Loading summary
Transcript237 lines
- [00:01]
A
Nicholas Fuentes. Welcome back.
- [00:02]
B
Yeah, good to be back. How's it going?
- [00:04]
A
Good, man, good. Thank you for coming. I appreciate it. It's. We. What was it, like, six, seven months ago you were here? Well, it was. Yes, it was in October. It was on October 7th. So now I remember a little bit
- [00:15]
B
of a dog whistle.
- [00:16]
A
We put it out. We put it out on October 8th.
- [00:18]
B
We did that intentionally. That was our plan, dude.
- [00:21]
A
Whenever we were trying to make it work, I remember we were like, texting, and I was like, oh, could you do. Can you do the 10th? And you were like, I can't do the 10th. Can you do the six? I was like, I can't do the sixth. And we were both like, oh, we can do the seventh. And then it was the moment after I think we both realized we're like, we just booked this on October 7, didn't we? This is going to get taken the wrong way anyway. October 8th, okay, so about seven months ago, since you were here, that episode was my most viewed podcast I've ever done.
- [00:46]
B
Wow.
- [00:47]
A
By far. It was. I think that got like 4 million views or something like that. I know. It broke 2 million on YouTube. It broke a million on Spotify, and then I think, between the others, got it on. So anyway, you know, I had Tucker and Candace on my show in that stretch, but our episode was the most viewed one, which I thought was kind of interesting. And I mean, obviously those guys are enormous. I'm not trying to downplay that, but it was something particularly interesting. You're a guy who, because you've been so censored off so many platforms, it's almost hard to get a gauge of, like, how big you are, if that makes sense, because it's like your clips are everywhere. The clips are. So it's not like you're exactly getting a total view count of, like, how many millions of people have seen all these clips. And because you can't go, you're still not allowed. Which is very weird in a way, because in a sense, it feels like we're living after the big censorship moment.
- [01:44]
B
Right?
- [01:45]
A
And it feels like you're clearly one of the biggest people in this world, but you still can't have a YouTube channel and you still can't really have a Twitter account.
- [01:54]
B
Yeah, no, I'm not eligible for X Premium. And. Well, and here's the other thing. What's funny is. So we consider doing advertisements on the show this year. I've never done advertisements before. And so we approach some of the sponsors.
- [02:07]
A
Let me have a Jewish Conversation with you here, you need advertising.
- [02:11]
B
Yeah, I'm leaving money on the table, I think, without it. But we go to them and obviously they want the analytics. Cause they wanna know the demographics we're reaching and how big the audience is. And what's funny is something like Twitter. In order to get your analytics on Twitter, to see age, race, etcetera, you need premium. So it's like we. Not only can I and my team, we can't even access the platforms, even on the ones we have, can't even get the numbers. We can't even supply the numbers to get paid by a sponsor. So, yeah, I mean, when you're censored, it's like there's no records. It's like, it's like a book burning thing because it's like you just have none of the information available at all.
- [02:46]
A
Which in a weird way just seems. Seems bad for everyone. Like, I'm not sure who benefits from that because it's kind of like at this point, they're in this weird, I don't know, like, gray area where you're like, well, it's not okay. At a point five years ago, eight years ago, it was at least working to shut you up to some degree. It was relegating you to a corner. At this point, it's like you're all over the algorithm everywhere. And all it creates is this situation like that where you're like. In some ways, it's like, maybe they don't want it to be known exactly how big you are. But I don't know. I just. I found that to be very interesting. Yeah. So. Okay, so I wanted a bunch of stuff I want to talk to you about. A lot's happened since last time we talked.
- [03:27]
B
Yes.
- [03:28]
A
Most of it not good. But. So I was watching. I talked to you briefly about this when you first came in. So I was watching today. So I watched a buddy of mine, Dave Brenner, runs a great YouTube channel called Liberty Vault. He. He had done like a. Like a comment on your debate with Steven Crowder. But. So I had watched that, but I hadn't actually watched the thing. So I was watching that this morning. I had a similar debate with Steven Crowder months earlier, but a similar type of debate over supporting the Republicans, supporting Trump. And there was just something about this debate that I just found painful. Like it's painful to listen to. And I don't mean this is like an attack on Steven Crowder. You know, I didn't love the way he handled the interview with me, but whatever you Know, recently, just the other day, Andrew Wilson, who I like very much, he challenged me to debate, like, a similar type thing, like whether we should support Democrats or whether Democrats should win the midterms. And I was like, why don't we just debate the war? Why don't we just, like, keep it a little bit more narrow? And he was like, well, no, because I'm opposed to the war, too. But I was like, yeah, but clearly there's a pretty big gap between how opposed you are and how opposed I am. And I think that gets at the heart of it. But there is something particularly about the debate, like, should we support the Republicans? One of the problems is that it's very, very broad. So a million different issues get inserted, and then they run down a list of, like, all the accomplishments of the regime. And I was kind of trying to narrow it, but I was thinking a bit about why this argument is frustrating me so much, you know, like, why it's so frustrating. And I don't exactly know why. Like, why do you think it's frustrating me so much?
- [05:04]
B
I don't know. I mean, I was a little frustrated, too. And I guess the way I would summarize is. Summarize it is that I don't know that it's disingenuous, but it's almost missing the forest for the trees would be maybe the best way to say it, because I remember I was talking to some buddies about the debate afterward, and I, like, Stephen, I thought it was a good debate, good faith. But I said, on literally every single issue, you're getting the GOP talking point. You're getting the memo. Like on Iran, for example, I remember when they launched the war, everybody obviously said, well, what happened to no new wars? And is this not literally identical to Iraq? It's this question about WMDs and they're killing the protesters. And, you know, we're going to do regime change and make it a democracy. Like, very similar in many ways, especially how it played out in the lead up to the war. And everybody obviously recognizes that's a deep, fundamental betrayal of Trumpism, which was always about bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, putting America first, the rest of it. And I remember what the Republicans said on Twitter is what? Well, Trump always said we were going to war with Iran because he said they should never have a nuclear weapon. And then the other thing they said was, well, he said, no, forever wars. And the real forever war is the war Iran has been waging on us, and we're putting an end to it. And you go, yeah, that really stretches the bounds of what anybody could credibly believe, you know, in good faith. And so that was something that came up in the debate. And you just go, yeah, no, you're kind of missing the point here. Like, if he campaigned on, we're gonna bomb Iran for regime change for years in a war of choice, I don't think anybody'd be lining up to vote for that. He said, no new wars, and now they wanna introduce this technicality to kind of get out of that. So to me, that really characterizes. I don't know, that it's bad faith, but it almost feels like you're arguing with a brick wall. It's like you're not really being totally honest.
- [06:50]
A
Dude, There's a certain. I've been talking about this a lot lately. There's a certain, like, category of kind of MAGA influencers or whatever. And I'm not talking about, like, the Israel lobby. Like, I'm not talking about Ben Shapiro or Barry Weiss or something like that. I'm about talking. Talking about, you know, Benny Johnson or Steven Crowder or Will Chamberlain or guys like this, where it does. It feels like as. As you're saying here, right? They go, okay, so the talking point is we've been at war with them for 47 years and ending the wars. Okay, well, if it's been going for 47 years, why wasn't that the campaign? Why weren't any of you saying this at the time when you. And then it's like the. As the goalposts move, they will move with them to. I was debating. I debated Will Chamberlain on Piers Morgan show, like, two weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago now. And he says, because of the pressure that we're putting on Iran with our blockade, of their blockade, he goes, I'll be surprised if this regime makes it another month. And so then I said, in another month, when this regime is still standing, I will mention that to you, and you will move the goalposts and still support this. Why? So we got about a week until this is. This is up. And. And there's just this thing where, like, you know, in the 12 day war, they would have said, see? No American casualties. No more than that. Then this one, we have American casualties. Yeah, but it's only been a few. Like. And at a certain point, you're like, am I talking to the White House press secretary? Is that the job here? Is the job, basically, that the administration does something. You find out what that is, you go out and defend that. And if that Contradicts everything you said last week. Well, whatever. That's the job. The job is just to defend the administration. That's what it feels like when, when you're going and you're rattling off this list, which everyone does through every press. I remember in the first Trump term. I remember in the Obama administration, you know, all the. Who are the. You know, the like young liberal guys who are like the. You've like Harry said, this is Harry Sistead. You know, it's like the inflation. Inflation Reduction act, blah, blah, blah. This like just a list of things that they did. You're like, hey, can we get into that list? Because all. Essentially what you have is what he passed a big giant spending bill and oh, wow, this is brand new. Oh, all time stock market. I didn't real, dude, it's crazy. I haven't heard a president brag about having an all time high stock market since Biden and Trump the first time and Obama and Bush and Clinton. Literally every. Yes. We live in an inflationary economy, motherfucker. The prices of things go up. Hey, guess what? The pricing of housing has never been higher. And, and the price of college has never been higher. And the price of daycare and yeah, stocks too. This means nothing, Right? And so there's something I don't know about just rattling off this list of what they've achieved when you're like, but dude, by your own. And this is one of the things that's frustrating about the Crowder debate. By your own admission, we're up against it with the Democrats coming in, right? By your own admission, we're losing the entire country if the Democrats come back in. Okay. Launching this war just guaranteed that the Democrats come back in. You should be angrier about this than I am.
- [09:55]
B
Right?
- [09:55]
A
Or as angry.
- [09:56]
B
Well, yeah, I mean, and to me, I always said this on my show. It feels to me like you have this relationship between the base of the party or the people in the country. And then there's the administration and the regime, you know, or the Republican leadership. And I always felt like during the election I was speaking towards the administration with the people behind me saying, like in 2024, I said, I'm not gonna vote for Trump unless he promises explic, no war with Iran and we're going to get an immigration moratorium. And I felt like we were taking our own side as the voters, as the base, as the America First Republicans and saying our vote is conditional. We have this set of demands and it feels like these other influencers, like you say, like a Benny Johnson, a Steven Crowder, etc. They're facing us with their back to the party and everything the administration does, their job is to sell it to us so that we are prepared to go out and vote in the midterms, vote in the next cycle, whatever. And so it does just become like, you are a regime apologist. That's actually your job. You don't even necessarily have an ideology. And what's more, I don't even really think you're. You're on our side because it's sort of like your job is to launder this to us. So. And it was like that with every issue. The Iran one, I mean, that was probably the biggest one, but it was on every single one, like you said. And. And when you would catch him on one thing, it was, well, what, this? What about that? What about. We talked about the border wall. I said, well, the border wall was promised in 2016. It's still not built. I think they constructed 50 miles of new wall. In the first administration, there's no progress on it, really. In the second administration. He goes, well, you know, it's more than the Democrats would have built. And he'd go, okay, but so is the goal for, like, Republicans to win, or is it for us to fix the country? Because it feels like we're a little bit confused here. So. And I said this on the lead up to the interview or the debate. I said, he's really caught up in the partisanship. Republican, Democrat. And that's the element of it. And I think you're on the money when you say it's like Harry Sisson. It's like, that seems to be your. Your kind of job. And I'm not on the side of the party. I just want the country to get better. So that. That's the miscommunication.
- [12:06]
A
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I really like the way you put that. Standing with your back to the people versus your back to the party. It does feel that way. Also. I just, on some fundamental level, I go, if you're doing that, like, if you're that degree of a partisan, what's the point of you? Like, I can listen to the White House press secretary, I can listen to Donald Trump. I don't need, like, if you're in this world, whatever this world of us is, or we're talking about politics on our show, what's the point of us if you don't have your own thought? You know what I mean? Like, if you're just representing one of the parties, I already know what the official party line is, I think. Well, look, like you, for example, with the immigration example, right? So you go, okay, so you're going to say Donald Trump built some amount of wall in his first term. Okay? If we had elected Hillary Clinton, we can all agree we would have gotten zero amount of wall. Great, we got some wall with Donald Trump. Okay, in the following four years, how many tens of millions of people came? Oh, the answer is, none of us know. None of us actually even know. Some guess, 10, 20. I've seen different projections. We don't even know how many illegals live in the country. But so look, just take that example, right? So you fail to build the whole wall. What does that mean? That means you've failed entirely. And then, and so what we, of course should be looking for, if we recognize the Democrats as this existential threat, is what type of foundational, permanent changes can be made that will not allow the next administration to just come in and undo all of it.
- [13:38]
B
We're.
- [13:38]
A
Which is a major glaring hole in the Trump administration right now. Because, look, as we've talked about before, he was never really that good at wielding power, right? He's very good at campaigning. He's always very good at campaigning and telling you how good he'd be at wielding power. But the problem is, right, Donald Trump comes in, he wants to govern by executive order. He kind of likes governing by executive order. First of all, he's not splitting any of the credit. It's all him. He gets to sit down on day one and do this photo op where he signs all the. But what's the problem with that, Nick, is that day one, I guarantee you, day one of the next Democratic president presidency is going to be them doing the exact same thing. Doing the same thing where they sit down and they sign 500 executive orders nullifying every last one of Donald Trump's executive orders. So where's the win in that?
- [14:23]
B
Right, well, and, and that's exactly what happened with, with Biden. And here's what's funny, sort of the structure of that argument is he says, well, and Republicans in general, they'll say, so Biden comes in, he brings in 10, 20 million illegals. That's why Democrats are this existential threat. We have to vote Republican every time. And like you say, we elected Trump the first time to build the wall. Why? Because a wall can never be undone. That was sort of the whole point is it's this irreversible. There is no more illegal immigration. We've solved it and it immunizes us against a future Democrat administration. So the way the causal relationship works is that your failure to build a wall directly created the illegal immigration crisis. And so then you have to say, it's not just a matter of getting Republicans elected, but getting Republicans elected to do the right job. And then it gets back into, we have an interest as the base and as the country that we're advocating for. Obviously, the party has their own interests, which is to be elected, and that means they need to balance these compromises between the voters, the donors, and their patronage network and so on. And so at that point, you say, okay, so whose side really are you on? And. And there's this other rhetorical trick they do, which is you like to say, I'm really disappointed with Trump. He's either not living up to his promises or straight up betraying us. It's not even just like, they had setbacks or they're incompetent, bad at governing, but in some cases, they're just not doing what they said they would do because they don't want to. Like with illegal immigration, we. Why is Trump reluctant to deport illegals from farms, hospitality, Wall street and big agriculture? Don't want him to. Now, I said that during the election. Like, it's not simply that the Democrats are obstructing him, they're choosing not to. And they know they can get away with it because they're gonna have these podcasters and influencers telling the voters, oh, no, Trump is really trying. It's the Democrats and so on. And the rhetorical trick that they will use is, if you're not satisfied with Republicans, they say, oh, but the Democrats are going to be so much worse. And always the hyperbole. It's not just that the Democrats will be worse. They're going to make Puerto Rico and D.C. estate, they're going to pack the Supreme Court, they're going to bring in 100 million illegals. If Democrats get in, it's over forever. And you want to say, well, it wasn't over forever under Biden, and if it was, why didn't they fight to keep Trump in office in 2020? And if it's going to be over in 24, why aren't they nuking the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act? So somebody's lying here. Why is it that the voters are in this existential, like, nervous system cycle? It's all going to be over, but Republicans are like, yeah, Democrats are going to win. It's going to be fine. We got to keep the Filibuster. So, you know, that's when you realize we're being lied to effectively.
- [17:14]
A
Well, there's a parallel between the rhetoric the Democrats use about Donald Trump and then, you know, like, I rem talking about this when, when Trump got shot in 24. And you'd see like Obama and Hillary Clinton wish him a speedy recovery. And you're like, wait, is he, is he Hitler? Or do you wish him a speedy recovery? Because, like, is it the end of democracy or do we hope this guy recovers so that we can hold elections in a few months? Because, like, you really can't have both of those. Like, so you can't wish Hitler a speedy. Well, all right, maybe on your show, but Hillary Clinton show you can't wish Hitler a speedy recovery. Recovery, but. Right, so it's like a kind of similar thing to that. Now, again, I don't think either of us are trying to downplay the threat that is the Democrats. I mean, look, the Democratic establishment over the last 15 years really overstepped in a major way. They took it to a next level even for American norms. Like just the way they interfered in the presidential elections, you know, framing Donald Trump for treason, like, all of these things. But again, that's why it would be that much more important that, like, and this is a major one for me, it seems to be such low hanging fruit. But, like, you didn't get any prosecutions off Russiagate, dude, Russiagate, it's you. The one time Trump might stand up for someone is when it's him. That's the only time.
- [18:28]
B
Right.
