange mennesker som

jeg har fundamentalt ideologiske forskjell.

Men når du møter dem, og du forstår

ok, dette er en person, dette er ikke

mer en mediefigur.

Det er mange av dem som du kan

utvikle kjærligheter med, og fortsatt ikke sikre med,

fordi du har en menneskelig forhold nå.

Og jeg tror at det i seg selv

er en menneskelig natur.

Vi har forlort det.

Vi har blitt så polarisert, og så mange

av oss er endelig online.

Vi interagerer ikke så ofte i virkeligheten.

Men i alle fall, dette er hva konservatene

føler.

Jeg vet ikke om du så Bill Mahers

reaksjon til dette.

Jeg tror han hadde en ganske sober reaksjon

til dette.

Han beskrev hans opplevelse, hans personlige opplevelse med

Charlie Kirk.

Og da, hans konklusjon til det var jeg

har møtt så mange av disse menneskene, og

ingen av dem er så galt som de

gjør dem til å være.

Han er en god menneske.

Han var en kjærlig menneske.

Og den måten han karakteriserer det, er at

du kan få en konservativ her, og jeg

kan ikke sikre med hver eneste av dem,

men i alle fall snakker de, og prøver

å snakke, og ha en dialog, og en

diskurs med oss.

Den venstre vil ikke snakke.

Det er morsomt at du sier at han

hadde en drulig tilnærming, fordi jeg så podcastversjonen,

og da sa han at han kom nok

til å drikke mer i dag enn vanlig.

Ja.

Var han ikke på med Charlie Sheen?

Nei.

Ja, ok.

Så i dag må jeg drikke mer enn

...

En ting er at du har andre som

reagerer med å juble og si at det

var fint, men det er litt om i

hvilket samfunnslag de gjør det, og det er

litt forskjell på om bilmekanikeren eller rødleggeren eller

et eller annet gjør det, eller de som

på en måte pusser litt på det og

pynter litt på det, men som jobber i

TV da, eller i New York Times, eller

Washington Post, eller et eller annet.

Det er noe med hvilket nivå de er

på.

Men jeg vet ikke, hvordan deler du, vil

du si, medieavdelingen i USA er da?

Klarer de fleste medier å holde seg i

sjakk og ha en forluftig tilnærming, eller er

det dårlig sult, jubel og glede?

As far as the Norwegian press landscape goes,

it's so diverse.

I mean, there's a spectrum.

So I guess it just depends on how

far, which way on the spectrum you're gonna

go.

As far as the legacy media outlets go,

the mainstream media outlets, there's this kind of,

whether it's center, center-left or left, there's

this insidious kind of impression that's constantly being

left.

They acknowledge that this is an assassination, and

they acknowledge that this is a truly impactful

moment for the nation.

But there's always this equivocating.

Yes, he shouldn't have been assassinated, but.

Let's say the roles were reversed, and it

was some thought leader for the left.

Dean Winters.

And there's never a but.

This is a horrendous thing that's happened.

We all agree that it's a horrendous thing

that's happened.

There's no justifying it.

Yeah, they were assassinated, but look at what

he said.

I mean, are we really surprised?

And that's kind of, I think, what the

media is telling in the United States.

A summarized characterization of the narrative.

Here in Norway, it's a little bit different

because well, first, the Norwegian people tend to

be culturally and innately more trusting of authority

than Americans are.

And more forgiving as well.

And when you have the mainstream media here

in Norway, all of which gets some forms

of subsidies from the state, well then, technically,

they should be viewed, when you're kind of

evaluating the situation, as somewhat of a state

apparatus.

Not only are they authority as far as

delivering the news and giving media analysis to

its audience, but there's a state component to

this that's backing whatever it is they're saying.

And these people are supposed to be the

experts.

And so when you put these two things

together in the equation, you have an audience

that's trusting of authority and forgiving of authority

when mistakes are made, and willing to sweep

things under the rug collectively.

And then you have this media that's obviously

ideologically biased and driven, and not an expert

as far as the United States goes, or

an understanding of the United States.

Then you end up with the result of

that being your average Norwegian casually referring to

the assassinated as, well, you know, he was

like Hitler, though.

And I think that's how you end up

with that result.

And I commend those

for admitting that.

And I saw one article and forgive me

for not remembering exactly who the author was,

but the point of it was, how can

we expect in Norway to maintain any credibility

in our publication if we're writing about a

topic that so many in our audience know

more than us about?

There's so many that are reading what we're

writing and they know that we're wrong.

They know that we don't know what we're

talking about, because they know, as an average

reader, far more about the topic than we

do.

And there you erode your own credibility when

you start down that path.

There's an amnesia, the idea that you browse

through the newspaper and you come across a

topic you know something about, where you have

domain knowledge, and you see that journalism is

all over the place.

The cause and effect are quickly opposed.

And then you think, oh my God, how

can he work in a newspaper that's not

known to hospitals, or businesses, or the US,

better than this, and write about it?

And then you go on to something you

don't know about, and then you start to

trust it again.

And that amnesia comes in, that you forget

how little they knew about the thing you

knew about, and then you think that they're

still trustworthy on other things.

And that's very scary, and that's the trust

you're talking about.

Because in Norway, we have a tendency to

not think of ourselves as very authoritative, right?

We compare ourselves to the Swedes, and they're

much worse than us.

They're huge, they walk in line, and everyone

stands on the right side of the escalator.

We're incredibly conformist here.

And it's like, the corridor of opinion is

really narrow.

And it's evident in this case, among other

things, that those who let it go, or

even those who try to defend the other

side, like Imre Marstall and Andresen from Minerva,

who were there to take the other position,

to talk to Magnus Marstall.

And it's like, it's such a soft defense,

and it's so careful in avoiding it.

I also saw that Gauter Scherwe was talking

to Dan Burchoy.

And it's much of the same.

Dan Burchoy becomes incredibly evasive, and Scherwe gets

to talk freely with quite imprecise turns.

He's good at talking, and he doesn't say

anything completely crazy, but you draw the impression

all the time in one direction, right?

And that's fine, because he's an opinionator, and

has a position in it.

But it's like, what you avoid without meeting

the opponent, that's quite absurd in Norway, I

have to say.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

er lederen av Republicans Abroad i Norge og

stiller spørsmål om Charlie Kirk?

Og det er en positiv ting.

Og jeg ønsker at, i noen måter, noveligheten

med å snakke med medieren vokste opp for

meg lenge siden.

Så det er ikke som om jeg er

myktet over det, eller fornøyd.

Jeg er stadig en leder av Republicans Abroad,

og du vil tenke deg at jeg er

en av de første som spør om disse

veldig relevante spørsmålene.

Men nei, da det kom til Charlie Kirk

var det bare Ine Heter som kontaktet meg

og lagde en intervjue og skrev en artikkel

om mine første tenkninger i den nære tilfellet.

Men nei, ingen andre.

Og en gang i tiden, alle av dem

hadde ringt meg.

Jeg tror også at de ikke så mye

kjenner for min kritikk om norske medier eller

de ekspertene de vil bruke.

Og under den siste kampanjen i valget, og

snart etter valget, hadde jeg noen spørsmål med

noen som jobbet med medier og jeg tror

at de nok husker det.

Jeg vet ikke, jeg er ikke så mye

av en konspirasiv person men noen ganger får

jeg den følelsen at jeg kanskje har vært

blakklistet i denne kampen.

Men jeg vet ikke om det er sant.

Det er veldig hyggelig å ha deg her

i hvert fall.

Jeg er glad for å være her.

Min fascinasjon for dette i litt sånn metaperspektiv

er altså at du har et politisk attentat

og så klarer man å vri det til

at man problematiserer ofre.

Det er omtrent ikke snakke om gjerningsmannen.

Det er omtrent ikke snakke om problemer med

politisk vold.

Det man klarer å problematisere på basis av

dette, etter at en prominent republikaner er skutt

og drept, og etter at presidenten har forsøkt

skutt to ganger, så er det man problematiserer

er risikoen for en backlash fra Høyre siden

i USA.

Det var en kjærlighet for hvordan Trump kan

eksploere, og det er sånn at de karakteriserer

Trump for å eksploere denne assassinasjonen og Charlie

Kirk.

Faktum er at Charlie Kirk var så god

som familie til Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, jeg tror fullt, og har sett

hans relasjon med Charlie Kirk oppleve over årene,

tror jeg at Donald Trump hadde en kjærlighet

for Charlie Kirk.

Det er ingen følelse av det at det

er eksploerasjon.

Simpelt å karakterisere assassinasjonen som det er, og

effekten det har på landet, er ikke eksploerasjon.

Det er ikke det samme.

Vi er røde.

Konservativer er røde.

Og Donald Trump er også rettvis røde.

Selv om han ikke var presidenten, ville dette

gjort han personlig, på grunn av hans personlige

sammenheng med situasjonen, men også på grunn av

at han selv har vært på den andre

siden av bulleten et par ganger.

Så jeg utstyrer og utstyrer disse karakteriseringene av

eksploerasjon.

Ja, vi navigerer noen slags unnskyldt territori.

Det er noen sammenhenger laget, og jeg tror

rettvis så til assassinasjonen av MLK.

Ikke nødvendigvis i motivasjoner eller ...

Selvfølgelig er hver personens agender annerledes, men med

tanke på pågående på landet, så tror jeg

det er en rett sammenheng.

Jeg er ikke sikker på hvordan vi skal

forandre.

Jeg har noen ideer om hvordan landet kan

forandre, men det er enda tid som viser.

Nei, vi gjorde ikke det.

Det var ingen vild ...

Det var vigils, minneskap og bedrømme.

Det var ingen vilde røyter.

Ingen løp deres lokale bygninger.

Ingen burde bruke deres egen områder.

Det var ingen følelse av vildhet, uansett i

situasjoner, veldig isolerte lokale situasjoner, hvor folk kom

inn for å forsvare og forfølge memorialene mens

folk var omkring for å bedre.

Jeg så et par videoer der et par

mennesker forlokk deres temper.

Det var akkurat det, faktisk.

Vi har ...

Begrepet å be om jording kom til mind.

I Norge har vi et rettsprinsipp for det

som heter rettness i harme.

Det ville falle inn under, og det vil

si at du blir ikke dømt for å

bruke vold mot mennesker i en sånn situasjon,

fordi de har bevisst med vilje provocert så

mye på en person de planlater.

Det er good to go.

En annen ting.

Man har jo demonisert Trump i mange år

som vi er vant til den der tegneseriefiguriseringen

av ham.

Den er ganske fremtredende med J.D. Vance

også.