- [18:28]
A
He's not gonna stand up for the J6ers. And I know they brag. He got him out of jail four years later after letting him get tortured for years and condemning them at the time when he could have pardoned him right away, but, you know, that would have, he would have had to take number one. Yeah, right. But it's you. Your own Director of National intelligence came out and said she has proof that Obama committed treason. And I gotta say, I think she does. I mean, maybe treason isn't the right word, but something. I mean, there's clear criminal activity and no, we're not going after anyone for that. But the problem isn't just getting your own vengeance. It's that, like, but now you didn't destroy the apparatus that can do this to you or the next you in the future. I think that me and you are looking at this from a much more like, zoomed out, big picture view. And even when you go like, you're talking about immigration. Like, okay, but what's. Zoom out. What's the major problem with immigration in the country? Okay, well, the major problem is essentially that the regime has essentially in an attempt to replace the domestic population or at least dilute the, the, the domestic population and has flooded the country with third world immigration by the millions in huge, huge numbers against the will of the American people. Okay, so that's the problem. You could say the problem is maybe from your perspective, long term demographic change or something like that, that is not even remotely solved. The problem is exactly the same problem. And by the way, this is his best issue. This is where he's done the bet. The one thing that we'd all kind of have to give him credit for is like, okay, the border is secure now. It was not at the past, now it is secure, but that's the best you got. It's like you're driving off a cliff at 90 miles per hour and he goes, I slow, I slowed you down to 85, but we're still headed toward this cliff. Then you don't get credit for solving the problem. And you know, I was saying Donald Trump likes to govern by executive order. I was saying, not knowing how to wield power, you make a very important correction to that, which is in some cases it's actually wielding government power on behalf of say, a foreign country or something like that, which has clearly been the priority from, from the beginning of this administration. But you go, look, dude, you came in your first time, you had Congress, you come in your second time, you have both houses of Congress and your own Supreme Court. He had so much political opportunity there to like, go like, hey, listen, Congress, I'm demanding a one page standalone bill that says this, you know, and actually do something that is going to really change the. Which is not that impossible to do. But you know, you could. Okay, look, he didn't have the juice to like get an amendment to the Constitution. What do you, you need like 75% plus ratifying the states. Okay, you're not there. Although you could even make a really big show about an amendment to the Constitution, but some real amendment that just goes like. And even if it wasn't an amendment, it was a law, but like a law that goes, we're forcing every state prison to open their books to us and get every illegal that's in prisons out of the country. Like a slam dunk, 80, 20 issue with the American people. Like, there's creative ways to wield power and he never even really tried is how it seems to Me?
- [21:39]
B
No. And it's like that on every single issue. It's like that with the tariffs, because on the tariffs, they specifically told them in the first administration, there's two ways you could do this. You can do these national security tariffs, and that'll take time because we have to do these studies about them. It'll take a couple years, but they're gonna be airtight. And they went with that in the first term, and those tariffs are still in place now. They had this discussion in the first term also. They said, there's another way we could go about it. It's these emergency tariffs. And you have so much more latitude. You could do them whenever you want, unilaterally. They said, but it's not gonna hold up in court. And this was Bob Lighthizer, who was a trade representative in the first term. He said, you should go with the first one. And they did, and it worked. Second term, had the same conversation. Trump said, I want the emergency tariffs because then I could use them not even so much for economic purposes, but for diplomatic purposes. I could use them to punish or reward countries for diplomacy and so on. Those tariffs, all of them were overturned by the Supreme Court, comes back with section 1 22. Okay, we could put a 10% tariff on everybody right now for six months while we work on these other ones. Got shut down by a council of federal or committee of federal judges last week. And you say the right way to go about. And I know maybe you don't agree because you're a libertarian.
- [22:53]
A
No, I don't agree with the times, but I'm curious to hear your point.
- [22:56]
B
But since, you know, Trump is a protectionist and that's part of the agenda, the way to go about it would be a tariff schedule passed by Congress, which we haven't done in 100 years. And arguably, you could make the case, because that's government revenue. That's hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity the government collects. And. And that would have been the way to do it. And it's the same thing with any of these different policies. You could do an executive order cheap, easy. Trump can do it at a whim, or he can actually take the time, do it in the legislature, do it in a more comprehensive, systematic way, and it stands for, you know, decades or a century or something. He always goes with the former. And this gets back to one. And you. You are right. Trump is incompetent. Like, he's terrible at governing. That is 100% true. Um, but it also gets back to the original Point which is who are we advocating on behalf of? Because for me, it's like for, for us, for the people we have to win or quality of life for us gets really bad. Like we actually all have skin in the game. So we need Trump to succeed. I'm not out here rooting for him to fall because I'm just like mad. I'm rooting for him to succeed because if he doesn't, it's. It's we that have to live among the third world immigrants. It's we that suffer because our purchasing power's destroyed and we are going to die in the potentially if there's a draft or even if not, it's the gas prices, it's, it's everything else. And so we want it to succeed. But obviously the politicians, if they had it their way, they would be one, lazy. But two, make the compromises they need to get their golden parachute, take care of their donors, whatever. So it comes down to interest based politics. I'm on the side of the people and our issues. This whole other class, it really is. They're not on the same team as us. Yeah, you know, you have to. Look, we always talk about the Republicans are this, we, we need to win. We gotta. It's not we, it's them and us.
- [24:44]
A
Well, that's right. And especially when like Donald Trump is flat out saying maga is Mark Levin. Like, that's who it is. Not only is it not Nick Fuentes, it's not even Tucker Carlson, not Candace Owens, not Alex Jones, not Megyn Kelly. We can't even compromise on Megyn Kelly. Like, I'd get on board if it was Megan Kelly. You know, a lot of times people will say this, like, Dave, you're just such a radical that you'll be upset unless you get everything I want. Motherfucker. Everything I want is not even on the table. It's not even in the realm of possibility. Like, do you really think, like, if Donald Trump, like got the border secured, maybe just like slowed down on the money printing, like we weren't devaluing our currency so fast and didn't start any wars and had a reasonable. Like, I'd be sitting here going, like, but he didn't abolish the income tax. Like, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we can't meet at Megyn Kelly. I have to support Mark Levin. Well, no, no, we're not in any ways on the same team. We are on. I am much more on Anna Kasparian's team. Than I am on Mark Levin's team. So I'm sorry, I know this blows partisan people's brains. You know, they have this weird thing. You see the video they made that went viral of you and Anna Kasparian, and it's like, but it's so dumb, dude. They're trying to make like, look, they have the exact same talking points. And it's like, no, what you found is that they say the things that every critic of Israel says. Like, yeah, this is like kind of the basic. Like. Like, here's a point where he said, they're committing genocide and she said, they're committing genocide. It's like, yeah. And they go, horseshoe theory proved. And you're like, okay. But like, you know, there's a middle part of that horseshoe, too, right? Like, also Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump and Mark Levin. You know what I mean? Like, they all say the same thing. You could do the same thing about them all saying, we can't allow them to have nuclear weapons or whatever. Like, this just doesn't prove anything. And when it comes to this war in Iran, it seems to me that, like, if you're for it, there is no meaningful way that we are on the same team, right? And so I think. I think this is kind of why I responded to Andrew Wilson with, why don't we just debate the war? Because even though you might say you're against it, and I believe. I'm not saying he's not against it. I'm sure he is. But I think part of this also fundamentally comes down to what you think this war is like. I heard Andrew Wilson describe it in his debate with Owen Schroyer. I believe it was. I think that's who he debated. And he said. He goes, he's just killing pedophiles over there, man. They're all pedophiles anyway. And he. And Andrew said to me, he goes, you just heard that clip. It's kind of taken out of context, and fair enough, maybe it is. But if you view the war that way, even if you're against it, you certainly wouldn't have the same feelings that say, I have. You know, one of the things I was thinking about, I'll give this away. If we do debate that. I would have asked Crowder or I would have asked. I would ask Andrew Wilson is like, are there any things a president could do that just on moral grounds alone, you'd go, I can't support this anymore. So, like, let's just say, hypothetically, let's say Donald Trump all other things being equal, he ordered 20,000 abortions. I don't even mean voluntary abortions. I mean involuntary. I mean, all abortions are involuntary in some sense, but the mother didn't even want him. He just ordered 20,000 abortions. I think you'd all concede we can't support him after that. And no more of this. Like, oh, the Democrats are worse. Just on basic moral grounds you can't support. Okay. That's kind of how I view this. Like, I don't think I'm against abortion because it's murder. I'm also against killing 168 little schoolgirls because it's murder. So there's that element of it, right? There's also the element that it's fucking treason, dude. Like, it's. It's. Okay. It's not literal treason. Obama having. Having Jelani at the White House and giving foreign aid to Syria is literally treason. That is literally treason. By the way, you know, they love bringing up that Iran killed our Marines, which is not exactly true. It was, like, groups in Lebanon who were friendly with Iran killed our Marines. Iran built all the roadside bombs that killed our boys in Iran. Also not exactly true. If you look into them, they were. They were produced in Iraq. Now they were used by some Shiite groups that were linked, that are, like, friendly with Iran. Although we were partners with the closest, you know, to Iran. I know you know this stuff, but, you know, there was also a Sunni insurgency that we were dealing with for the most part. Jelani brags about how he was a member, how he was killing our boys in. In Iraq, that he was in Fallujah doing. Fighting. He was a member of the insurgency. Trump has him at the White House.
- [29:16]
B
Right.
- [29:17]
A
Not a peep out of all of these guys who are so mad about this stuff. So there's that, like, kind of treasonous element. You launched a war of aggression and slaughtered people on behalf of a foreign country. Like, it's not just the practical. I think there's also just, like, a moral argument that, like, we can't be a part of that. We can't excuse that away. Yeah, that's how I feel.
- [29:37]
B
For me, it's. To me, it's less about morality only because. And, you know, I know probably your audience is gonna not love this, but I think that when a president engages in a war, these are things that do happen. It's horrible, it's tragic. But there is some truth to the fact that if we're going to conduct any foreign policy, it probably will involve military Kinetic action. If that happens, then people will die. That's what happens at a war. For me, the question is more about, to the larger point, who is the war for? And I think that it's not even so much about the morality of people dying in the war, whether they're civilian casualties or military casualties. It's the whole premise of maga and America first is America first. And that is what animated the whole movement. At 16. It was in contradistinction to Jeb Bush and the Bush dynasty and the legacy of Iraq. And to me, those are just the fundamental pillars. And, you know, not to keep going back to it, but Crowder said to me, it's a purity test. He said, you know, what could a president do to win your vote? I'm like, keep the promises they made. They said, no new wars. Here's your new war. They said, mass deportations. We're not getting them. You know, that's not a big ask. And what's more, let's be honest, the war in Iran is not like some isolated event. People are trying to analyze and they say, well, it's about energy dominance with China. Venezuela and Iran are part of this. We're boxing China in so they don't get their oil. And, you know, without even getting too much into that, it's complete context denial, which is that we've been conducting a foreign policy for 30 years where we've systematically went into Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, all these countries to decimate them. And it actually doesn't fit a very clear through line or a narrative for American interest. You had all these different arguments. It's about spreading democracy, it's about chemical weapons, it's about nuclear weapons. The clear through line is these are all adversaries of Israel and this is part of their plan to terraform the Middle east in such a way where they have no rivals. And this is, by the way, what they wanted and that no other president gave them. They wanted it under Bush, Obama, Trump. They tried to get it even under Biden when they provoked Iran a couple of times in 2024. And Trump finally gave them the ideological neocons and Israel, what they've been, what they've been wanting basically for 50 years, ever since the Islamic revolution. And so you say, like, not only did you not deliver America first, but you. You repudiated America first with your allegiance to the biggest threat to it. And all these people are acting like, oh, well, you know, so what? It's not a big deal. It's only two weeks. It's only 30 days. It's only 15 casualties. And you say that's ignoring the bigger picture. He changed sides like he's with the enemy, giving them everything they ever wanted.
- [32:20]
A
Yeah, though, that's. That's exactly right, dude. I mean, all, all of the Never Trumpers. All of the Never Trumpers, you know, I saw someone was posting today that National Review Never Trump, you know, issue. All the, all these guys, Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro and all the guys who are championing this move with Donald Trump, they were all the people who said they would never vote for Donald Trump for moral reasons and all this stuff. And yeah, dude, it is pretty hard to ignore that this is the continuation of the clean break strategy. We're just watching it. They all said it in their own words for so many decades. You could just go back and read what they wrote and were to believe that this is like, coincidentally the seventh country on Wesley Clark's list. It happens to be. And coincidentally, it's the entire Israel lobby that pushed him into it. I will say it's been. I mean, look, maybe this is a major theme anytime I feel like talking to you, but it is crazy how much the Overton Window has moved on this. We're now, I don't know if you saw this, but both John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, there were a few others. But I mean, these are two. The Democratic secretaries of state and presidential nominees who came out and just said exactly what you said. They go, Netanyahu was always trying to get all of us to do that. Like, this is, this is just open now. It's just like, this is the obvious thing. It's like, well, yeah, we all know Netanyahu's trying to get us into these wars, but you don't do it. You give them some. You don't give them all of them. You know, and then, and then were to look back at Obama as if he stood up to the Israel lobby or something like that. It's like he gave him Libya and Syria. So, like, he didn't really stand. But yes, even he did say, we won't do this one. Even George W. Bush stood up to Dick Cheney and the neocons on this one. And it was because of the military realities of going after Iran. It's been interesting to watch. I know. Like, I've seen some of your coverage of this, and I think both of us, we're trying to be fair about this. We were both kind of after the Six Day War. I certainly was questioning because, well, frankly, there were some people who I admire very much who did get a little out over their skis thing. I think Tucker and Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer probably all said variations of like, if you attack their nuclear sites, they will shut down the strait and they will hit our bases. And that turned out not to be true. Like they. So. And you look at that and you go, huh, Maybe, maybe they will just roll over. Maybe they will just capitulate. I mean, I don't think so, but I'd still warn against this war because, look, of all these potential catastrophic outcomes, and then we launched this one and it's like, oh, yeah, we're here now. This is what everyone was warning against. And I don't know where you see this going, but I think, you know, I'm not saying, like, Professor Pape is right and it's guaranteed that we're in the escalation trap. I hope Donald Trump just walks away at some point. It does seem, though, at least right now, we're at this very dangerous position where the absolute best thing Donald Trump could do is just stop. Just stop it and come home. The problem is that there's just. That's it. And that's the end of his presidency, man. I mean, there's just no and so like, I saw Joe Kent, you know, he comes on and he goes, you know, Mr. President can. He's the only one strong enough to leave and, and save his presidency and say it was a win and all this. And I'm like, man, I hope he's listening to him. Like, that's who you should listen to. This guy who looks like a he man, doll, and is your sir, yes, sir. And okay, but if me and you were just speaking honestly, that's admitting total defeat. It will he. His approval rating will be in the 20s in the next couple months. If this, if after this, that's all he has to show for it is that Iran is transformed into a global power who now has this ace in the hole. They can close the straight anytime they want. That's a disaster. And Donald Trump, and that's still his best option. And so. But he has not even begin. Begun to accept that that's his best option and that he's going to lose like this. So again, I think this week he's going to escalate again. Then you go, then what's Iran's response to that going to be? So essentially the best case scenario is that Donald Trump's presidency is ruined. That's how I view it. I'm curious what your thoughts on it.
- [36:26]
B
Yeah, I totally agree. And I Do think that we're sort of trapped. That's really always been the whole conceit is that Israel is, you know, we talk about it, people think we're using these terms loosely. I use them very precisely. They're dragging us into the war. And that means it's this step by step process where each, each individual step, it becomes more unlikely that we're able to extricate ourselves from it. That's sort of, the whole point is like it's sort of slowly and then all at once you're in this conflict. Nobody from the very beginning would say we're going to go into a ground war and fight 90 million people in this huge country. But it starts with the industrial sabotage, the cyber attacks, nuclear assassinations. We're going to shoot down their missiles, engage the proxies, you know, and this is how it's gone step by step over two years until now, you know, the 12 day war became this 60, 75 day war, whatever we're in. And I think that the way it's shaking out, if you want to get into the details, is there's two sticking points still, and that is the first one, which has been the one from the very beginning, which is enrichment. And the United States says, you cannot have enrichment not at a low level. There can never be a sunset clause. There needs to be a permanent moratorium and no enrichment at all. And why does Trump in particular have to insist upon this? Because he tore up the jcpoa. And what was the problem with the jcpoa? It sunsetted, it allowed them to enrich at low levels, and then after 10 years, it went away. So if Trump were to get anything less than zero enrichment, then he looks like an idiot. He looks like he got a worse deal or a deal just as good after we decimated them. So you go, it's been 10 years of maximum pressure. And we came crawling back to beg for the same deal back. It's a non starter. So conversely, Iran says our right to enrich is as sacred as the sovereignty over our soil. They equate enrichment with sovereignty for obvious reasons, because it's their only deterrent against Israel and Washington engaging in this regime change, which is existential for the regime. So there's no wiggle room for either side. There's no coming coming down from those. And then the second one since the war is the strait. And the United States cannot accept that Iran gains the strait again after we hit him with everything. Now they have this strategic choke point. They have five times more oil under their Control they than before the war. And then Iran likewise. They can't give up the strait. Why would they? They can close it, we can't take it back. And that is their deterrent against a future conflict because that is how they impose a cost, not only on us, but the whole world if we were to try to. And the two issues are related because if we don't get the centrifuges in this go around, Iran knows we're coming back for round three to mow the grass, trim the grass, we're going to come back in, bomb the stockpile, the centrifuges, whatever. How do they prevent another US Israel crack at it? We got to have the strait under our control so that everybody knows we go back in, it's $7 gas, it's a global meltdown. The UAE, Bahrain, Saudi, they're done. They're finished after that. So those two issues are going to be the impasse. I don't see budging on either of them. That just irreconcilable, intractable differences. And so I think you're totally right. At least in the short term there's going to be a return to fighting. And then on a longer timeline, look, the thing that people never keep in mind, unlike the US and North Korea or the US and Venezuela or Cuba, they don't have a country like Israel sabotaging diplomacy and provoking through deception and lobbying for escalation. So even if you get someone like Trump that says, all right, we're just going to call it, I'm going to take the hit, well, is there someone you forgot to ask? You know, we need permission actually. And they're always going to sabotage it. So I think you're right. I think, I don't know that it's a certainty, but yeah, there's very few options where this works out for us.