Når du snakker om å ha en personlig

connection, så var vel J.D. Vance enda

mye nærmere Charlie Kirk.

J.D. Vance hadde vel ikke vært senator

hvis ikke for Charlie Kirk i utgangspunktet, så

hans karriere og hele greia lener seg ved

egentlig på at Charlie Kirk var en av

de første til å omfamne hans kandidatur da

han stilte til senatsvalg.

Når han da hoster podcasten til Charlie Kirk

første episode etter at han er borte.

Så er det også gjenstand for en sånn

lattlegjøring og tegneseriefisering her i Norge.

Det er en sånn vicepresident i USA som

har sagt noe sprøtt om Charlie Kirk.

Det er ingen anerkjennelse av at det var

et menneske du kjente som er revet bort

på en helt urimelig vis.

Vi snakket om empati og sympati.

Det er ingen anerkjennelse av det.

Det er mye som skjer med anerkjennelser på

alle medier, om det er sosiale medier eller

nyheter.

Men det er også mye som er omfattende.

Det er veldig forsiktig informasjon til å maler

et stort bilde eller en karakter i et

stort lys.

Det forlader et stort antal kontekster og ting

som betyr noe.

Til en annen punkt av ironi der, tror

jeg at leftistene og dem som tar medierne

medier, forlader deres egen grunn nå.

Hvis det gjelder støtte for konservativer, støtte for

Turning Point, det er utrolig mye de får

i forhold til dette.

Jeg har sett rapporter om at kyrkene har

stiget mye i USA.

Dette har hatt en effekt.

Det er vanskelig.

Jeg tror at mange som har mikrofon og

har en slags styrke i den industrien, jeg

er ikke sikker på hva du kaller det,

men de opplever som om publikum ikke kan

gå til noe annet for å få mer

informasjon.

Jeg er ikke sikker på om det er

i denne situasjonen at det vil ta oss

tilbake til en mer rådgivende ton og en

mer produktiv og konstruktiv sammenheng med mennesker vi

ikke er sikre på.

Jeg er ikke sikker på hva som kan.

Jeg er ikke sikker på hva som kan

gjøre det for oss.

Jeg er relativt moderat på de fleste ting,

og i hvert fall når det kommer til

omgang og kostyme og den type ting.

Jeg kjenner disse folka skal jeg ikke ha

noe mer.

Jeg har null toleranse for den type oppførsel,

for det er rett og slett bare å

ikke oppføre seg.

Min teori er at det er så mange

vanlige mennesker som ikke har den mikrofonen eller

den talerstolen som mange har, som bare reagerer

intuitivt på dette.

Det er en fyr som har skutt, og

du fokuserer på dette, du vet hva.

Nå er jeg på vei ut, jeg skal

ikke ha noe mer der å gjøre heller.

Og jeg kjenner det selv, ikke sant?

Og jeg kan garantere at jeg har multiplisert

meg ganske mye for mange andre.

Du hadde jobbet i kalisert etter at du

ble anarchist, du.

Ja, det er fint.

I think you're absolutely correct, and I think

one of the more, intuition is absolutely the

right word to use in that.

You do have these kind of, I guess,

normies, people who are not consumed by politics

and current events, and pick it up piece

by piece throughout their day maybe, or throughout

the week.

And there is going to be an intuitive

reaction to this, and the only people, I

would suggest, the only people that this kind

of narrative is actually speaking to, are people

that have, there's something wrong in their head.

There is something wrong.

And I think you have social media and

cultural causes for that, but it's not a

majority of the people.

This is a minority that this is speaking

to, it's a minority of people that identify

with this type of language and almost Orwellian

reporting of the event.

But I do think, you're right, there is

an intuition for most people to say, why

are we talking about this?

In the days after, for example, we're still

trying to find the killer.

Why are we talking about this right now?

And then now that the killer has been

caught, and the evidence has painted a pretty

clear picture, something I was never in doubt

in, I think I knew, and I think

most people knew, exactly what this was when

it happened.

There wasn't a convoluted mystery, it was pretty

straightforward.

And now we know that the suspicions are

true, and you still have, I still am

getting confronted by people, some even in my

own family, who are saying, I don't understand

why you're so angry.

It was obviously a SuperMAGA guy that did

this.

It was a Gruyper that did this.

It was this right-wing guy who wanted

to kill Charlie Kirk because he wasn't right

-wing enough.

And I've said, what are you reading to

come to this conclusion?

I mean, if that were the case, I

would have no problem acknowledging that that's the

case.

But there is no point of evidence that

we have been provided so far by the

authorities and by the FBI, that could point

to anywhere close to that direction.

Well, but

the

irony of that is so many of the

people who are making this false claim about

him, many of them probably know better than

most of us that your politics is not

necessarily in line with the politics of your

family.

A lot of these kind of radical leftists

have broken from their own families, or their

families have broken from them because the state

of polarization in the American political landscape.

So, I find there to be a degree

of irony there because of all people in

American politics that should understand that maybe my

politics aren't quite in line with how I

was raised and what my parents believe in.

There is a break there, and I think

more of a break these days than there's

ever been.

Of course, I think in earlier periods of

American history, whatever your family's politics were, would

be a good predictive indicator of being able

to make a relatively accurate assumption of what

someone else believes.

As it were, they came from this area,

their parents are, you know, Quakers or Mormons

or whatever, and you can probably make a

safe assumption of what's on it.