- [40:25]
A
Yeah, I agree with all of that and I think, I agree it's not a certainty. And kind of the thing that makes it not a certainty is that Donald Trump himself is such a wild card and like you could see him just spinning it as how great it was, but I don't think anyone will believe him. But I think you're, you're right about that. Particularly like the political incentives for Donald Trump are so bad and then the survival incentives for Iran and you, you could really watch from the 12 Day War to this war how much that you flipped the incentive structure. And it's like in the sense that if someone comes to my house with a gun and they pull a gun on Me. And they go, you know, they're like, give me. And I'm like, okay, hey, just calm down. What do you want? I'll give you my money, blah, blah. And then they go, no, I'm here for your kids. He goes, well, that just flipped the incentives, right? Like the first time, my incentive was, let me give you my money so that nobody gets hurt. But, like, if you're here for my kids, then I have to make a move. And, yeah, I might get shot in the process, but it doesn't matter. And it's like, it's kind of been that, like, in a way, we're there for their kids now. There's a parallel to us killing so many of their kids. But I agree with you. I think that there's a real question right now, and I worry about it, because I've seen the hubris of leadership in D.C. is really. It's unbelievable. And it's unbelievable how many of these people, because they have so much power, convince themselves that they're such geniuses and can figure all of this out. But even the damage that this war has done so far, we don't really know. You know, like, the Strait of Hormuz. I know you read the news just like I do. Since the blockade. Of the blockade, it's only slowed down the number of ships going through, like, total number of ships. We've now been, like, two months of. Where 20% of the world's oil and a huge percent of the world's fertilizer have been completely shut down. We probably won't exactly find out how much that impacts the global economy for another month or two, but it already might be really bad. But then the fact that, like, as you mentioned, gas prices here are already up. And it must be something for. For someone like you who was, you know, a hardcore Trump supporter in 2016, and not just a hardcore Trump supporter, but you were like. It was like, you're coming of age. Kind of like, I was 18 when 9, 11 happened. You are, I think, 18 in 2016. So, like, right around, like, that's, like, the big thing that's going on as you're becoming a man. And to watch some of the quotes that he's had where they ask him about the pressure it's putting on the American economy. And Trump just straight up goes like, I wasn't thinking about that. I'm thinking about this war. I'm thinking, they can't have nuclear weapons. I don't care about. And you're like, dude, man, if that wasn't an ad for the Democrats. I don't know. I mean, you guys could just run that and win the House easy on this. It's. It's pretty wild to say.
- [43:04]
B
Yeah, seriously. And, you know, in fairness, I think, I mean, it's a horrible, stinking quote. You do have to consider it, though, from his perspective, that obviously it's a game of chicken and it's a question of who's going to blink first. And Iran is betting on the fact that they have more leverage over us, more pressure, because it's a midterm election year. Gas prices, inflation is going to hurt Republicans. Excuse me. And so I think Trump almost has to telegraph like, I'm irrational, I don't care, I'm erratic, you don't have. So I can be sympathetic to that angle. But obviously it's not good politics to say. You know, they ask him, they say, did you think about the financial prosperity of Americans? No, I didn't think about their financial security at all. I only care about whether Iran's nuclear. So it's a terrible thing. Um, but, you know, with that being said, as far as the damage is concerned, people don't realize it. It's over after this. I really believe that. The day I saw on the news today, they said it could be in the New York Times in the hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe even the trillions of dollars. And the reason being, especially in America, I talked about this on my show. The only thing that is driving economic growth right now is the AI boom. It is the purchasing of chips, it is the construction of these data centers. That is most of it. Like, we're not even doing so much commercial real estate, the conventional stuff. It's all the data centers. And since this war started, I think the number was 50% of all planned and in progress data centers have been paused. And that is all the real estate boom in the country. That's all the construction, that's all the development. And the reason being is because all the AI runs on electricity. That's what makes it economical, is that you have cheap and plentiful energy. And so if you have a huge energy shock, which we haven't even fully felt the effects of, that's something that lags behind because, you know, the oil goes out of the Strait and then it takes time. I think the last shipment of Persian Gulf oil arrived in Europe and Asia four weeks ago. So there's this month long delay, then there's rationing, Then let's say the Strait of Hormuz opens and how many ships go through. There's, there's a lot of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf, and they're not all going to go out at once. It's going to take time even for those to get out and then, you know, for all the supply chains to recalibrate. So it hasn't even hit yet. And then once it does, like you said, there's going to be this ripple effect. It's not just the oil, it's the fertilizer and then the energy. And oil also affects groceries because it all goes on a truck. It all goes on, you know, transportation. So there's going to then be a following economic correction or a trailing economic correction that follows the energy shock. And then that's just game over. And to me, it's less so that he said the financial security whatever, because it's like, you kind of understand why he says that. To me, it's the. He said at the exact same time that this was all playing out in February, in January and February, they were telling the hardcore Republican base, we're done with mass deportations. We're not saying it anymore. We're not doing it. The surge in Minneapolis is over. They said we're only now going after criminal, illegal aliens. And moreover, they got a new DHS secretary, they got Kristi Noem out. And they said, the new policy is we're not doing patrols, we're not gonna go in people's houses, we're not doing these big operations in the cities. We surge, you know, 5,000 CBP and ice. And they said the reason is too unpopular for the midterms. Way too unpopular. We're going to kill with Latinos. It's like, okay, so then you started the most unpopular war in modern history, which causes inflation and high gas prices. Isn't that what got Biden and Kamala to lose two years ago? So you say, I see what you're doing for them. Yeah. Why can't you do that for us? Save act, can't do it. Mass deportations, can't do it. All these things that the voters are told, politically impossible. You got to be practical. Think of, think about the political realities of the Democrats. Oh, war with Iran. We need a $1.5 trillion military budget and we're going to kill the Supreme Leader and we're going to get six dollar gas. It doesn't even matter. And that's when you realize it is still the uni party. That's kind of the conceit is like, Mag is dead. Whatever Trump was doing in 16 is over. That like, outsider challenge. It's not the same. He's part of the establishment. So to me, that. That's, like, the big picture, when you really realize how it all works.
- [47:34]
A
Yeah. I mean, look, it's an undeniably great point that you're like, look, mass deportations would have been very messy, very unpopular, and in fact, some people might die, some people might get hurt. It's like, yeah, all of that is true about the war in Iran times 10. And it wasn't even your promise. It was. You promised the opposite. So how about keep a promise that's unpopular instead of, you know. And, you know, personally, I actually think there's a way that, like, deportations could have been done that would have remained popular, because, in fact, when Donald Trump came in in 2024, for the first time in my life, super majorities of the American people supported mass deportations. Now, I remember talking about this on the show a lot, and I was like, look, that is true, but it's also a number on a poll, and if they get messy, that number will go down. And so you got to kind of, like, you know, you got to factor all of that into it. But, I mean, I guess that's part of the reason why I'm so upset about this, too, and why it gets frustrating when people are arguing. But you can't support the Democrats because they're so awful. And you're like, yeah, I know. That's the whole point, man. The whole point is that you had this opportunity in 2024, like, a huge opportunity in 2016, but then in 2024, in some ways, a much bigger opportunity, because, well, frankly, of Joe Biden and the Joe Biden years really pushed the country to the right on social issues, on immigration issues. I mean, you know, people kind of forget this. I think we talked about this last time you were here, but, like, in my entire life, I'm 43, the only time the culture's ever moved to the right was under Joe Biden.
- [49:06]
B
Yeah.
- [49:06]
A
It has never happened, including under Trump's. Under Trump's first term, the culture moved far to the left from where it had been. We became the Pussy Hat March, and, you know, safe space, space country and all this shit. And it wasn't until Joe Biden that actually as a reaction against him. But so then Donald Trump comes in, wins all the swing states, wins the popular vote for the first time. The Democrats have, like, a 22% approval rating. They're just defeated there. This was a time when you could have done some awesome shit for the country and really ridden that wave. And look, as you said, this is not. It's like the things Donald Trump has out loud said things that should only be said on your show. You know what I'm saying? Like, like, Donald Trump goes, the Adelsons give me hundreds of millions of dollars and they love Israel more than they love America. And they come in every day and want me to do things for Israel. And I always do it. Like, I thought that's supposed to be an anti Semitic conspiracy theory here, dude. Like where. And you know, to your point, it's honestly like just demonstrably true that at every level, they, they're very good. Like the lobby is very good at getting. Because if you remember, you made the point about no nuclear enrichment at all. But Donald Trump in the negotiations before the 12 Day War, when he attacked him in the middle of negotiate or Israel attacked him in the middle of negotiations, who knows exactly what happened there? He started, he had made a couple comments about how like, no, I'm not demanding no enrichment whatsoever. And then all of the, like, Mark Levitt, they're very good at this. They get on him and they go, well, Mr. President, if you're really tough and you are so tough, then you'll demand no enrichment. And that's. You could see where Trump's like, susceptible to that and go, yeah, that is more badass. You know that? But that's the poison pill, man. It's like that little one thing just got two wars out of it. Because even though it seems like a subtle distinction, it's like, no, that's the biggest distinction in the world because you're telling them they can't have a legal civilian nuclear program. And then, of course, as you mentioned, that's their deterrent that they're relying on. So, yeah, I completely agree with you that. Hey, guys, let's take a moment to thank our sponsor for today's show. And this sponsor is very near and dear to my heart. It is Healthy Hibernation, which is the children's book written by my beautiful wife, Lauren Smith. It's a really sweet book. It's very wholesome and light and fun for the kids. And it's just got like a positive message about eating healthy, which is one of the challenges for, for parents today to navigate a world where your supermarket is filled with poison in brightly colored boxes that your kids all want to eat. And so the idea of this is a book for little ones to kind of start a conversation about eating healthy. It is available at Amazon. We've been Blown away by the response so far. So thank you guys so much. If you have children or you have anyone in your life who has children, please pick up a copy of Healthy Hibernation by Lauren smith over@Amazon.com all right guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show which is Prolon. A lot of you have probably heard about these fasting diets. That's a big thing these days. People are doing these diets where they give up food, food altogether for long periods of time and there's a lot of benefits in them. The problem is that you have to give up food, which is something I certainly wouldn't be willing to do. But now Prolon has solved this problem. Prolon is a revolutionary plant based nutrition program that nourishes the body while tricking cells into thinking that they're fasting. So they basically keep your body in a fasting state but you don't actually have to give up food. And this all starts with Prolon's five day program. Soups, snacks and beverages all designed to keep your body in a fasting state. So you get all the benefits of a fasting diet without having to give up food. That's the idea. To learn more go to prolonlife.compotp that way you can get 15% off the five day nutrition program. So that's prolonlife.compotp for 15% off your five day nutrition program. Highly recommend you check it out guys. All right, let's get back into the show. Now as far as your point about well, this is part of negotiating in a war. I get your point. I get where he does have to seem like a madman. I guess the problem is not so much just that he said it. The problem is that he actually did it. Like the problem is that he actually did sacrifice the economic well being of Americans for Israel and not. Look, I mean as you know, the WMD thing is as much bullshit with Iran as it was with Iraq. This was never over their nuclear threat and they wanted to overthrow them before they were even like before they even had a nuclear program. This is always just the thing that they know will sell with the American people that they've done focus group testing on this. I think it was Frank Luntz. It was like back in the 90s when they were focus group testing on Scott Horton taught me about this. Great, a great note on this. But so they were doing these focus groups about the war in Iraq and they were like, hey, how do you feel about us fighting this war to liberate the people of Kuwait. And Americans are like. And then they go, what about a nuclear threat? And everyone was like, all right, well, that is something we'd have to go take care of. This is why they use. We all know what this is about, and it's not even about Iran. It's about Lebanon, and it's about Iran supporting Hezbollah, and Israel wants to take southern Lebanon. Very coincidentally, they've been taking southern Lebanon during this war. You know, and it's like, look, however you feel about that, which I'm against it, but however you feel about that, like you said, it is an obvious. It's treasonous in spirit to say, in order to help them achieve this goal, we are going to sacrifice for our. We're going to sacrifice our people. And what could be more, the antithesis of the. The fundamental Trump promise, which was that, no, we don't want to do that. We don't want to sacrifice America on behalf of the world or some global ambition, because that doesn't really matter to us.
- [54:41]
B
Right. Well, and, you know, I think the original appeal of Trump is this idea that he was going to do the things that were unpopular but that were necessary for the country. You know, and he would always say that. Even 40 years ago, there was a famous interview, I think it was in the 70s, where he said, you know, I don't know that I would ever run for president because, you know, the things that you need to do would be unpopular, and you can't always be the popular guy and so on and so forth. And it's like, you know, getting back to the generational coalition in 2024 that won this election. I remember the exuberance when we won in 24, when Trump won in 24, they were calling it a golden age. Was RFK junior Elon Musk. You had all this political capital to fix a lot of things that would have been unpopular to do, like Doge, cutting the deficit and cutting the debt, mass deportations, building the wall, all those things they promised to do, and they squandered that political capital, the $7 gas, the inflation, unpopular on the war. And you think about, what if in an alternate timeline, they took the $200 billion from the big beautiful bill for DHS and they actually did mass deportations and followed through. Trump's approval rating would go down. People would die. It would get ugly, but the right wing would rally behind him. They would say, because we're fighting for America. They would say, this is existential, getting these illegal aliens out. It is on some level about taking control back from the Democrats. It is about taking control back from foreigners, putting Americans first. And so you'd say, you know, we feel good about this, we feel good about the conflict. It's ugly. There's going to be a cost. There might even. There would have been inflation. The Wall Street Journal was always warning about that, saying, you deport all these illegal aliens, labor cost goes up, demand goes down. You're going to get some inflation. But people would have been on board because of what it is. Same thing with the indictments. Like you mentioned earlier about Obama with Tulsi Gabbard in June last year, or the Clintons for that matter, or any of them. People really would have been there for it, but they squandered all those things in pursuit of another country's priorities in foreign policy or even domestic policy. And there's one thing that stood out to me when this conversation was happening, when we launched this war in Iran, all the Trump supporters had to defend it. You know, this cadre of influencers. And I remember there was one line they kept using. They kept saying, I can't believe we squandered this generational coalition. The generational coalition was supposed to be about immigration and all this other stuff. And you almost want to grab these people by the head, by their ears and shake them and say, they don't care about those issues. They're not squandering it, they're spending it. This is what it was for, you know, and in the mind of, like, and I know you're libertarian, so I think, you know, we can kind of see it for what it is. There are a lot of these heritage Americans, white nationalists, immigration restrictionists. And in their mind, they're on the team. The Twitter posters are in the White House, and Trump is looking out for them. So they don't encounter diversity that makes them uncomfortable in their neighborhood. And so this whole thing was about, you know, getting those illegals out and making America Norman Rockwell painting. And you want to say, no, you were the mark. The generational coalition was banking. Tim Mellon Tech, Elon Musk, Andreessen Horowitz. It was the donor class, which was 60% of the donations for Trump in 24 inverse from 16 to get a 10% corporate tax cut, a war in Iran, annexation of the west bank, southern Lebanon, Gaza, moratorium on AI regulation, bring Palantir and little tech and PayPal mafia into the White House and get them all these contracts. That. That was actually the purpose of the generational coalition. And then, oh, you're sour grapes and going home. They don't care. They got what they wanted from you, you voted it into office. Now they confer all the privileges on the donors. This idea that it was, hey, get your pitchforts and torches, we're taking the country back. That was a scam to get you to vote for this interest based agenda. So that's the part where to me it's like you just don't understand what politics is.