But that isn't the case today because we

have the internet, and people have all these

other doors and windows to be influenced by

throughout their day.

But yes, they are definitely leaning hard on

the fact that he came from a very

small, rural, bedroom community, conservative Republican community, Mormon

community.

Utah is the Mormon state, and so of

course in the immediate aftermath, to say okay,

this happened in Utah, he's from Utah, I

think they were leaning on that very hard.

It must have been a Republican.

Cognitive dissonance is a very pleasant subject.

That's true.

Over the years, and since you've seen cycles

of insanity go through and disappear again, I've

come to the conclusion that here in Norway

we have a long history with it.

In the 70s, we had the madness of

AKP-ML.

It flew around and terrorized people and was

violent and unilateral.

And then it just dies out, and then

you get to a collective understanding that it

takes too long.

They have to apologize for what they have

been doing.

And it's like a cycle of insanity.

They've been doing that green shift and sea

wind for years.

It looks like a mental illness when you

see it, doesn't it?

You just don't understand how it's possible to

have a public debate that just keeps going

at this level.

But it just keeps going, and suddenly it

just dies out.

And then everyone turns 180 degrees, along with

nuclear power, along with the COVID-19 things

that have eroded so much trust in the

media and political leaders that what they don't

understand now, what we were talking about in

the city, that cultural shift they are now

contributing quite hard to create.

So the consequences of this in the long

run will be so much bigger than they

perceive now, because they think they have hegemony

on this, but there are so many who

don't buy that package anymore, and don't trust

what they are being told anymore, because they

are being lied to, right?

And I don't know what to say.

There are also some signs.

We talked about such memorabilia of Kirk that

were destroyed and trampled, right?

I just saw a video of a surveillance

camera that was filming a vigil that someone

had been kicked and thrown in all directions.

And then there are some boys on kick

scooters driving past early in the morning when

no one else is around, and then you

see that they stop and then they go

up, and then they repair and put everything

back up again, and then they drive on.

And you see the basic decency that lies

there among ordinary people who are not such

fire in the belly activists, right?

But who are just normal, decent people.

You see them reacting to these people who

are so ideologically autistic that I have seen

for a while.

An ex-account, and it is of course

not representative of anything, but it started like

this.

We are Antifa.

We are going to fight against anti-fascists.

We are 180% against anti-fascists.

No, against fascists.

We are 180% anti-fascist, and we

are going to continue the fight.

And it was this thing here, and I

felt that I had started to formulate a

spiteful answer to them, and then I dropped

it.

But it's like this completely without self-consciousness,

impudent, self-absorbed people's pre-existing activism, and

what I wanted to write is what you

don't understand is that anti-fascists live from

you.

Or sorry, fascists live from you, right?

As long as you and your fantasies of

violence exist, fascists, or those you call fascists,

always have the excuse to screw the screws

for a while, and ordinary people will represent

the fascists over you.

Right?

And this is what they don't understand, because

they live in a bubble of their own

media outlets, and their own friends, and this

opinion community that is so safe and sound,

where they can mean completely absurd things, or

praise themselves for being killed.

And they don't understand how significantly fewer they

are.

Anti-fascist, anti-fascist.

That's just the wrapping on what their package

is.

It includes so many other ideological things within

that.

I guess you could say cultural Marxism to

a certain degree, post-modernism, the removal of

value in what we do value as family

values, for example, the nuclear family unit, having

a sense of community that may be based

in faith, for example.

These things are all wrapped into this Antifa,

where they would happily tear all that down.

And if you have these others that you

kind of characterize as being fascist, if you

must, and they're promising security, safety, family, over

anything else, if they're promising that, well, it's

not really a winning message that Antifa has.

It's funny that you're starting to talk about

cultural Marxism, because that was the only point

of reference to the expert that NRK has

brought in twice in the debate, and another

program to attach this to Breivik.

Yes, exactly.

I saw that.

If it's the use of a single word,

then you're on your way there, and you

have a problem.

And it's intentional, I think, for someone like

her to tie that to Anders Breivik and

the assassination of Charlie Kirk, because it's a

further effort to make that a taboo characterization.

But it doesn't frighten me.

It is what it is, and I'll call

it the absurdity in being an academic and

an expert on TV, and what you're doing

is tying the murder victim to Breivik.

It's so brain-dead that it's impossible.

But this Antifa-fascist, not-fascist thing, the

absurdity in it is that Antifa is an

authoritarian movement that criticizes the authoritarian with a

marginally different flag or blames people almost in

the center for being fascists.

As you say, the conclusion about left-wing

authoritarian is so small, because what you know

is that you get authoritarian anyway, but with

the fascists, you at least get some order

and order.

The names don't matter.

The full name in North Korea is something

like...

The Democratic Republic of North Korea.

People's Democratic Republic, so it's all the way.

But it's not definitionally progressive.

For example, one of my favorite Milton Friedman

quotes was when he was being asked why

is he a Republican?

Maybe he wasn't asked, but he was explaining

I am a Republican with a capital R

and a Libertarian with a lowercase L.

And I'm only a Republican with a capital

R basically for expediency.

I might be butchering that quote a little

bit, but that was the point.

Being a part of the Republican Party was

where he saw the channel through which he

could propagate Libertarian values most effectively.

And so there is grammatically a degree of

importance of defining these terms.