- [58:58]
A
Yeah, yeah, no, I think I listen as a libertarian. That's exactly right. Just that you don't understand the nature of this game and you've got this conception of you're on a team or this, and none of this is real. And look, I do. Look, man, I mean, I understand people out of, out of desperation, people wanting to believe in something. It's much the what we're asking people to smile swallow is much grimmer than what Steven Crowder is asking to swallow. And so there's, there's a part where I understand people not wanting that to be the case. I probably was to some degree guilty of this, although I was always very guarded because I knew, you know, the Trump track record. But it was like, hey, look, they actually did try to throw him in jail this time. They actually really did try, maybe even tried to assassinate, you know, who knows? Exactly. And, and he's coming in and, hey, he's putting Tulsi Gabbard at DNI now and like, hey, maybe hey, his son is tweeting at me that we're going to keep all the neocons out. You're like, all right, let's, let's go. But this is almost what's frustrating with some of those guys. Like, hey, I'm down to be on the team. You just got to give me something like, something that's, that's a reasonable, there's something in it for us. But, man, when you think back as you're saying this, it reminds me, which I think a lot of people forget this, but one of the huge appeals of Donald Trump, I mean, really, this was up there with one of the things that he said that people loved in 2016, was that he basically made the argument that because he's rich, he's uniquely in this position where I don't need any of these donor monies. Now. This was one of the first broken promises of Trump's and everyone just kind of let it go because again, I think people were kind of desperate. They had never had anything like Donald Trump before for. And it's very easy to start making excuses to yourself, yeah, whatever, he'll take some money. But he's still fucking true. He's still pissing off cnn. He's. Yeah, I know he lies all the time, but like whatever. He lies about little stuff, you know, whatever the, the kind of coping mechanisms are. But he used to openly say like Marco Rubio, he used to say, sheldon Adelson wants to make Marco Rubio his puppet. I don't need his money. I won't be that guy. And it is kind of amazing to go. He just went from being that to just being like, that's the whole thing. Like essentially the whole operation is like an Adelson op and he openly admits it. And do you remember in 2016 when he did, he said the thing. And I don't even know how like red pilled you were yet at this point, but he had said, there was one point where Donald Trump had said just like off the top of his head, as he typically would do in an interview, where they asked him where he stood on Israel, Palestine. And you Remember back in 2016, this was one of the most fun parts about Trump's run in 2016 is that a lot of times they would ask Donald Trump a question and he would kind of go like. And you could tell that in that moment he was figuring out what his policy was on this issue. Like, it was like, like, remember when Chris Matthews goes like, so you're pro life? And he's like, I'd have to say I'm the most pro life there is. And he goes, so should a woman go to jail for murder if she abort? So he goes, I'd say, yeah, I'd say, yeah, you know, like that's not even the position of pro lifers in America. You know what I mean? Which is like an interesting thing we could get into. But like that's actually not most pro lifers. But that's a very, very fringe view even amongst pro life. But he doesn't know, he's just. So they ask him about Israel, Palestine and in his typical Trump way, he's just going on instinct and saying what he thinks. So he just goes, I'd say we should be neutral, we should be neutral and we should stay out of it. We should be friends with that. But saying you're, you should be neutral to the Israel lobby is like saying we should eat Jewish babies. Like there's literally no you saying we should be Adolf Hitler if you say we should be neutral in the Israel, Palestine. And then he got a lot of heat for it. And then you remember he went to aipac.
- [62:36]
B
Yeah.
- [62:36]
A
And he gave this speech. This is when I started taking him very seriously politically because I was like, it's one thing to be able to move a lot of people in Alabama or it's one thing to be able to talk to red state America, working class people is a different thing. To be able to get a standing ovation from the Israel Lobby, you know, that's like, that means a lot in Washington D.C. and so he goes there and how does he win them over? Well, he's Donald Trump. So first he goes, Obama makes very stupid deals. I believe in smart deals. And the worst deal ever made was the jcpoa, the Iran deal. I don't even know if he knew jcpoa, but he said the Iran deal and they're standing ovation for that. So anyway, just reminding people that originally, at least openly, Donald Trump's instinct was to be neutral and not be involved. That got the Israel lobby to attack him and to get them off his back, he promised them he would tear up the jcpoa.
- [63:28]
B
Right.
- [63:28]
A
Which is kind of crazy that. And here we find ourselves all these years later in the war that was prevented by that agreement.
- [63:34]
B
Well, you're right. And those are two things that I bring up on my show that people forget because people say like, oh, well, Trump has always been pro Israel. That's always kind of been part of the deal. And it's like, no, it really wasn't. I mean, in 2015, early 2016, you're right, I remember that interview well. And he said, we're going to be neutral, we're going to treat both sides fairly. And he went, I don't know if it was a pack or rjc, but he, like you said, he said that thing about Rubio, I think in December 15, where he said, oh, well, he, he's going to take your money, he's your puppet, I'm not going to take your money. And I even said this in 24, and at the time, I know a lot of people didn't take it seriously because it didn't sound like real or like concrete. I was saying like, he's going to bring us to war in Iran, he's not going to do the deportations. But I also said that the prospect is different, like, or rather the proposition of Trumpism is different because like you said, and this is the most important thing, when you go back to 16, Trump said, I'm rich, I'm a billionaire, I'll self fund my campaign. That is Why I can fix America. Like there's a very clear, logical chain where he says, the system is broken. The politicians are all talk, no action. They never deliver real victories. Why? Because they are controlled by the donors. I alone can fix it because I'm so rich. I'll self fund my campaign. I will run the government like a business. I'll hire and fire at will. And that's why I can bypass all of the gridlock, all these problems that have prevented real, real change. And, and that was another big aspect of it is he would say, it's not just gonna be these like political wins. He said, no, we're gonna deliver a real win. He said, I'm literally gonna take this country and make it great again. And what you're getting at 16 is totally different than from 24, where they're like, you go to these people and say, well, he said, staple green cards to diplomas. He said, we're gonna bomb Iran. Basically. He said, there's really no plan to do mass deportations. And people would say, you know, once you get past all that golden age stuff, they say, yeah, well, it's gonna be better than a Democrat. And you go, okay, but like lesser two evils, better than a Democrat. Wasn't the whole point that he was gonna like break the system. I'll never forget that debate. I, I don't know if it was the South Carolina debate or maybe the one before that, but there's that viral clip where he goes, you know, we needed tickets for the television audience. You can't get him. You want to know who's in the audience? Donors, special interest and people. If you watch that clip now, everyone in the comments says, oh, now I get why he got elected. Like, now I get, I'm left wing, I'm Democrat. Now I see it and it's like, yeah, that's what created the cult of personality that's created diehard Trump supporters. And it's like Tucker points us out, it's like Animal Farm. It's like the revolution has betrayed itself. Now he's just like the others. And that's where you say, this is now dead. This wave has crested. It's not dynamic anymore. Now we need to look for the next wave because. Because this will only disappoint us in the future. So that's a very good point about the self funding. And you're right, almost nobody talks about it.
- [66:40]
A
Yeah, it just kind of went away. But look, I mean, I think that was also, I guess, kind of part of the disconnect of where me and you are on this versus where, like, Crowder is on this. Where it's like, look, let's. It's very easy, especially for guys like us, it's very easy to have your own narcissism, you know, fuck with you, because it's just the world where there's a camera in front of us, we're on. You get a lot of people watching your thing, and you can feel like you're an important person. But, like, at the end of the day, the truth is that me and you aren't really going to determine anything that happens here. You'd be like, oh, you guys cost us the midterm. No, the Trump administration cost us the midterm. There's nothing I could say, say, that would change the reality on the ground. You know, like, this is what it is. But I think in some way, people also don't understand how uniquely positioned Donald Trump was. Like, there are so many factors, so many stars that aligned for Donald Trump to do what he did in 2016 and in 2024. Like, it's. He was the most famous guy in the world. He was the rich guy. He was so brash. He was so camera ready. Like, there's just, like, all these things that come together. Like, Republicans have won two popular votes in the 21st century. Okay? Like, to go back to the third, you have to go back to, like, when I was 15 or something like that. You know what I mean? Like, it's really bad. George W. Bush, they won in 2004, which was, if you can, you know, because I'm a little bit older than you. Like, if you. 2004 was five years after the 1990s, okay? It was a different country than we are today, and we were in a war. And even though the war wasn't going good, it was like, you don't go against the president in the middle of a war. Was still kind of a big thing. Since then, no Republicans have won the popular vote. Donald Trump got it this last time. People do not understand the gap between the. What Donald Trump has versus what Marco Rubio has, what J.D. vance has. It was already a huge ask for them to carry this coalition forward. Like, it's. It's over, dude. It has nothing to do with how me or you feel. You know, that's it. None of these guys can win this. This administration has an approval rating about where George W. Bush's was after two disastrous wars and an economic collapse. This isn't a matter of me or you. It's like, no, listen, dude, the only option here is that another outsider emerges, another. Which is possible. No one would have picked Donald Trump at this point. We'd be. In 2014. No one would have picked Donald Trump was going to be president in 2016. So, like, there are some. Maybe someone will emerge. And, and, you know, Crowder kept saying to you, yeah, but that comes with risks. Yeah, right. Nothing doesn't come with risks. Your plan comes with. The risk of. Your plan is that either Gavin Newsom or AOC will be president. You want to just say, put the blinders on. Forget that we just launched a war for a foreign country which is the most hated country in the world, which is a country that the, the American people have rejected. Do not want this. You blame. You want to blame the critics of it for the loss. Okay, let's, let's, you know, if we had time machines, let's run a different experiment where me and you both get on board. We stay on board with the administration. We'll just go down in flames anyway. It's not going to change anything.
- [69:46]
B
Well, and, you know, I would say, he kept saying, if we burn it all down, go for the Democrats, etc. He said, you know, there's this big risk then that the Democrats are going to win. And I said, well, so let's think about possibilities. So if we have someone from the administration run, like Vance or Rubio, let's think about what Vance and Rubio would do that Trump would not. If we can agree that Trump is unsatisfactory, he's betrayed many of the promises, and at the minimum, like you even said earlier, to the extent that he's doing anything, he's not solving it.
- [70:19]
A
Yeah.
- [70:20]
B
Deporting 500,000 people, let's say that's the number. Is that a drop in the bucket? Even if Biden imported 10 million and you deport 1 million, you're not even, like, net negative from where Biden was, let alone where we were before Biden was elected. So he didn't solve it. But like you said, Trump has this cult of personality. He uniquely wields the people as like, sort of a distinct political force. Rubio and Vance, they don't have that cult of personality. They don't have control over the party. They don't have that popular support. And, and what's more, they don't have that, like, independent mind. Like, Trump created this political revolution. He is an outsider. He does actually even have, you could argue, his own ideology. This, like, pro protection, anti war, nativist sort of thing. So are Vance and Rubio going to be better than Trump and if so, how, how are they gonna stand up to the Israel lobby? How are they gonna be more immigration restrictionist? I don't think anyone would really believe that. And so you either get a continuation of that, you know, if it's even possible, they win cuz they're attached to this administration. You either get a continuation of this, which we all recognize is not a solution for anything. The best people say is it's worse than, or rather it's better than total destruction under Democrats. Or they say something like, well it's buying us time, buying us time. It's letting us have some sort of like salutary neglect, like the Democrats aren't killing us with censorship and debanking. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is it's a Democrat. And so you say that's a scenario where there's no winning option. Victory is not a possibility on your timeline. So what you're doing is you're playing not to lose. You're hoping that we don't get the worst thing, we don't get the worst defeat condition. But you're not even really concerned about how we win. How do we get mass deportations, how do we get the rest of it? At least if you say we're gonna punish Republicans, like this administration needs to fail, everyone in it needs to burn down and be weakened by it, at least then there's a possibility in 28 that the Trump administration alum are so unpopular even in a primary that somebody else could actually emerge and then run. Because the biggest concern is that look, we all know this, the party is consolidating around Vance Rubio, the money, the, the actual party apparatus. And what they're going to try to do is make it so there isn't a competition. They're going to make it so that there's one clear guy, probably the Trump backs, someone from the admin like Vance Rubio. That person's going to get 70% of the vote. There's going to be a bunch of also rans and they're just going to jam that guy through so he can campaign really without a primary fight throughout 27 and 28 and then you know, lock it up for the next four years. And so the biggest threat actually is that that candidate will be too strong and suffocate any possible challenger, any dark horse, an outsider, um, and, and by the way, if we get an outsider, that might be your victory, that might be your victory condition, where it is someone who was from that Trump coalition saw where it went wrong and wants to fulfill the promises of it without kind of rejecting the fundamental premise. Someone like that can emerge, and then, you know, if that person wins, then maybe that person can actually deliver the victory. But that's why I say, you know, people are always saying, like, well, who's that person gonna be? You don't know if that's even gonna happen. It's like, we have to create the possibility that we can win. Otherwise we're accepting defeat. Like you said earlier, either we're going 90 miles per hour or 85 miles off the cliff.
- [74:03]
A
To be honest, I'm not Even sure it's 85. Like, this might be just as fast. Dude, it's just a different thing. I mean, it's like, in the same sense, like, why. Why do you. Why do I hate the Democrats? It's like, I don't know, because, like, they. I don't know, they're fiscally insane. They opened our borders. This is. This is chaos and destruction. They push this trans insanity on little kids. This is evil. And this is. Abortion, is murder. This is death. It's like, this is all destruction and death. And it's just. This is all horrible. I'm not. I'm not actually sure which one is worse, to be honest. They're all very bad. And, you know, I guess maybe one of the things that's kind of frustrating about even having these debates is that it is. It's nuanced and it's complex and it's broad. And like, for example, okay, so Pat Buchanan, who is really a hero of mine, I'd imagine, like someone you would really admire as well, brilliant, conservative. He would always come back and support the Republicans.
- [74:59]
B
Yes.
- [74:59]
A
You know, and he would eviscerate them. I mean, he would just, like, take them down, but he'd always come back and support them. And so he would be totally against George H.W. bush in 92 because he's furious about the Persian Gulf War, although he never really made that as central of an issue as I think he should have. But, you know, who am I to pick on a great man like that? But then he'd come back and he'd primary him, but then he'd lose and he'd come back and he'd get that great famous culture war speech from Pat Buchanan at the rnc, which is, by the way, anyone should go listen to that speech. So beautifully done. I really admire great speechwriting. He was a great speechwriter. But anyway, so. But that speech, the context of it is that he's at the RNC to bring the Buchanan. What did they call it? The Buchanan Brigade back into the Republican Party. And he would make arguments like, hey, look, I mean, look, we feel how we feel. We disagree on all these issues, but whose Supreme Court justice picks are you gonna like more? George H.W. bush or Bill Clinton? On environmentalism, he's better on tax policy, he's better on all these. And, like, now I tend to kind of disagree with that. And I loved Ron Paul. Ron Paul would never come back and endorse the candidate. But, you know, the thing is that in 1992, I can understand Pat Buchanan's argument, because if you have a generally healthy country, and we could get into debating whether we were generally healthy or not, but compared to today, we were a much healthier country, you know, much less divisive politically. The demographics were. Were, you know, what traditional American demographics had been for most of the time, which, you know, are conducive to less cultural divides. Let's say we were not $40 trillion in debt. We were not like a failing empire. You know, things were. And in a healthy society, it kind of does make sense to go, look, I know there's a wish list of what we want, but let's go for better rather than worse. Again, when you have stage four cancer and you're terminally ill, that's like. When you go like, no, if we just get what is maybe slightly better, we die. Like, this nation dies if we do that. So I guess part of it is that we're just arguing that, like, no, the situation is actually that dire right now that we have to go for something better than this.
- [77:11]
B
Well, that's the nail on the head. And, you know, I would even say something more controversial, which is. And no one's going to like, this
- [77:18]
A
is more controversial than me.
- [77:21]
B
Well, controversial for our. For people that like us, for the fans, but they need to hear this. I respect Pat Buchanan. He's brilliant, obviously off the charts brilliant, great writer. Red pilled me with Death of the west and great book, everything. But he is a loser. And I don't say that to be nasty, but he lost. He lost three times, right? He lost in 92, 96, lost for reform in 2000. And, you know, it's funny, Sam Francis, who is a friend of his, he wrote an article about his endorsement of Bush in 92 and said that was Buchanan's biggest mistake.
- [77:54]
A
I've never read that. Oh, that's interesting.
- [77:56]
B
Very interesting. Yeah, I'll send it to you.
- [77:57]
A
Yeah, please do.
- [77:58]
B
But He. And he wrote it at the time and said that that's Buchanan's mistake, is that he always comes back to support the gop. Why? You're at war with them. They're the enemy. They're the problem. And it's because he is the congenital conservative. And by conservative, I don't mean right wing. It's this risk aversion. It's. He's not revolutionary, he's a reformer. And so in the end, they will always come back to the vomit. The dog will always come back to eat his vomit. They will always come back to endorse the conservative. And I think, by the way, that's now why there's this. People are becoming more comfortable with pat Buchanan because 20 years ago, he was kicked off MSNBC for Suicide of a Superpower, which he was gonna call the Death of Whitey. That was actually the original title.
- [78:41]
A
Is that true?
- [78:42]
B
Yes.
- [78:42]
A
No.
- [78:42]
B
San Francisco says this. Yeah.
- [78:44]
A
Is that true? So there was a chapter in the book called, like, the End of White America. It was, like, close to that. One of the chapters. Great book, by the way. Suicide of a Superpower. Highly recommend it.