What do these terms mean and how are

they applied and how are they used?

To say somebody is progressive with a capital

P is different than saying somebody is progressive

with a lowercase P.

Of course, this is English grammar as well,

but it is important that we understand the

terms we're using.

So to say those that the anti-fascists

are against are fascists, I think it's very

important to use quotations around fascist because we're

letting Antifa then define, to define the political

landscape which is wildly inaccurate.

And strikingly, they have a power of definition

that is significantly greater than they deserve.

But we have to we have to point

out one thing as well because let's be

a little imprecise and say the leftists, they

have been angry at Trump for years, right?

Then we get to Dr. Kirk, and then

of course there are a lot of correct

reactions from the official USA, whether it is

Pelosi or AOC or whatever it is, then

you react formally at least.

You make the right moves, right?

But yes, the genuineness in grief is probably

not always on a very high level.

But they are very concerned about freedom of

speech on the left, because Jimmy Kimmel has

been kicked out of his talk show, or

at least suspended.

And there I have to admit that even

though even though the cognitive dissonance and double

morality on the left is to take and

feel all the time, and it's a big

lump that you can't avoid you can't look

past it.

So Trump managed to mix in the head

of FCC who started to throw his authority

around to get Jimmy Kimmel kicked out, and

that is well beyond what I think is

acceptable.

I would have celebrated that decision because I

do think what he did what he said

and how he said it was reprehensible.

But I do have a problem with the

chair of the FCC brandishing his authority in

the way that he did to say we

can do this the easy way or the

hard way, and basically saying ABC needs to

do something or else.

Which is almost quite literally what he said.

If ABC doesn't do something, then the FCC

has a lot more work in the coming

days, or whatever it is he said.

There you have a problem.

But I think this situation is actually one

of the best of the current events that

are happening.

This is a great isolated incident to use

to convert people to libertarianism.

I don't care if it was Biden Biden

was using his authority the same way against

conservatives.

In fact, it just came out a couple

days ago that the Biden administration was investigating

and pressuring Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk

and using their agencies and authorities to put

them in a corner basically.

So Biden was doing the same.

Trump, in this situation, well it's not him

but it's his guy did certainly overstep, but

I think this is one of the best

arguments that why should the government have this

level of authority to begin with?

Why is there an FCC chair that can

tell a private corporation how they're supposed to

handle a situation within their own company?

I find it problematic, one because the authority

was used in this way, but I also

find it problematic that the authority exists at

all What they're afraid of losing is their

affiliate license, basically.

The affiliate license that these networks have, ABC,

NBC, Fox, CBS, they have these licenses that

are granted by the FCC which gives them

a range of benefits and elevates their status

basically in the broadcasting industry.

a part of that having that license states

that you have to operate in a way

that's serving the public interest, and so then

that would become the basis of the threat.

It says, oh, you're allowing a man who's

blatantly lying, but not only blatantly lying, doing

it to anger half the nation at least

there you're no longer serving the public interest.

So at least in the criteria and the

standard of the license, there is a point

to be made, I guess, if that is

the criteria, but the more appropriate way for

the FCC to handle that would have been

having an internal review and going through whatever

process they need to do, and then either

make the decision to revoke the license or

not but then to come out immediately after

the monologue that Kimmel gave, and use the

pressure that way, that I do believe is

problematic and I don't agree with that decision

from the Trump administration, and I think it

could have been handled a lot better Now,

the other side of this is that late

night talk show industry in the United States

is a dying industry.

The fact is, Jimmy Kimmel was not speaking

to tens of millions of people when he

gave that monologue He was speaking to a

very, I mean there are countless YouTubers and

podcasters that garner a much larger audience than

he does on his program, for a fraction

of the budget.

These late night talk shows have massive departments

and teams of people producing them They are

a money pit for these networks They are

not a profitable program anymore.

So I do think that these networks are

looking for the earliest and most convincing excuse

possible to terminate these hosts, and I do

think within the next, say, five years, all

of them will be gone, or at least

their contract won't be.

What we saw with Stephen Colbert, for example,

he wasn't fired, he wasn't there wasn't an

ultimatum given by the Trump administration as has

been characterized since the announcement His employer decided

not to renew the contract, and it wasn't

anything personal against him, it was to end

the program in its entirety.

It wasn't to get rid of him and

bring on someone else.

And I think all of these networks, because

they all have their own version of this

will be following suit within the next five

years.

I'm thinking that we've seen the Trump administration

use unnecessary pressure and use tools they shouldn't

use and now we see that the Trump

administration does the same, and the question is

is it necessary for both sides to realize

that this might not be the way to

go, that this might not be that smart?

Most famous quotes, at least amongst Republicans from

Obama was, listen, I have a pen and

I have a phone.

And the implication there was I'm just going

to write these executive orders to circumvent your

authority as the legislature.

And Republicans, prominent Republicans warned not only Obama,

but the Democrats that were just celebrating this

strongman authority that Obama was embodying, were warned

listen, you can Obama didn't even, by the

end of his second term, he didn't, in

the aggregate he didn't have the most executive

orders I believe Bush even had more, and

Bill Clinton had more than him but what

he did do was he expanded the scope

of what the executive orders were used for.

And prominent Republicans and leaders within the party

were warning Democrats, we don't like this we

don't like this use of presidential authority, we

don't like this use of executive orders, and

we should warn you that just because Obama's

president now doesn't mean the next guy that

comes is going to be a guy you

like.

And this is long before Trump was on

the stage or anything.

And sure enough, that's what happened.

Now the precedent has been set and to

your point in question is, will one of

them realize that this isn't the way to

handle things?

I think it's a burgeoning machine that once

it gets moving in that direction I'm not

sure how you stop it.

Unless it's the will of the people and

who they vote for and say this is

really what's important to us rather than whatever

subsidies and projects and other things that they're

earmarking in their budget.

So I'm not sure how to reverse course

on that.

And now we see Republicans doing what the

Democrats have been doing to Republicans for the

last 10 years with cancel culture and using

the FCC to pressure and all this.

And so as I said, I don't support

this decision by the FCC chair and the

Trump administration and I put it this way,

I said I am principally against how this

unfolded but I know that principally speaking, Jimmy

Kimmel supports what happened to Jimmy Kimmel.

He hasn't been a passive participant in cancel

culture the last few years.

No, and of all people he'd like everyone

to forget but he came from a program

called The Man Show in the early 2000's

and there was a program that was entirely

based on the comedic degradation of women he

proudly wore blackface on that program these were

all things that which, whatever, I'm not making

any character judgments there, it's his program, he

had an audience but I find it interesting

that it's only now that he's being quote

unquote cancelled how is it that the left

let him get away with his history for

so long and so this all kind of

pieces together that Republicans not only have endured

the violation of speech from Democrats through various

methodologies but also saw that it was selective

and arbitrary in that if you're with us

then we can let you get away with

it, and if you're not, we're going to

dig up 20 years of sins and then

you could hope that, let's say, the broader

left has come up with better ideas now,

because now they're very focused on freedom of

speech around this Jimmy Kimmel case, but I

notice that there are very few on the

left who are particularly concerned about freedom of

speech in Great Britain.

I don't think they were concerned when Tucker

Carlson got fired from Fox, or?

I think Jimmy Kimmel actually celebrated it quite

clearly on stage Yes, absolutely, and now it's

just the shoe is on the other foot

What I will say is there's a lot

of concern about how will Trump use this,

how is the right going to react moving

forward you did see some prominent figures on

the right such as Matt Walsh and some

others from the Daily Wire Candace Owens is

another one, but she's pushing herself more and

more into the fringe of conservatism She's basically

crazy I was trying to say that politely,

but yes I can just mention that she

has been all the way because she had

a libertarian phase as well, and that was

so untrustworthy, so she's a definition by Grifter

Yes, I think that's a good characterization and

it's actually interesting to watch how a lot

of these media personalities go through phases and

still maintain an audience throughout but my point

is, you had a lot of them give

visceral reactions to this in the aftermath and

with maybe not so subtle overtones of implications

of violence and things like that, but personally,

I'm coming away from this.

I think this is devastating for the nation

and this has truly impacted me and I

do think that there is this is changing

the timeline somehow, and I'm not exactly sure

how that's going to look moving forward, but

strangely, this has if my mind wasn't already

at ease before, I have never felt any

sense of fear that the United States is

going to devolve into a civil war.

That has never been a concern of mine.

It's a question I get asked often, either

on air or off air and I am

always very firm in my response there, that

it's not going to happen.

I don't think that this is going to

happen.

I don't have any reason to be concerned

for the potential of another civil war in

the United States and strangely enough, this event

has only confirmed that further for me.

I don't think Americans at all have the

stomach for the idea of shooting their neighbors

I don't think that that is on the

horizon at all.

What I do think may happen is we've

been watching Republican states do this for I

don't know, probably close to 15 or 20

years, gradually, and now we're starting to see

Democrat states do the same and is what

is called a soft secession where states are

starting to realize the sovereignty they actually have

as a state and that there are legal

remedies for them to circumvent the directives from

the federal government so that they can be

more autonomous as a state and in that

you have more or less what is a

soft secession and that I think is more

realistic expectation going forward.

I think we're going to start seeing more

and more of that from both sides it

will be Democrat states and Republican states whatever

their values are and whatever their priorities are,

we'll be moving in the direction of those

priorities as a sovereign state as distanced as

they can be from the federal government and

one thing that they will sorry, one thing

that they will have to grapple with and

stomach in doing that, and left wing states

will have a harder time doing this than

Republican states is that in doing so, you

will you will have to voluntarily deprive yourself

of federal funding.

That's the only way it can happen.