- [78:54]
B
But that was going to be the title. And point being is he was super controversial back then. You know, Shapiro called him a Nazi in 2016. He's alt right, whatever. Now I feel like people are coming around to his legacy. Some of these heritage Americans, pro Trump people, they're embracing him. But why? Because he lost. And when you lose, you are. You become inert. You're no longer threatening. And. And so I. And I love Pappy Cannon. However, Francis also wrote a book called Beautiful Losers about the conservatives and basically saying that conservatives are so principled, but they lose all the time. Like, we're losing the culture war, we're losing the immigration war, and they would rather lose as the civil. Principled. Whatever. Whatever you want to say about them, you know, these kind of like Rockefeller Republicans and actually get dirty and fight and win. And in the end, is it not the paleo cons that were the beautiful losers? Is it not those people that, you know, they. They kind of went down without a huge, ugly fight? And I think about what is different between Buchanan and Trump in 2016, when Trump was running in the primary, they said, will you endorse the eventual nominee if you don't get it? And Trump said, no. He said, I have a lot of leverage. He said, so I'd like to run as the Republican, but if I can't have the nomination, then maybe I'll run independent. And they said, well, Hillary Clinton will surely win. And he said, well, yeah, then I. Then elect me as the Republican, otherwise, I'll take the whole thing. And to me, that's like. And I told them that, actually at the dinner, I said, that is when you were at your apex because you were playing to win. That's when I knew you were serious. You weren't just going to say, well, if I win, I win. If I don't, I guess we'll just have Republicans. It's like that burn the boats mentality. That's what we. We as the base need to develop that kind of consciousness or that leadership.
- [80:43]
A
No, I get. I get what you're saying. You know, part of the. Okay, I'm sorry to keep picking on Steven Crowder. It's nothing against Steven Crowder. You know, it's just that literally. This is what I'm thinking of when you say this. But so when I was debating Steven Crowder, he was very upset that I had called for Trump's impeachment. I had called for Trump's impeachment because of the 12 day war. Cause, you know, to me, I'm like, yeah, you just launched an illegal war, and this is what we all voted against. And, yeah, I'm for. I'm for. Now Crowder starts then getting into this argument. He's like, but if we impeached Donald Trump, then Nancy Pelosi has. And I was like, well, first off, that would put J.D. vance in as president. But. But then at a certain point, I went, steven, when I say we should impeach Donald Trump, you realize I'm not a congressman who's introducing articles of impeachment. I have no. There's no point that I believe this is going to result in this process and then the benefit of that process, obviously. All I'm saying is, like, I publicly supported Donald Trump, and now I am saying in the loudest possible language that I'm out. I'm done. And I do think there's. Part of my thinking there was. Was along the lines of what you're saying where it's like, no, look, dude, this only works if there's, like, a profit and loss system, right? Like, there has to be like, okay, you promised me no new wars. I publicly support you. You launch a new war. I publicly not just, like, don't support you, but, like, fudge, you die a million deaths, you'll never get my support again. Because otherwise, like, I don't know, there's just got to be some type of incentive for, like, if you want to Come do this. I don't know. We don't have much, but the one thing we do have is that we can very publicly say, no, Vance Rubio, none of you are getting this coalition. And therefore at least there's some political incentive of like, someone want to come pick up this. This coalition or not. I do agree with you that. Or at least I agree. You know, I don't think Patrick Buchanan is a loser, but politically, I get your point. He did lose. I think that there's something, especially now when super majorities of the American people are against this war. Super majorities of the American people are against Biden's immigration policy. You know, super majorities are against the woke trans insane shit. Super majorities think that inflation is the number one issue. When you have that type of dynamic, we should be playing to win. Like, why can't we win this country? You know what I mean? Like, there is not. It is. If there was an open primary right now, don't get me wrong, if some, like, I want to be honest about this. If someone were to run on your most radical views or my most radical views, they probably could not win with that, right? But if there was like, open primaries on the Democrat and Republican side right now and someone were to run on a full separation of Israel and America, like, like we're treating it like church and state, a full separation of Israel and America, dissolving the Israel lobby entirely. If they were to run on closing the border and an immigration moratorium, if they were to run on, you know, fiscal sanity, no new wars, no. Like, there are major pieces here that that could absolutely be a winning coalition in the. In this country. That was not the case when Pat Buchanan was running. That wasn't the case when Ron Paul was running for president. And so, like, we do live in a new dynamic with new realities. And I agree with you, I think we shouldn't be. We shouldn't concede that. Well, if it's a little bit better than the Democrats, then we support it. And we shouldn't concede that. Like, hey, you go out there and you completely lose, but you were politically noble and you made some good points and that's enough. Because at the end of the day, none of that saves the country.
- [84:17]
B
Right? Well, and think about it. What if Buchanan had not endorsed George Bush? He would have lost anyway. And what would have been the lesson of 92? It's like, maybe we should have been more conservative. Maybe in 96, we run somebody that gets the Buchanan Briggs, by the way,
- [84:30]
A
just to even strengthen Your point here? Right. Because when he's given the culture war speech at the RNC in 92, he's already lost. George H.W. bush goes on to lose to Bill Clinton anyway.
- [84:42]
B
Exactly.
- [84:42]
A
So the Buchanan brigade did not make the difference, but if he had withheld that, it may have been seen as maybe that would have made the difference.
- [84:51]
B
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It would have been ambiguous. And more to the point, we have to think about those second and third order consequences. People say, well, you know, what if a Democrat wins? Yeah. What if what you're talking about is moral hazard, which is if there's no consequences for your actions, then they will get away with anything. And I said this to Crowder. It's like, dude, we're in a war with Iran. At what point will you stop supporting Trump? What would he have to do to lose your support? Because if you're willing to tolerate that, you'll tolerate anything. And if you tolerate anything, you will be forced to tolerate anything. That. That's sort of where we are. And so it's important to now and again. And like I said, I said this to Crowder, like, I wouldn't want a Democrat to become the president because I, you know, think that's really bad for everybody. But where you can and where it makes sense, you have to impose some kind of a cost. Just so you tell them, like, we will not put up this. Put up with this. We will not tolerate it. And I always tell people that's just playing both sides. That's just basic game theory. And by the way, everybody else does it. The donors do it in particular. How many of these pro Israel people were lifelong Democrats until October 7th, and then they threw their weight around behind the Republicans to get concessions. Same thing with Little tech. How met Elon Musk, Was he ever a Republican up until a few years ago when he started getting heat from the Biden DOJ and getting all these problems? No.
- [86:18]
A
So Tulsi Bobby.
- [86:20]
B
Yeah, exactly. And they will move their money around, whoever is going to help them. The donors do it, by the way, the Israel lobby does it. Ben Shapiro in 16 said, you know, let Hillary Clinton win Trump. We can't trust him. He's not a real conservative. So we just need that kind of leadership and kind of like our mojo as the base to say we need to be in the driver's seat, not people telling us, oh, we'll get them next time. Oh, well, we built, you know, 36 inches of wall or whatever. That's how we gotta think Going forward.
- [86:49]
A
Millions of inches. Yeah. Well, no, I mean, a good example of that. I don't know if you saw this, but when Donald Trump first announced the ceasefire with Iran, Mark Levin was out there, like really counter signaling him hard, right? What do you mean, sir? They still have all the enriched uranium. They're still supporting the proxies. This terror regime still stands. So it's not like they won't flip on a dime. So essentially, why shouldn't I do the same thing? And I do gotta say, and I'm sure you feel this way too, to some degree at least, Right. But there seems like there's kind of a thing where, okay, because of the mix of where technology kind of grew and people's disgust with the regime and the corporate media being exposed for being liars, you know, this whole industry has been revolutionized. And now for the first time, things that are much different than, say, Pat Buchanan's days or Sam Francis's days are that I shouldn't say Pat Buchanan is still alive. But I mean, the days where he was running for president are like, we kind of have a fighting shot in the conversation now, right? We actually get to get our rebuttal heard as well. So there's, now there's still dynamics where there's certain groups, like I think probably you are demonized to a lot of baby boomers and they don't get to hear from you, Right. Like, like they hear about you through someone else, but they may not like actually hear like, what you're really saying, but for huge other swaths of an audience, they get to hear your side also. And this is true for me too. And this is true for a lot of us. And broadly speaking, people, let's say, who have been. Because me and you represent different worldviews and different principles and, but, but broadly speaking, let's say the people who are critical of Israel or critical of this war or critical of open borders or critic. We've gotten to be in the debate. We've gotten to have a chance to have big public debates, to have big public shows, and we have just won. We have won the argument with the American people. Like, there just is no question, like, who is, you know, if you look at like me and you and then say, throw in like Tucker and Candace and Megan or just like broadly speaking, the people who are more critical of, say, this move in Iran versus Lindsey Graham, like, we've won the argument. I keep doing these debates, but at this point I almost say, like, the debate's over. This is just a formality right? When I go on Piers Morgan today to debate a Zionist, it's like, I've already won. We know I've won. We know you've, like, this side has dominated. This is a pro Palestinian country at this point. Like, it's. And yet we still lose the policy. And there is something about that that's fucking intolerable. Like, no, fuck you. We like. And this is, this is the most little D. Democrat I'll ever be in my life. But like, there is something like, hey, no, we had the open debate, we had the marketplace of ideas and you guys got fucking schooled. So why the fuck should Mark Levin still get. No one thinks Mark Levin got Donald Trump elected, but Tucker Carlson played a major role. So why do we get the policies of him versus him? This is just wrong. And it's not just wrong. It's. It's so intolerable that you're like, I just can't go along with that.
- [90:00]
B
It is. It is intolerable. And you realize that there's no relationship between what the public supports and the policies we get. Because arguably the, the country's never been more anti Israel and yet the policies have never been more pro Israel. Right. Like from Harvard and what they're doing, Department of Ed to the visas to the. Obviously what's going on in Israel, there's literally no limit to what they're able to get away with and you'd never know it. If you go on the Internet on the right and the left, you go on Instagram and you're getting like, AI translated Hitler speeches and like normies from like southern universities that are like, you
- [90:35]
A
make some good points.
- [90:36]
B
You know, that's the right wing and the left wing is Hassan Piker who's like, pro terrorism. Like, yeah, straight up pro Hamas. And you go, so I wonder what the government looks like. Like, we must have some kind of anti Semitic regime. It's like, nope, we're in a war with Iran. If you criticize Israel, you can't go to the World cup or enter America. So. And that's where I tell people, what is enough? What's your limit? Before you say, we're out. Because people are still. It's just pure cope people just saying, no, no, here's how we could still win. We could get it back on track. They really want to, but they can't. It's like, we just need. It's not even so much people say, what candidate? It's just about rejection. Like, no, I reject this. I reject this. I know this is not good enough. And, and moreover, and you already said this, but it's true. We are in such a bad situation. The only thing that will fix the country is radical intervention. Otherwise the country dies. $40 trillion debt, 50 million illegals, demographic change. The country is already dead. It's just dying in slow motion.
- [91:40]
A
Oh, yeah, not even that slow. I mean.
- [91:42]
B
Yeah, no, yeah, right. I mean, these days, very quickly, but it's like you're either going to have a radical intervention or you're going to die. Are Vance and Rubio radical? No. You know, are the Democrats going to be radical? Well, they're part of the problem. The only thing that's going to solve it is if you just get a different option. So for me, it's just like, let's just reshuffle and reroll until we get something different. And, you know, that's what a lot of Republicans just can't handle. They don't have the imagination for that, I guess.
- [92:08]
A
Yeah. I mean, maybe it was. It was. I was never a Republican partisan, so it just was easier for me to kind of come to that conclusion. But I completely agree with you on that. Not that I'm saying the Libertarian Party is the answer or something like that. I don't know. But. But obviously something else other than this. So I wanted to talk to you about Thomas Massie's election. His primary, which is coming up, I believe, the day after tomorrow. This is a really fascinating. I don't. I think the most fascinating House primary election I've ever seen. It's. The more money has been spent on this election than any other. This. Speaking of intolerable. I mean, this is really like quite an example of. So Thomas Massey. I mean, I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but he won his previous primaries with like 78%, 85%. It was just. Has been a multiple successful winner, political winner, at least in his district in Kentucky. He really angered the Israel lobby, particularly in his Tucker Carlson interview where he exposed that he's the only one who doesn't have an APAC head handler and like, was getting. Was doing something that, you know, even like guys like say me or you or people who are very critical of the Israel lobby aren't exactly explaining like the nuts and bolts of the logistics of how it works in Congress. And he was really explaining that. Then of course, he made his famous stand to get the Epstein files declassified and really embarrassed the administration and kind of through some political maneuvering was actually able to kind of like get them to tap out and release it. And then of course, he opposes both the 12 Day War and this current war in Iran. And so this has now gotten, the Israel lobby has poured tens of millions of dollars or at least $20 million, I think has been put into the race and they've made it a much more competitive race. This, to me is gonna be very interesting to see what happens here. I saw Michael Knowles tweeted the other day when there's this stuff that's going on, which I'm sure you've been seeing, but it's like obvious op stuff. Obvious op. I mean, like literally like three days before the election, all of a sudden there's a scandal. All of a sudden there's one woman with no corroborating accounts who says, he paid me hush money, not even alleging criminal activity or anything like that. Then the betting markets start like change. Clearly people are putting money in and influencing this. So Michael Knowles over at the Daily Wire, you know, I don't dislike Michael Knowles, but his take on this was he goes, man, if Thomas Massie loses, this just shows the iron grip that Donald Trump has on the Republican Party.
- [94:44]
B
Oh brother.
- [94:45]
A
And you're like, dude, dude. I mean, I think it shows the iron grip that the Israel lobby has. If they like, that might be a slightly more accurate take. But then I also go, and I'll be interested because I think Thomas Messi is going to win. I think it's close, but I think he's going to pull this off. I wonder what Michael Knowles reaction to that will be. So if it proves that Trump has an iron grip when Massey falls out, what about when Thomas Massie WINS and survives $20 million being pumped into his district? What would that suggest? So I'm curious, like, what are your thoughts on Thomas Massie and on this, this race?
- [95:20]
B
Well, I like Thomas Massie. I mean, he's not, he is a libertarian. So.
- [95:24]
A
Yeah. So what's wrong with us?
- [95:26]
B
You know, I don't, Well, I don't agree with him on everything, sure. But I support him only because he has made himself the, you know, this kind of rallying point against aipac because like you said, he took that stand on the interview and he voted against foreign aid to Israel in 24, among other things. So it's just a no brainer to support him in the primary and just in general because it's, it's symbolic. He is one of the only Republicans that's consistently gone against Israel and there's no question that's exactly why they're coming for him. And they did this in 24 AIPAC did against Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush and a few other progressive Democrats. They spent $100 million in the 24 cycle and in particular trying to primary everybody that voted against that foreign aid bill. And I believe it was April of 24 when they greenlit $25 million for Israel, when they defended themselves against Iran or whatever it was so they could fight Gaza more. Um, and so that's what they do. They're doing it on the Republican side. And I agree with you. I think he'll win. But it is interesting. That is how they convince themselves that it isn't Israel. Like, I've seen the, the take from Michael Knowles. I've seen many people say this, that what's the real reason Massey is terrible? Well, it's not because he happens to be the one Republican against aipac. No, no, no. It's because he votes against Trump. He's like, not a diligent enough Republican partisan. He's not a loyal member of the conference. And it gets back to even we talked about was frustrating about my debate with Crowder, like, it's along that same theme. It's like, so do you really believe that? Like, I know that that's like, you can look at any answer and some of them have explanatory power. Like, it's true that Massie's anti Republican, but is that plausible? Like, do you think that that's actually true? Obviously not. And Michael Knowles, like, he went to Yale. So you think that this is really about APAC, spent $20 million to buttress Trump's loyalty. Obviously this is about something else. And, you know, you see, you wonder what's going on with Michael Knowles. Well, he works for Shapiro.
- [97:32]
A
That doesn't help.
- [97:33]
B
But these are the things they tell themselves about the party. You know, they say the Iran war is about China. They say Massey is about Trump. They say everything is about everything other than what it's actually about. And that's when you want to say, so are you a liar? You fucking liar.
- [97:49]
A
Do you see Trump, literally, after meeting with Xi, said, we're going to be sending tons of oil to China.
- [97:54]
B
Yeah.