You have to be able to swallow that

pill and say ok, we do not value

what the federal government is trying to make

us do they're paying us a lot of

money to follow their instructions so we either

do what we don't want to do what

violates our morals and principles whatever they are,

left wing or right wing or we cut

off the money flow and go our separate

ways In Norway there's a culture to celebrate

a little that politicians on all sides have

a personal relationship between each other after the

election that was just up, a group picture

was taken of all the party leaders where

everyone smiled, whether they were election winners or

election losers, and it was very clear that

these are people who accept each other appreciate

each other, it's always like that and that

is celebrated in Norway and it's very visible

now that if you fall out of this

very narrow spectrum that is the parties then

there is no space left but the ideal

is there that we have to be able

to talk to each other across ideological lines

and what it has to be, and it

occurred to me that if we manage to

turn this around to a kind of we

actually have to talk to each other we

have to distance ourselves from those who go

too far whether it's when the FCC chair

begins to censor put the tongue on the

scale in matters of freedom of speech or

leftists who celebrate a political attack and that

if it takes two weeks or two months

or two years is not so important but

it is that we sort out what is

right and important and what is not and

I think that will come and that may

be the hope that if those of us

who feel that the world is getting out

of hand now manages to keep focus on

if we ourselves try to focus on doing

and behave properly and do what is right

that would be crossroads, for example in this

case criticize the FCC chair even though I

think the left deserves more criticism for the

time but we just stick to that principle

and maybe ask the left a little more

if they think there are any freedom of

speech problems in Great Britain for the time

when you have 10 times as many per

inhabitant imprisoned for speech on social media than

Russia I

think most people on the left they respond

and the only thing that's driving them is

expediency, what is it right now that's going

to benefit me in the moment there isn't

a basic fundamental principle that's guiding them anymore

I think maybe once upon a time they

did have that I think that's lost now

what I do think is interesting in comparing

the United States and Norway, the United States

has obviously been polarizing as a nation for

some time and the difference in Norway it's

not happening at the same pace or at

the same rate, but there is a polarization

happening in Norway too but I think the

difference is, other than the pace that it's

happening in the United States the polarization is

happening but we know it's happening, we can

see it happening it's not hidden it's unavoidable

we've been watching the progression or digression, however

you want to phrase that, we've been watching

this polarization happen in real time, all the

time contrast that to Norway, where there is

a polarization effect happening, but we can't see

it it's not acknowledged it's not addressed in

any way and there you do have a

form of censorship as well, when you have

the state funded media apparatus that not only

puts someone in a chair behind a microphone

and on the camera regardless of whether or

not they're an expert in what they're fixing

to discuss, but they also decide who doesn't

get to sit in the chair and what

will be it will be interesting to see

how this polarization develops in Norway I think

there will, who knows how long it will

take, but there will come a day where

it's going to be a kind of rude

awakening for a lot of average Norwegians it

will come as a shock, where did this

come from how did we get here, but

it has been happening all along it's just,

it isn't visible I can also add because

we are what should I say part of

an environment that attracts people who experience that

they don't have anything to do in the

mainstream and it's from many it's all from

conspiracy theorists to vaccine skeptics to people who

are angry about the children's world to a

lot of things and it's like in Fjøslyk

that everyone who doesn't feel at home will

go somewhere else but after the corona period

and the shutdown I think it's a bit

underestimated in the mainstream how much, how many

people who have scaled off the trust society

we have had and when they continue as

you mentioned there are so many, especially in

the growing generation the Gen Z-ers who

have their own relationship to Charlie Kirk and

have seen the clips with him and know

that he's a guy who behaves and debates

constructively, he's good at it he doesn't say

anything very crazy, and he's not racist I

look at all the interactions he has with

blacks, with questions about quotations or racial questions,

or what it is and you see that

it's fundamentally not a racist approach, it's a

constructive fact-based approach you can disagree with

his conclusions but it's still political political opinions

and policies that are different than many others

and if you're 19 years old or 22

years old, and you've seen this on the

internet for 5 or 10 years then you

see mainstream media coming up with completely ridiculous

quotes, leaving the impression that Charlie Kirk is

a complete racist and it just erodes complete

confidence, complete faith in these people who are

now talking after knowing Charlie Kirk for half

an hour it's difficult to...

because in all the debates and conversations that

I've engaged in about the assassination since it's

happened, in so many of those conversations I

have felt like the person I'm talking to

is moments away from asking me, who are

you going to believe me or your lying

eyes and that is kind of the sense

you get from the mainstream narrative, the acceptable

narrative, is no, no, no I saw an

article recently that said, here's how doing your

own research can radicalize you to the right

and the article and headline were written without

an ounce of satire or parody, it was

a totally serious article and that's kind of

the impression that's left here, especially with the

Gen Z crowd and they too can be

quite passionate despite any degree of ignorance about

whatever politics, I was the same when I

was that age and these, because social media

and this kind of content, regardless of the

app, TikTok, Facebook, X, whatever it's so prevalent,

it's everywhere, these kids, that's all they know

and they are watching this kind of stuff

all the time and I think they're it's

kind of, take the late night show for

example, late night talk shows the audience for

that is people who are 65 and older

basically and so there is going to be

a gradual phasing out of these legacy outlets

because the young people not only don't watch

them, they don't trust them and that doesn't

matter what side of the political spectrum they're

on, it's so sanitized and structured and deceptive

that they can just go directly to the

source on their phone, which they have been

programmed to do through trial and error of

their adolescence that I don't even think a

lot of the people that age even think

about it, they just do it I remember

I'm probably like an old man pushing 50,

I'm probably closer to Gen Z than many

other 50 year olds, because you're on the

internet a lot and I just remember that

Covington case we were on in 2019 where

you watch the media narrative, you watch how

it's told, and then you're in Norway and

you get interested, is it really like that?