- [97:54]
A
We're going to be telling me this was all about starving resources to try the cope, the levels of cope. But it couldn't be this lobby that's openly lobbied for this for 30 years. Oh, the longest serving prime minister in Israel in Israeli history said after we launched the war that this was a culmination of his entire life's work. But let's Ignore that. You know, like, that probably has nothing to do with any. No, I mean, that's, I think, what frustrated me. You know, there was this one time that J.D. vance was asked about Thomas Massie and he basically just said, he goes, look, man, he just keeps voting against us. And at a certain point, like, this is politics, man. If you keep voting against us, we're not going to support you. I remember hearing that and just going, yeah, okay. Because that just basically backs up everything we've been saying. That's right. It's politics. And us never supporting you again is also right. So, like, okay, yeah, you're not voting with me. Okay, well, you're trying to unseat. Now, obviously you like Thomas Massie, but you're not a Libertarian. I like him and I am a Libertarian. So to me it's just like the absent. You're trying to take away the one guy that I have who represents me in Congress for the crime of telling the truth about some important issues, like, okay, cool, go fuck yourself and I'll never support you ever again. I mean, that's politics, right? Anyway, it will just be very interesting. They've. They've really smeared the guy. And you know, of course these, the, the millions of dollars that they're pouring in are being used for these ad campaigns. It's all ridiculous shit. I also hate, I hate when I'll see this thing like at a conservative sometimes where they just like, they do the same shit the Democrats do after they were just blasting the Democrats for doing that. Right. You know, like, I remember even late great Charlie Kirk. No, you know, disrespect. I liked Charlie and stuff, but I remember I used to see this out of him sometimes it would really bother me where like during Obama, you'd see Obama would brag about the unemployment rate and then he would go, yeah, but the unemployment rate is bullshit because it doesn't account. My words, not his. He wouldn't have cursed, but he goes that the unemployment rate doesn't account for people who have given up entirely on looking for work. Which is like, fair point. Then Donald Trump comes in and he goes, lowest unemployment rate ever. You're like, oh, all of a sudden that number is good. You know, they just do this type of thing. So then they start doing the thing where they go, thomas Massie voted against border security. And you're like, no, he didn't, dude. He voted against a 3,000 page bill that spent like $3 trillion. You know what I mean? Like, it's like, no, dude, he did. If you ever put that standalone? He would vote for that. That's not the issue. And so they're just, like, a lot of dirty tricks that I'm like, I just don't like seeing this against, like, one of. Forget even. Whether you're a libertarian or anything else, Thomas Massie is, like, one of the few decent guys. He's being honest, right? He's running on what he believes in. He's voting. His voting track record backs up what he told you he was gonna vote. When he doesn't go in there, like, to go after and then not just try to unseat him, but to really try to, like, ruin the guy's life. I really just. I don't know. The way Trump. The way Trump's gone after him and Joe Kent for getting remarried is, like, I just find disgusting. Particularly when Donald Trump, in the case of Joe Kent, his wife died in Syria under you, Right? Like, you know, I. Again, I'm sympathetic to Trump supporters because I think for a long time, he was, like, the only weapon you had. And, oh, my God, we actually get a fighting shot against this evil regime. And so people forgive a lot of his kind of vulgar, you know, stuff. But you're like, did. You really are a piece of shit, man. Yeah, you're really a piece of shit. You're the one who fucking cheats all over your wife and fucks porn stars and has had three different marriages and shit. This guy, he lost his wife to a suicide bomber in Syria, a war you were supposed to get us out of and didn't, and now you're trashing him for getting married two years later. Just so bizarre, man. I don't know.
- [101:30]
B
He is. He's wicked. He's a wicked human being. And he's really showed his hand. I mean, because you're right. Ten years ago, I think the way people saw it is that the left was so powerful and so evil, it felt like they were unstoppable and nothing could ever change. It was so oppressive and suffocating. I remember it growing up, the political correctness, the liberal media, and it just felt like Republicans were pussies. Like they could never win and they would never fight back. And, you know, guys like Mitt Romney and John McCain, they're complete losers.
- [101:58]
A
They're there to lose, essentially. Like, that's. That's the point of them, is to lose it. It's like wrestling, like, to lose and get this guy over while I was.
- [102:05]
B
Exactly, yeah, they were there to. Basically, it's a fix, you know, they were there to throw. And so you see Trump, and he was what he was. But we said, okay, he's kind of. He's the underdog, he's fighting for us. He's brash, he's a little unconventional, but maybe he can win. And now you kind of see, all these years later, I think that maybe his true self just emerged. You realize, like, he sort of is everything they said that he was, which is he is a liar. It is really all just about vanity and glory and his own, what's the word? Self aggrandizement. I mean, that's really what it was always about. And even these things, like comparing himself to Jesus, talking about killing Persia on Easter. No, happy Easter, by the way. Not Christ is risen. We're gonna kill a civilization tomorrow.
- [102:49]
A
Which is fairly inconsistent with Christ's message. From my understanding.
- [102:53]
B
From my understanding, it's a little. You know what? It is consistent. It's consistent with the message of Purim, the Jewish holiday. Inconsistent. Little bit, though, with Easter.
- [103:04]
A
All right, listen, the Old Testament God was a bit meaner.
- [103:06]
B
He's a little more hardcore.
- [103:07]
A
That's true.
- [103:08]
B
Some of the Marcionites have something to say about that. But like, but yeah, so he, he's a wicked human being. And, and like you said, it's such a good point. When it's Thomas Massie, they go, yeah, well, that's politics. Well, that's just how the cookie crumbles. Oh, you're not voting for us in the midterms. Oh, my gosh, you're a left wing Democrat. I can't believe you. And at the end of the day, Charlie Kirk. Say what you want. He was on the team. He was with them.
- [103:35]
A
Yep.
- [103:35]
B
And, and even with Iran, people say no. He was coming around. He was about to flip. He was really going to be based. When Trump bombed Iran the first time, Charlie Kirk defended it. And they did the same goalpost thing when it. When Israel started the war, Charlie said, we shouldn't get involved. We need to stay out of this. It's Israel's thing. When we got involved by shooting down the missiles, he said, well, we shouldn't get involved offensively. We can't. And then it was, um, well, but we shouldn't. We shouldn't bomb Iran then. We bomb Iran. Well, we shouldn't do regime change. Then Trump said on Truth Social, well, I think we should do a regime change. And then Charlie Kirk said, well, guys, there's a big difference between a bottom up revolution and a top down regime change. We support a revolution. And so it's like anything that Trump would have done, he would have supported.
- [104:25]
A
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which, of course is body brain coffee. And the big news is that the body brain creamer is officially here. I don't know about you, but I like creamer in my coffee. And body brain just put out their creamer, which perfectly partners with body brain coffee. It's all good for you. It's not the creamer you get at the supermarket that's sugary and has a bunch of crap in it. In the spirit of body brain, it's all good ingredients that are going to be helpful for you. It's stuff that helps with stress and focus and overall vitality. So it's perfect to pair with body brain coffee, which, of course naturally boosts testosterone. This way, it's not like a sports drink or some weird health drink. It's a cup of coffee with some creamer. One cup a day. You're gonna feel better. I've been drinking this stuff for months now, and I feel great. Go check them out. Bodybraincoffee.com of course, this is the creation of the great Louis J. Gomez, who convinced me to start part of the problem. So if you love this show, make sure you go support them and get yourself a delicious cup of coffee. Naturally boosts testosterone. You're gonna feel great. Bodybraincoffee.com promo code Dave. 20 for 20 off. Your entire order. One more time. That's bodybraincoffee.com promo code dave. 20 for 20 off. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Ridge. I love the Ridge wallet. I've owned the Ridge wallet for many years. I don't know if you're one of those people who has a traditional leather wallet. I used to be that guy for a long time. But you're living in the 1980s or something. You don't need all that. Ridge is a futuristic, minimalist wallet. They're really cool. They're made with aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber. They're like these cool metallic looking wallets. They hold your card, they hold your cash. They're a real conversation starter, a great gift for, like, a guy who's difficult to get gifts for. All Ridge products have a lifetime warranty. So this is literally the last wallet that you will ever have to get. It comes with RFID blocking technology so you don't have to worry about hackers. They have over 100,000 5 star reviews. Check them out for yourself@ridge.com Ridge.com is the website. And make sure to use the promo code POTP10. That will get you 10% off your entire order. Check them out. Ridge.com promo code POTP10 for 10% off. All right, let's get back into the show. Well, my read on Charlie's motivations here, just to be clear, I'm speculating. I mean, I knew him and talked to him a little bit, but I'm speculating a little bit. But my read was always that the number one priority was keeping the coalition together. Like, that's what it was about. Right. It's a, it's an operation to get Republicans elected. Right. And so I think that, I think Charlie did really oppose the 12 Day War, but not exactly for the same reasons that me or you might oppose it. So. So, like, I might oppose it just for moral reasons like that. I just look at it as mass murder, and I think that's evil and unacceptable. And by the way, I'm not saying, like, you know, yeah, people die during war, but like, I actually think that some of your people did a real good job coming up with that whole just war theory of Christianity.
- [107:23]
B
That's right.
- [107:24]
A
You know, like, there's been great men who have thought about this and like, okay, people will die in war, but you should at least only fight a war when you absolutely need to, not just like, yeah, let's, well, there's a war of choice. Maybe this will work out anyway. So I have big objections for that. We both have big objections because it's done on behalf of a foreign country to the detriment of our country. I'm not saying Charlie didn't even have any of those concerns. I'm saying the reason why. This is my read a bit. I think the reason why Charlie Kirk was so adamantly telling Donald Trump not to do this is because he understood the political reality that we've been discussing earlier, that this was going to destroy the coalition, that this is. He had his finger on the pulse. And he also, listen, he had his finger on the pulse. He knew what had happened in the Gruper War. He knew how much, look, how much he moved on the issues over the years. He kind of had to, you want to keep this coalition going, there's. This is the only way it's going to work. And so I think he knew that this coalition was going to be destroyed by this move. But again, if your primary goal is to keep the coalition together, you say, hey, don't do this. Then when he does it, you go, okay, let me explain why that's still not destroying the coalition that he does More. You go, okay, no, no, no. This is, you know, so like, it, like he was opposed to it, but it's a different type of opposition than what. What me and you are talking about here. Yeah, dude. I mean, look, all we can do at this point is vote for Dan Blazerian and that's. That's what will carry us through.
- [108:41]
B
He will save us. Yes.
- [108:43]
A
Should we. Why. Why you're fighting with Dan Blazerian publicly? I got. Why are you always picking on Jews? It is. It's like, Nick, it's not that important. You're such an identitarian that you always have to.
- [108:55]
B
I found that out.
- [108:56]
A
Yeah.
- [108:56]
B
Yeah.
- [108:56]
A
That was just too hilarious. Like, I just could, like, dude, this is fucking hilarious. Well, he's weird. I mean, I guess we could talk about this a little bit. So, like, I got in a thing with him, I think like a day before you and him started getting in a thing. So then you. I was like, okay, good. You were my human shield, so I could, I could keep my street cred or whatever, but you know, there's this. So, like, I was. I'm supposed to. I think this is going to happen, actually, but I'm supposed to debate Hasan Piker. I was in a back and forth with him where we were talking back and he was saying that I accused him of ducking me. And I was like, I don't think I ever said you were ducking me. And then Dan responded to me and he goes, you've been ducking a good faith conversation with me. And okay, so this is just. I'll do mine first and then you can do yours. But. So it is true that a few different people, Jake Shields being one, but a couple different people, Sneako was another one, had tried to connect us before. I knew that Dan Lizarian was. Was trying to talk to me, and I just wasn't really that interested in it. You know, that's just like. I don't know, I'm not like even trying to be a dick or anything, but from my perspective, all I knew of Dan Blazerian was I was like the boats and hoes guy who kind of turned into like, you know what I kind of consider to be like a low IQ kind of Jew hater, you know? Like now, if that's fucked up for me to say, I don't know. However you would. But I just, I've seen him on a few interviews where it was Just like, I kind of felt. It's not someone like you who. We may have some disagreements, but I feel like you're a very smart guy. You're very well read. Your good faith. When we have these conversations. What disagreements? We have our disagreements. You know, this is, to me, just like a guy just kind of like, crudely denying the Holocaust, kind of crudely going, we should launch a war on Israel. All this stuff. And even the arguments are kind of like, you know, well, they. They attacked us on the USS Liberty. Like, you do realize that was in 1967, though, right? Like, it's. This is kind of on the level of we should fight a war with Iran because they killed our Marines or something. You know, it's like, yeah, well, like, I don't know if we've done business with them for 40 years after that. You really. They can't. Like, still. Anyway, whatever, debates on this aside, I just wasn't particularly interested. But. So he replies to me on Twitter, and he goes, well, you've been ducking a good faith conversation with me. And even the way he said good faith conversation is, you know me, Nick. It got me a kind of, you know, I guess. And I. And so I replied, and I went, well, I wouldn't characterize it as ducking, but, sure, let's have a conversation. I accepted, like, let's have a good faith conversation. Okay, fine. And then his. He goes, I don't know why you're lying about this, man. And I go, well, lying. I mean, that's lying. I'm just saying, like, I'm not. No one's denying that you were trying to talk to me. I'm just saying, like, I wouldn't phrase it as ducking. I don't know. There's a lot of people who are trying to talk to you. A lot of people are trying to talk to me. We don't have time to talk to all of them. But then I go, all right, well, I wouldn't say lie. Then he goes, you've told a bunch of people that you're scared to talk to me. And I go, okay, well, now you. You're lying, because that is abs. Yes. What man talks about themselves like that? I've told other people, like I said to you, Nick, you got me and you off camera. And I went, I'm scared to talk. Who would even talk about themselves like this? So then it goes. And then literally the next comment out of his mouth is, you're a subversive Jew. I always knew you were a subversive Jew. And you're like, guys, look again. Me and you have talked about this a lot. I am not a left winger. I don't have left wing sensibilities about bigotry. I don't. I'm not allergic to it. Like, if you're a little bit of a bigot, I'll still talk to you about that. What? We're all a little bit of a bigot. Bigotry is something you're always supposed to have a little bit of. You don't have too much of it. I'll fuck you up. But like. But it's like, dude, how many conversations with how many different people have I had? And good faith conversations where they, like, really. Have I not earned at least enough credibility to go that. Like that immediately if we have one disagreement, like, you scratch the surface, and right underneath there is your dirty. Again, I'm not going like, oh, my God, anti Semitism. I don't really give a shit. But at the same time, I am kind of like, is that from your perspective? Is that not unreasonable of me to just go like, all right, dude, so then that is kind of what this is all about. And that's fine. You have a right to feel however you feel. But also, I'm kind of have a right to go. This is pretty fucking dumb. And I'm not really interested in talking about this. I don't know.
- [113:12]
B
Yeah, no, I totally agree. And that's kind of his whole MO is. He's just. He's a piece of work. I mean, he is what he is. This whole, you know, and I saw that exchange. I watched it happen in real time. And you accepted the talk. Okay, so what more do you want? Now he's gonna go, yeah, yeah. Well, I don't know why you're lying about. Look, you got what you wanted. You're gonna have the talk. So what now? And then it turns into the ego thing? Well, you're afraid to debate me. And then you're a subversive Jew. You just go, how is this productive? Actually, what's actually your end game is the end game to achieve understanding, get on the platform, have the conversation. Or is this about something else? Yeah, so, yeah, I thought that was pretty messed up.
- [113:50]
A
And then there was this other thing. And I think this is more a dynamic that you've commented on too. And then I want to get into kind of your issue with not just him, but, like, kind of part of that part of the movement or the kind of little mutiny that you put down last week. I've been Watching that, it's kind of interesting to me, and I don't exactly understand it. But then he goes, like, after the subversive Jew that, you know, I'm like, oh, no, the boats and hose guy thinks I'm a subversive. Yeah. I'm subverting society. Okay, like, what do you. What do you think that means to have. Like. Anyway, but so then we. And then he does this, and because I have been around Libertarian Party politics for. For some years, I'm not as involved now, but I was very involved at a time I've come across this for. But he goes, well, you. He goes, you just sit there podcasting. I'm actually doing something. And you're like, wait, what? Like, okay, like. So, wait, wait, you're doing something. What are you doing? Right. You're primary in one of the absolute worst, most grotesque, just utterly disgusting members of Congress in a district that you have absolutely no shot of winning. Like, you're talking about a. There's a reason why he's the guy who won that district. Right, Right. What does the voting demographic. Okay, yes. It's old boomers and a lot of Jewish boomers. Okay. Dan Blizzerian, who doesn't even live in the district because you live there as a kid or something like that. You're like, you're not doing. But there was. This was a thing I found all the time in the Libertarian Party where there'd be some guy who's running for something who's like, we're on Track to get 3%, and the last LP guy only got 2 1/2 percent, but they'd still have this attitude of like, I'm actually doing something. What are you doing? Just talking into an artist. And you're like, I don't know. I'm reaching more people with your message than you could ever hope to reach. And so, like, yeah, I think it is actually doing something. And I don't. Like, what is this, like, air of superiority that just running a losing campaign is somehow really contributing? This is really getting out there. This is preposterous.
- [116:00]
B
Yeah, well, they. It was a group of them that said that to me. They did this whole conference the week before him, and I fell out, called America First United. And the whole premise of it is, we're out here doing something. We're running for office. We're holding a conference, and I want to say, okay, so you're running a shitty conference with production issues that makes us all look like idiots, and you're losing primaries. I'm like, Please stop like you're doing something. Stop, stop doing what you're doing because it's a waste of time and money and it's actually hurting us like it's a liability. But you know what it is? It's like a lot of these people, if we're going to, if we're going to act like they're in good faith, let's presuppose they are. Sure. A lot of these people get into the movement and they act like they're the first people that ever got red pilled where they. Okay, now the reinforcements have arrived. All right, what are we doing to defeat the Israel lobby? What are we doing? Seems like we're not making a lot of progress. Guess I gotta take matters into my own hands and run for office. And you wanna say, okay, do you know anything about politics? Are you gonna win? Are you gonna, you know, and, and I talked to Dan about that and I talked to Aaron Baker who's running in the same district, he talked to their campaign manager. They got no plan, there's no strategy. I wanna say, Dan, the average age of the Republican primary voter in Your district is 57 years old. Trump carried that district by 30 points. You're running as an anti Trump, exterminate Israel candidate from Las Vegas. You don't even live in the state and you have no money. And the primaries in three months, what's the pathway to victory there? And you know what they say is like, well, I don't know, we're just gonna go in and we're just gonna win. I'm like, see, that's the difference. It's like haste and energy, enthusiasm, whatever. Fanaticism is no substitute for, you know, what's actually doing something. Raising money, learning how politics works, doing the hard work. But I really think it is just that zeal of the convert. That's what it comes down to.
- [117:54]
A
I think you're right about that. And I've seen, you know, there's a thing. And I know you can relate to this because there are just things, there's look like you read books and that is actually something that separates like the wheat from the chaff in political. There's actually a lot of people who like talk about politics for a living, who like just, just don't know anything about this. And there's a thing when you, when, when you do, like when you're obsessed with this and you read books and you're. There's a thing that I already know without ever talking to you about this. I was talking about this With Mike and Natalie earlier today. But you're always 10 books behind. You're all. There's always a stack of books that like, I should have read all of this and I haven't. You know what I mean? And authors that are like, great authors that I know, I want to read their book, but God damn, I just got to read this other thing. And then I got read the news all day and then you. And there's this thing that happens. My buddy Lewis, Lewis J. Gomez, hilarious comedian. And he's. He has a bit about this and his acts really, really funny. But he was always like a big, tough guy, like my whole life, you know, he was always like the guy, like, if someone says, like, why don't we go outside and see who the fuck's up now? And then he started learning how to fight. He started like taking jiu jitsu and boxing and. And he was like, I am so much less confident in my ability to fight now that I actually know how to fight. Because as you know how to fight, you also learn how many people know how to fight better than you. And you become a blue belt. And then you realize, every purple belt can kick my ass. And then if you're in some confrontation with a guy at a bar, you'd be like, I really hope he's not a purple belt because this guy might fuck me up. But anyway, likewise, there's this thing where, like, the more you learn, the more you're aware of how little you actually know. You know, you read one book on a subject and you feel like you know the whole subject. I just read 300 pages on a subject, then you read 10 books on it and you're like, oh, fuck, I don't know anything about this. So you're constantly in this world where you're like, fuck me, man, I don't know anything. Sometimes I reread a book that I read once and then I forget shit that's in it and I'm like, God damn, I don't even know what I know. Forget all the shit I don't know. Then someone comes by who's read no books, and they go, you don't know what you're talking about. And you're like, motherfucker, I know I don't know what I'm talking about, but you really don't know what you're talking about. And dude, I got a lot of it when I was in the Dan Blazerian thing where you do. You see, it's people who are red pilled this year.
- [119:54]
B
Yep.
- [119:55]
A
Lecturing me about how you're just unwilling to have conversations about the jq. Like, motherfucker, I have taken no end of shit over the years for being super willing to have these conversations. You don't know what you're talking about. You know, and so I do think that's a lot of it, is that it's just like, look, I understand there's this rush for everyone. You learn something. It's like this new power. I got information, I want to go tell it to everyone. But there is a bit of a responsibility to like actually do your fucking homework. Like, this isn't that easy. You gotta work at this. And a lot of them, it just seems to me are like really operating on like the most base framework of like, it's about the Jews and you won't admit it's about the Jews. And you're like, listen, dude, I remember there was one, I saw a show you did after our last podcast and I had said at one point there on the last show that I was like, you know, I've never completely been convinced on the JFK or the 911 conspiracy. Like, I've just read enough to like ask some questions, but I don't know, like, there's 50 different theories about who exactly had JFK killed. No question. Him and Ben Gurion were beefing and he was trying to get nuclear inspection. No, look, maybe that's the answer. Nine, 11, the dancing Israelis, if you look into, it's pretty fucking shady, high level Saudi involvement. Anyway, I'm just not completely convinced. Maybe it is Israel, but I'm not convinced. And then someone was saying to you like one of your super chats was like, he's clearly controlled opposition because look, he doesn't believe this and obviously that's his role. And you went, either that or it's a difference of opinion. Like that's also possible too, right? And so you just have a lot of this kind of low order thinking. People are very excited with this new idea, but the problem is, like, you actually don't have the background on all of this information. Like, you don't really know the details here. There's a lot of that.
- [121:39]
B
That's exactly what it is. And you know, that was part of how him and I fell out is because I met him a couple years ago and, and he was all gung ho, wanted to talk about Hitler and the Holocaust and all this stuff. And we started to have this divergence, let's say around the time of my debate with Dinesh d', Souza, which is about a year ago. I think it was June last year during the war.
- [122:00]
A
I remember.
- [122:01]
B
Yeah, yeah. And. And I remember I debated Dinesh. Everybody loved the debate. They all said, I did a good job. You know, I remember Steve Bannon loved it. He wanted to play it on his channel on Rumble and everything. And Dan texted me and said, well, you know, it's all just about fucking Israel. Israel is the one that caused the war. You should have just said that. I'm like, well, you know, I did say that. I said, however, the argument that people are making is that Iran is this, like, nuclear breakout state. And I said, so in order to convince people about this, we have to sort of address that. We have to deal with that intellectually. He's like, well, it's just fucking Israel. I got it. And it's like, okay. And then. And then it was on Tucker Carlson and a few other interviews. I did these interviews, and he texts me and says, are you controlled opposition? You never talk about the Jews anymore. I'm like, me. I'm like, what are you talking about? He's like, your last few interviews. I said, I believe we touched on that in Tucker and on the Jack Neal podcast. He goes, yeah, but you didn't talk about it enough. I'm like, so am I supposed to sit there and just the entire thing is going to be, it's the Jews, it's the Jews. Every interview, the entire time. And for them, the answer is yes. And even about running for office. He said, you know, I want to run for office. I said, oh, yeah? What are you thinking? I want to run for governor. I'm like, what are you going to do about Israel from the governor's mansion? I said, that's a statewide office that doesn't deal with foreign policy. I said, you should run for a federal office because that's where you deal with those things. Well, I don't know. I just think it's like a good platform, a blah, blah. And I would always tell him, whenever we get in a fight, I would say, you know what, Dan? Call me when you're ready to get serious. You know? I said, because you don't know what you're talking about. You're not even interested in knowing what you're talking about. You just want to go on Twitter and tweet the same thing every day. And even when he'd call me on the phone, he was always giving me the speech about how The Jews did 9, 11 and JF. I'm like, Dan, I know I red pilled you I red pilled a lot of people. Like, you're preaching to the choir, man. What are we doing here? So, yeah, it's a very frustrating phenomenon, this red pilled yesterday thing.
- [123:59]
A
Well, it's. And, and yeah, look, I mean, look, I feel like even when me and you have these discussions, sometimes I feel like we're talking past each other and sometimes they'll, they'll be. I've felt that way a couple times when you've like responded to things in our, in our ceasefire, in our loosely held. Our ceasefire has held for the years. It was tested a few times where I just felt, I feel like we're talking past each other. But like with these guys, I'm just like, I don't. What are you even saying? They're like, it's. No, you keep saying it's Israel lobby, it's the Jews. He said at one point to me, he goes, I think it was him, maybe someone else. But they go, now see, you, you blame the government of Israel and the Israel lobby, but you don't blame the real culprit, which is Jewish supremacy. And I thought, you know, okay, so like when someone says, oh, it's Israel, no, it's the Jews, it's just like, well, what do we mean? Like what exactly are we saying here? And when you say it's Jewish supremacy, I mean I go, look, Jewish supremacy is certainly a thing. There's really no denying. Go listen to some interviews with some settlers in the west bank and like, yeah, okay, so like there's no question that's real. You look at some of the Epstein emails, you could say he certainly had it there. That is a real thing. I'm not denying that at all. Now every group has some supremacy in it and then there's kind of like light. I don't know. This is what I kind of meant about like bigotry being a spectrum. And you always have a little bit of it. There's always someone who's just like, you know, my, my grandma makes the best meatloaf in all of the town or whatever. And obviously just with any religious view there's always like a tinge of supremacy to a view. Because like, if you're a Christian, then you kind of inherently believe that you have it right and other people have it wrong and that they're kind of going to face some consequences for having it wrong. And you're. And so like. But there's also like, you could have a healthy amount of it where you're not looking at other people. Like they're Animals or like they don't have. Now when it gets to a level like a settler on the west bank, who's going, no, these are animals. And the idea of discussing Palestinians having rights is like, if someone were to tell me or you that like this rabbit has rights, like, what are you talking about? This is like ridiculous. Okay? That's a really big problem. However, to say it's not about Israel or the Israel lobby, it's about Jewish supremacy feels a lot to me. Like a, like kind of the, a left winger like going like, well, no, the problem isn't any of these policies, it's racism. And you're like, yeah, but now you're kind of just fighting like a ghost. Like, you know, like, how about it's about the policy, you know, like, if we were alive in 1845, we should be against slavery, not against white supremacy or whatever. Like, who cares what thought someone has in their mind in the same sense? Like, who cares if Dan Blizzerian just doesn't like Jews? Like, whatever. That's your right to have that. But I do think, and tell me if you think I'm wrong about this. I do think that that level of Jewish supremacy like, that I've seen out of settlers in the west bank that you read in the Epstein files, this is something that I've never encountered amongst Jews, like in my life. Like the average Jew that I knew in Brooklyn or whatever growing up, like, maybe you would have like a little bit of a tinge of like some pride that Jews did this and Jews did that, but never a, like, oh, and this person who's not a Jew is not human. That they are like, like, I don't know, I've just. So I actually don't really think that's the main problem. And then also, as we talked about last time, I mean, look, there's obviously lots of, first off, there's lots of Jews who are atheists who are involved in, in all of this. And there's lots of at least self identifying Christians who are involved in this too. And it's not because they believe in Jewish supremacy. It's because they believe in a whole lot of other things that we would disagree with. But does that make sense?
- [127:45]
B
Yeah, no, I agree. And what I would say, because I always disagreed with him, he would always say the fucking problems, Jewish supremacy. And like, you know, they're, they can't even find the words for it. They can't even find like the right conceptually. They don't fully understand it. And so he would always Go back to. If you watch any interview, it's the same speech. Well, you know, in their Tal mood, it says that, you know, and that's why Israel wants to kill everybody and whatever. And it's like, yeah, I know that article that you're talking about and I kind of know the premise. And I would say that, you know, what makes Judaism different is that one, it's an ethno religion, you know, because it is based on that maternal lineage. So that's one aspect of it. And the other aspect of it is that it's not universal, it's exclusionary. So Christianity and Islam will both say, if you're a Muslim, all you have to do is say the Shahada, which is, you know, God's the only God, Muhammad's his prophet, you're a Muslim, if you're a Christian, it's baptism, Eucharist, whatever, you know, your sect is, it's one of the sacraments or it's the baptism or, or it's even saying, Christ is my Lord and Savior, I'm safe forever. So the universal. And they're not ethnic, so anybody could be Christian, anybody could be Muslim. Jews, however, have that ethnicity and there's no conversion. And what's more, there's different prescriptions. For Jews, they have to follow the law. For non Jews, they have the Noahide laws. And the non Jews don't have the same expectations because Jews don't believe they're capable of agency like the religious Jews don't think they really have culpability in the same way, which is. But to your point, not every Jew is religious. And even the religious Zion, or rather the early Zionists were not religious Zionists, they were secular Zionists, which is a very important distinction. And so what I would say is the religion is a very important part of Jewish nationalism, Jewish culture, Jewish identity even, for example.
- [129:39]
A
Well, that's why even the secular ones used it.
- [129:41]
B
Exactly.
- [129:41]
A
Yeah.
- [129:42]
B
Well, and Leo Strauss is a perfect example. Strauss was a follower of Baruch Spinoza who said, you know, the Old Testament's all fake, but Strauss said that like in Israel they should teach the Old Testament because that's like who we are. There's like this deep contradiction that at once he was a secular humanist, but also he really believed in the importance of like Jewish tradition and sort of saying that you believe it even if you don't really. And I would really say the real problem to pinpoint it, it is something to do with Jewishness or Jewish nationalism in the sense that it's the self advocacy For a separate and distinct tribe. It's this competing identity that, you know, like let's say, for example, Israel. Israel is actually a project of American and European Jewry. It spawned from the organized Jewish groups and money and political influence of Jews in New York and Jews in London and Jews.
- [130:35]
A
Yeah, no question about that. Sure.
- [130:36]
B
And so to me there's like a superstructure where Israel is just a part of a larger umbrella that is transnational. And what binds them together is that they have this Jewish identity. And I saw there was something from Bill Maher the other day. Bill Maher?
- [130:51]
A
Yeah, I saw this. This is crazy, dude.
- [130:54]
B
He kind of vindicated me in a certain way. And maybe Dan for that matter, he goes, and he's obviously a liberal atheist degenerate pervert. I mean, he's as, he's as progressive as it gets. No, not religious in any way, shape or form. And I don't even think he's a Jewish supremacist per se. However, he says, you know, Hassan Piker, Nick Fuentes, they're all crazy. Dan Bilzerians and exterminationists, Tucker and Canis, Nick Fuentes, they're terrible. He goes, the professors at Harvard, they say things that would make Hamas blush. He said, and Israel exists because anti Semitism will always be around. And you sort of see how like there's a self reinforcing thing where like Jews feel like they're under attack, so then they become more insular and more tribal. That's why we need Israel. And so that's sort of the tension that's always existed is in an open society, can the Jews really be entrusted with tons of influence because they act as this group and they're, they're never going to see themselves as part of this propositional identity. Like, well, I'm just American or I'm German or because they're always going to say, yeah, but my grandma was Jewish and we were persecuted.
- [132:02]
A
So that I, I agree with everything you said up until that last sentence, up until they're never going to see them because I actually, they're unassemblable. Well, I don't think that's true. And I think actually that it's already drastically changed. I mean, if you just look at like a lot of that stuff almost like in the same way, like if you saw with Thomas Massie was a good example of the poll where they showed by age and it was so crazy because like 70 to 80, he's like negative 55 and then like 20 to 30 is plus 55. And it's. And just so much of our politics almost breaks down by this age group. And it's even. It might even be 50 and under, although, like, it changes with. But the young Jews have like, totally rejected almost all of this shit. And in the same way as young people around the country have rejected Israel over Gaza and their influence on the U.S. government. I mean, dude, Mamdani won here.
- [132:51]
B
That's true.
- [132:52]
A
And you know, he took like 40% of the Jewish vote, like, for the. I don't know. You know, I know we talked about this last time. I know on the war in Iraq, the Jews were one of the leading demographics against it, but that's not really the thing you're talking about here. But I'll say the, the kind of, the, the connection to the Holocaust, which is just in general kind of true, just gets more and more distant with, with the years. And there is a huge, huge gap between like, even my parents generation and my generation and how like, kind of emotionally attached to that trauma they are. And then of course, from that trauma comes all of the, you know, kind of propaganda that's built on, like, that's why we need Israel and that's why the lesson forever is World War II, no matter what. So I do, I disagree with that. I do think there's like, like, where I guess I would agree with you is that I do think. And I think I, I mean, I call this out pretty regularly on my show and on other very big platforms that you, you can't do that. Jews, like, that's kind of my message to you. You can't, you can't. You can't be 2% of the population and have like, hostility against the majority of the population. You can't like, have this game where it's like, hey, we got to all like, let down our tribalism, but I'm going to keep my tribalism. And so I agree with you on that. And there is a degree of that. But at this point, I guess, like, at this point in time, right, like, and you're absolutely right that like, organized Jewish groups were the ones who were pushing Zionism and pushing for the creation of the state of Israel and organized Jewish finance and, you know, things like that. But at this point, we're well beyond that. And at this point, the Israel lobby, like, it doesn't really matter that Ted Cruz isn't Jewish or isn't a Jewish supremacist. Like, it doesn't matter. He's still perpetuating the whole system. And then you have a lot you know, there's a lot of Jews who are against that whole system. So it just seems to me that, like, this leads. Yes, it's very complicated. And there's. And obviously, as you said, I remember speaking of talking past each other, I saw this one clip where you were responding to Tucker Carlson. I'll talk to you a little bit about that, because you guys had the show. I thought it was a great show. Full disclosure, I like both of you guys, you know, but. So you were basically responding to him. And you go, yeah, Tucker, like, you're making this point that, like, oh, we can't believe in blood guilt. We can't believe that in clay. And you're like, yeah, no kidding, dude, I'm Catholic. Like, obviously, I know this. But then you go, the point I'm making is that you can't remove Israel from Jewish identity or from organized. But then my response, what I just thought was like, yeah, but who amongst us is denying that? Like, I don't think so. Like, I think in a weird way, you kind of guys are both agreeing. Like, I don't think, obviously, it has something to do with Jewish identity. Like, I certainly wouldn't sit here and argue that, like, the neoconservatives, Jewish identity had nothing to do with why they wanted to support Israel. Obviously it does. What happened with you and Tucker, like, because you guys had the show, it seemed like you guys were kind of at least reasonably cool. He got, I mean, mountains of shit for. For having you on. And then it seemed like you were offended in kind of the way he handled the aftermath of all that. Is that. Is that right?