and then there's someone who puts on YouTube

this surveillance video for 2 hours where you

can see the whole process, you can do

it yourself and you can do research, and

you're just doing it as a private person

you see that it's not close to the

story that's being told in the media, and

then you see this rolling on for weeks

and it's so devastating for the trust in

either NRK or VG or whatever it is

and you can see, yes, there were some

instances that were unacceptable, but to watch you

could watch hours and hours of that footage,

and if you walked away coming to the

conclusion that was fed to you by mainstream

media that it was a military coup that

it was a violent insurrection that you couldn't

possibly come to that conclusion, I mean, you

had elderly people walking through the halls looking

at the paintings on the wall, you had

younger people that were strolling and just looking

around and there were many of them being

escorted by the security that ran the building

and simply being observed it was inappropriate what

happened I guess you could say, but certainly

the characterization of it as a violent, almost

militant insurrection was wildly off base, but a

lot of people just like the Covington situation

still believe what the initial reporting was, and

how that was framed almost immediately I will

add, for the sake of order Trump's departure

in that situation was in my opinion, very

critical to sit as a president and not

intervene in what, and yet was a large

population that went against the government and could

have gone much worse and in my vocabulary

the word insurrection sounds much more like the

Black Lives Matter thing that burned down entire

cities I

think it was well over 100 I'm

not sure how you do that and I'm

not sure that that's going to make anything

better either but I do think there's absolutely

a reasonable argument to be made that the

tactics and methods that Antifa uses are certainly

terroristic.

They are certainly a violent cohort of society

they certainly have no problem intimidating innocent people

in the town square and absolutely they embody

what you would conventionally call a terrorist movement

And the definition is quite simple it's just

that you use violence or threats to influence

politics and

make sure that everyone involved agrees on that

definition because it is quite complex We can

for example sit here and acknowledge that Antifa

is terrorist but the question is one, how

will the government define them as terrorists and

two, how can that definition be applied to

other organizations later and that's for me where

it gets a little concerning I fully agree

Antifa needs to be dealt with and I

fully agree that the way that they behave

in the town square and how they treat

others is unacceptable my concern is once the

federal government, once Trump starts it's the same

kind of, I feel that same instinctive warning

that I was telling people about Obama under

his tenure my concern here is okay, what

are you doing and how is this going

to be used against me later No, and

it's frustrating to say that what often is

difficult is to ignore the losers, right?

because if they don't get attention they will

be gone they have to be so spectacular

that you don't have a choice the

problem worse than it was when probably the

best way to go about it is just

collectively as a society say it's unacceptable, you

as a person are going to be arrested

for whatever crimes you perpetrate but we're not

going to treat this as a serious political

movement George

Soros and the like I do that I

believe will happen you will see the Trump

administration start to go after these organizations under

a variety of charges I know they mentioned

RICO for one for one criminal type of

investigation, but also going after the NGOs which

needs to be done anyway, and I think

Elon Musk really genuinely tried to do that

with Doge was to, I mean the number

of NGOs that we subsidize and Rand Paul

just off the cuff had a great response

to this when all the Doge controversy was

going on he said, how can you be

an NGO when you're taking our money something

to that effect how can you be classified

as a non-governmental organization when the lion's

share of your funding is coming from the

government, how can that be these are mutually

exclusive things it's a silent N so there

are two N's non-non-governmental organization double

negative it could have been a description of

the Norwegian press yes, absolutely ok I think

we're almost half an hour so we're getting

close to the end it was very nice

to have you here I have one final

question you're the chairman of Republicans Abroad but

we have certain similarities can you explain why

Libertarians

Abroad in

order despite the characterizations of the Republican Party

the Republican Party is a big tent party

there are a diversity of views and opinions

I can say, whenever there is a primary

ballot in front of me for choosing who

will be the presidential candidate for the Republican

Party I have, in every election when I

have the opportunity, always voted for Rand Paul

I have never voted for example for Donald

Trump in a primary election I have voted

for Donald Trump three times in the general

election but I feel that I'm we discussed

earlier which media platforms wanted to hear from

me after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and

this occasion, which was unusual, because usually when

something of this scale happens my phone is

ringing throughout the day trying to get a

comment not this time, and that was a

strange experience, I was expecting it but it

didn't come.

That being said if I were to represent

Libertarians Abroad, if they have such an apparatus,

the phone would never ring and I would

have no platform to convey my values and

principles also, that being said as much as

I'm a Republican in the two party system

of the United States and I wish it

weren't so, I wish the Libertarian Party was

a serious organization, I wish that I had

an opportunity to vote for a truly Libertarian

candidate in the United States I wish that

all of that was true, but that is

not the reality of the situation in the

United States but as we know we do

have our party here in Norway Liberalistene and

that I have always felt is more of

my party, more of my political home than

any other party anywhere but if you have

the values that I have and the political

principles that I advocate, for which I advocate

and I was in America typically speaking, you

would be a member of the Republican Party

we can see that with Thomas Massey we

can see that with Rand Paul we can

see that with the Liberty Caucus within the

United States Congress these are typically people who

are free market capitalists, classical liberal Libertarians with

a small L trying to do what they

can as a Republican with a capital R

Yes, and I have to say that after

I see the reactions on the Charlie Kirk

and what kind of movement that does not

take distance from it and cleans up in

it it is the first time in a

long time that I think that if I

had to choose then we would have been

in the same party already and we would

have been both against it but ok, thank

you so much for a long and nice

talk I hope you will come back sometime

Yes, of course and thank you both for

having me today Just to say, we will

always be around the table Ok, thank you

for today Have a good day Thank you

for listening to Sideline Podcast We would like

to expand so if you talk about us,

share us or recommend us in the podcast

app then it is highly appreciated If

you rather want to talk to us in

the form of laughter or tears criticism, suggestions,

questions or something else then you will find

all contact information on sideline.transistor.fm