- [136:04]
B
Well, he was calling me out. I mean, we did this thing. I thought we were cool, and maybe not even cool, but I thought. I thought we sort of understood each other. And then he started going around and saying the same thing in every interview, which is. Well, I went out there to confront him. I don't agree with his anti Semitism. And I tried to get him to see the light because I told him about blood guilt. And I said, well, that's not really true. Like, you did not bring me out to confront me on antisemitism. And I don't believe I told you at the conversation, I don't believe in blood guilt. And he would say, oh, and I failed. He tried this intervention, and I went away still hating Jews for being Jews. So I said, that's not really true. And then this little speech kept getting worse because he would. He was doing the rounds and all these interviews, and it went from, like, that to. Then it turned into, well, I wanted to let him talk so he could expose himself. You know, some people, if you confront him, you're going to make them look good or, you know, you give them an opportunity to defend themselves. He said, I wanted to basically give him enough rope to hang himself, let him talk, and then you can see how bad he is because he beats up on women, hates women, and he believes in blood guilt. And I want to say, dude, we had dinner for hours and hours. It was nothing but friendly. We had the interview, super friendly as he was attacked for, you know, he didn't give a lot of pushback. And then he texted me the next day saying, hey, man, great interviews, really interesting. I really enjoyed it. I said, so that's just kind of two faced. And so then I just responded and said that that's just a lot of BS and I think that's dishonest.
- [137:34]
A
Yeah. Now, look, I get, I get what you're saying. You know, if I'm trying to be fair about this, I do, because I get it too. Also. I've, believe me, I've had a lot of situations where if I feel like someone's kind of slighting me. And then also there's this weird thing that we have in, in our world of like having shows where like, because like, sometimes I, I've had things like, say, where even like someone who's an enemy. I don't think you consider Tucker an enemy. Really. I think you're. No, maybe. Okay, fair enough. But someone who like, like Dave Rubin will be talking shit about me. And then I'm like, well, now I got to talk shit back about you. Because that's the way this game works. It's like you're saying this publicly. It does feel sometimes when you're in that position where you're like, hey, you're kind of like weaponizing an audience against me now. And my only tool in my toolkit is to do the same thing and try to send them after you. I guess I would say that maybe, maybe this is where I think you were being a little bit unfair. But tell me what you think. I saw that you were upset that he referred to you as an anti Semite after the interview, but I've also seen you refer to yourself as an anti Semite. And so I guess sometimes there's like a little bit of a thing where, you know, even like when I, like whenever I say Dan Blizzerian, I go, look, this Jew hate thing is like, blah, blah. And then they'll go, what are you supposed to mean, Jew hate thing? I'm like, well, what's the term? Like, you. I thought that's what you said it was. Does that make sense to you? So I think I would say this. Tucker is a. I'm a different generation than you. And you can tell that that. That influences the way we see the world. Like, what generation you're born in really does, you know, have it. And there's things that are, like, blind spots for me that you can see, and there's things that maybe are blind spots for you that I can see, because we just kind of have different perspectives. Tucker's a generation older than me. By definition. We're kind of playing different games. And I think that, like, for someone like Tucker, when he's getting in this. This mountain of, you know, like, shit for having you on, when he says that, I. At least the way I took it was he was going like, look, I just want to delineate, like, what I believe and compare to, like. Does that make sense that it's like, if you kind of. Now, look, the thing that makes it tricky with you, and I think I've come to understand you better over the years, is that, look, there's a lot of sarcasm in what you do. There's a lot of humor in what you do. There's a lot of. Like, even when I saw you clarify the statement of why you. You said, I love Stalin. And once you clarify it, you're like, that's not even anything controversial about what you're saying, but you did say it in the most provocative, controversial way. Right? Like, so you say. And you kind of like to do that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But you like to do that. You kind of get a kick out of being like, I'm gonna provoke. And part of the business we're in here is that we're doing shows, we're entertaining people. So that's also part of it. But when you have made all the jokes and you have referred to yourself and you have said things like, what happened to this movement? I thought it was about hating Jews and hating women. That's what I signed up for. Now, I get that that's funny and that. That. But I think once you have said a lot of things like that, it's a little bit harder to then get offended. If someone characterizes you as hating Jews and hating women.
- [140:31]
B
Well, it's not that I got offended, because I.
- [140:33]
A
Whatever word to be annoyed, let's say.
- [140:36]
B
Well, I think he's A liar. I think he's a liar and a toot face, because that's just not. And what's more, I think he knows exactly what he's doing. Because he would go around, he said other stuff, too. Like, he comes out and he goes, well, I had him on because he was attacking my dad and my wife and my kids. And it's like, no, I didn't attack your dad and your wife, your kids. I just said, you called me a Fed. Like, let's get that clear. He went on Candace Owens or had Candace Owens on his show and said, I think Nick is like David Duke. He's a CIA agent. He's the Fed. And all I said was, oh, really? I'm the Fed? Your dad ran Voice of America for the CIA. He was a Reagan appointee. So. So that turns into, you attacked my family and that's why. And it's like, so that's a fucking lie. And then he goes into. It wasn't just like, well, he's an anti Semite and I'm not. It turns into. It was this intervention, slash. I was going to expose him by letting him talk. It was this, like, little trick where I'm going to let him talk and sell this controversial stuff and then he's going to look like an asshole. And then he goes and says, I'm irrelevant, you know? Then last week, did he say that. Yes, in the New York Times. Why are we talking about irrelevant?
- [141:47]
A
I don't mean. I don't think he meant that you're irrelevant. As if. As in, you don't have. I mean, look, I don't think anyone would say you're irrelevant at this point. I mean, I guess we're all. We're all irrelevant. I think he was. Maybe I'm wrong, but I did listen to that interview and I had a different takeaway. I think he was making the point that, like, this is a giant distraction now, which is a fair point that, like, guys, you want. It is ridiculous that there is so much talk over, like, Tucker had Nick Fuentes on. I mean, it was just like a ridiculous. Especially when, like, there's a war going on right now and you're talking about, like, whether you talk to the wrong people. I guess. Listen, I get your point. I can't listen. I don't know. Maybe I would feel the same way if I were in your shoes.
- [142:27]
B
Well, I just want to say I think he knows what he's doing. People like to think it's like, we're two people. We're not two People, we're two political actors. He's a political actor with his own agenda. And I think everybody recognizes he's an operator. He's plays dumb on his show. He's smarter than people give him credit for. He talks to the leaders in the Gulf countries and UAE and Saudi and Qatar, and he's an operator. And I think, think, let's be honest. I think he brought me on the show to do something to neutralize me. I. Either to hurt my reputation or to bring me on side to whatever him and Vance are doing or something like that. It didn't go the way he thought. And now I think he's sort of resumed where he has been for years with me for four, three. Four years, which is. He wants. He thinks that I'm preoccupied with race, religion, too, anti Semitic, whatever. And so now he wants to be dismissive towards me. So I think it's like, it's a little more strategic than maybe you think, perhaps.
- [143:27]
A
I mean, I've. Listen, I. I've spent time with Tucker and had long conversations with him. I, I think he's a genuine guy. I really do. Again, I could be wrong about that. But that is my perception. Like, if he's acting, he's doing a really good job of.
- [143:40]
B
I think he's doing a bad job. He asked, what is porn? I'm like, you're asking me what porn?
- [143:44]
A
No, but he does. But that's the thing. He. He sets up questions like that. That's almost like an old interview style in a way. I think that I will say this where I agree with you and I said this last time you were here, which was before I knew you were going on the show. In fact, I believe you told me after we recorded that you were like, I'm going on next. Where I was like, oh, shit. I didn't realize that. But he was wrong to call you a fed with Candace there. And I just think that that really is our N word, you know what I mean? Like really, you really shouldn't throw that out unless you're coming with some type of receipts or some type of proof of, of that stuff. And you know, in the. Literally, I don't know. All I know is I'm not a fed. That's all I know for sure. That's all you know, like, all. Any of it. We always don't know and we kind of wonder. But that is. There is something about that accusation which is. It's fucked up because it's, it's the same thing that like, like leftists would do where they go at your intentions instead of taking on your argument type thing. Like, if you, if you were to start making. If you went to any college today and just started making an argument about like average IQ statistics, they're trained to immediately not even hear what you're saying, but to immediately hear what your motives must be. The only reason you could be saying this is because you are secretly some type of Nazi who wants to. Do you know what I mean? And so, like, there's the point of, of the accusation of bigotry is to get people to dismiss you without hearing what you have to say. I think it's also the. You know what. But whether it's the intention or not, that's what accusing someone of being a Fed does too. And so I don't think people should make those accusations unless you've got some reason for making them. Or so, you know, like. No, this is why I really think. Now, Tucker obviously was a figure of the establishment, and yes, his father was in the government and all of that, no question. And yes, he goes and meets with leaders around the world, but also, you know, he's been the number one rated cable news show for many years and now one of the biggest podcasters, debatably the biggest kind of conservative voice in the country. That doesn't really seem to be evidence of anything to me. Like, yeah, maybe they would. I'm sure they would like to meet with anybody on that level who was advocating against a US War or something like that. No. Am I being hopelessly naive?
- [145:56]
B
Well, I, I would say it's a, you know, it's a pretty big story with Tucker. The dad was at Voice of America, is. Tucker's nephew works for Palantir. The son works for Vance.
- [146:06]
A
And I don't think anymore.
- [146:08]
B
No, not as of a couple months ago.
- [146:10]
A
Yeah.
- [146:11]
B
Tucker got $15 million for TCN from 1789 Capital, which is.
- [146:16]
A
Is that true? Is that real?
- [146:18]
B
Yes. From Omid Malik, and that's. And Chris Buskirk, who's a Teal guy. That was like teal's main guy, which is an offshoot of Rockbridge Network, which is Advanced Project. And Tucker said he consults Peter Thiel before every major life decision. He's tight with Joe Kent, who's a CIA officer. Everywhere you look, there's. And listen, I'm not trying to say he's a Fed. I'm just saying he's. He's something more than he lets on. He's. He's more of an operator. He's. In other words, let's just say he's not just some dude fly fishing with his fucking dogs in Maine, hanging out with this checkered shirt.
- [146:52]
A
Well, he does do that too.
- [146:54]
B
He does it, but like he makes it out like, like he's just one of us. And some, some kid at the Turning Point thing said your net worth is $50 million. Like, what are you talking about? And he's like, don't believe everything you read on the Internet. It's like, sorry, your net worth is $20 million. Like, what, what's. It's a difference without a distinction. So I, I think there's something going on there and I will, I will add to that. You say about the Fed thing. Yeah, it is like, it's bad faith and it's dismissive and it's a, it's aimed at your credibility. It's like, don't listen to this person. But he also came back in the New York Times piece and said kind of same thing he said to Megyn Kelly also, which is, Nick Fuentes is a useful tool of the regime. Why? He said, because there's a right and left consensus that the economic and foreign policy of the elites is not working. He said, and the only thing that matters is economics. Those are gonna be the most impactful resonant issues in the future among the younger generations. He said. More so than immigration, race or religion. He said. So someone like Nick Fuentes is a convenient diversion because if everybody's talking about him and his ideas, which are race, religion, demographics, whatever he said, then no one's going to talk about why investments are taxed less than labor, you know, why the capital gains tax is lower and more easy to manipulate than the tax for like a W2 person on income. And it's. So this is like an actual ideological political divide where he really believes that if only the white identitarians would get out of the way, if only the so called real anti Semites would get out of the way, then the sort of like left leaning economic populists like Tucker and Anna Kasparian and Cenk Uygur and you know, all these people could get together and we could elect some kind of like populist ticket or something that, and so there's something very specific he's saying. It's very precise and I think it lines up with, he is 100% behind the political trajectory of Vance. They're asking about Vance and he goes, they say, when's the last time you talked to him? I don't know, days, weeks, months. I have no Idea. Why'd your son get fired? I don't know. Ask him. Really? You don't know? I don't know. And it's not cool that you're asking me that. People are out to get J.D. vance. Really? Who? I have no idea. Like, and moreover, he said, I'm not gonna answer these questions because I don't want to hurt JD and, you know, my interview with Nick is going to hurt him. Blah, blah, blah. He's 100% behind Vance. And I think that Vance going to nat con, being a part of that thing, he represents this kind of, like, left economic populism, populist nationalism thing that he thinks I'm in the way of, which is convenient because I'm against J.D. vance as well, in particular. So to me, that it's like a. There's a real battle going on. It's not a misunderstanding.
- [149:43]
A
Well, I'll say this without, you know, like, I don't like to give away private conversations, but I'm not saying anything Tucker said. I'm just saying what I said. But I was very clear with him the last time we hung out that I was like, well, I go. And I maybe said this partly because I wanted to kind of see his reaction to it, but I was like, well, the JD project is over, you know, And I went, no, there's no way. I mean, come on, none of us can support him now. And it doesn't even matter if you wanted to, because he can't win. That's over. And he didn't bat an eye at it. It didn't seem like it was, like, a problem for him. Now, again, that doesn't really prove anything because maybe that's still his plan for down the road. And he's like, okay, well, that's the issue right now. So I will say this. Yeah, fuck J.D. vance. Like, there's. There's no. Well, I'm just saying, like, that's it. Dude, you can't be that. Listen, it was already a long shot that J.D. vance would ever be capable of doing this, to be honest. Just like, as we were talking about before, on a pure charisma level, yes. J.D. vance just doesn't really have it. And don't get me wrong, he's smart in a way that Donald Trump isn't smart, you know, like, and he's good at, like, in a more substantive way, dealing with, like, a hostile cnn, you know, host or something like that, where he can actually kind of make points. Right. Donald Trump would just have slogans and dismiss them and win with bravado, but he can actually get in and argue. But he's just not a charismatic figure that's just. Which is kind of a prerequisite for leadership. You know, like it just, it just kind of is what it is. But being attached to this administration, I think that's all over. I think that it is possible here that you and Tucker are kind of talking past each other. And I think that there is again, keeping ages in mind. There is something where, look, I was like, I am I guess to some degree an economic populist, but with a very different economic program than say a left leaning populace would have. I think that there is a point, a real point to be made that the, the regime doesn't like focusing on economic realities and that that really is at the heart of a lot of what the problem is in America now. Those economic realities are a reality because of other problems. So it's complicated. But you know, like the fact that the average first time home buyer is 40 is death to a nation. Like that's. If you have that, then me and you talking about social conservatism is just a fucking exercise in futility. It doesn't matter, dude, if 25 year old guys can't afford to get a house, you know, like you have to be you in order to afford to get a fucking house at 25. Maybe not at 25, but now you could, whatever. I don't know when you are allowed to make money again. But I'm just saying like there's. So I do think that like I understand the perspective of thinking that like, look, these kind of like racialist issues and culture war issues and all of these things, they do distract from the fact that the entire economy is rigged on behalf of the powerful and is absolutely just devastating young people. And I do think that that's. I think you speak to a lot of that. I think that's part of the reason why in this time a voice like yours is so popular and powerful is because like, yeah, like a lot of the people you're talking to and I think you're talking to older people as well at this point. But a lot of the people you're talking to are the ones who are dealing with this economic reality. And so I get his point in from his perspective perhaps thinking that like, yeah, talking about like race and stuff like this is a distraction. I also think that there's a desire that I also share. This might be part of my generation too, but there's a desire that I have and of course I'm Jewish, so it's hard to ever be the one. Now, I'm not going to be the one who will ever convince people of, of this. So I accept that. But there's a desire to be like, hey dude, you can really oppose Israel, you can really oppose all these wars, you can really oppose all this shit without getting into some ugly shit where it's just like directed at people. And I understand that that's not what you're saying. Like, you're not saying like this. In fact, I've heard you, without being asked, just say on your show that I'm not saying it's all Jews and I'm not saying there's anything like. And you shouldn't be, I don't know, you shouldn't be shitty to any person because of an immutable characteristic. And you've made very clear that everyone should be protected under the law and things like that. But there is an energy to your movement that I think it just, you know, like you talk about low IQ anti Semitism. That's not unique to you or your audience. All of us have our low IQ portion of our audience. There are low IQ libertarians. Believe me, I've met them. I've called a lot of them out. There's low IQ Democrats, most of them are low IQ Democrat, low IQ Republicans, all of this. But there is something about, and I'm not blaming you for this, but there's something about the low IQ anti Semitism that's a bit more dangerous than the low IQ libertarianism. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's not just going to be someone making goofy arguments about whatever it's. You get into this thing where it does seem like the energy is being built and it is against a group of people rather than like a group of powerful people. Does that make sense?
- [154:38]
B
Well, I mean, I would say that we fight pretty. The me and the Groipers are very much not low IQ anti Semites.
- [154:47]
A
I think that's true. But by and large, yeah, because.
- [154:50]
B
And even with this schism in the past couple weeks, I mean, I don't know that any of my supporters went with Dan Bilzerian and Jake Shields. Like, you know, for example, Dan said on Sneako Stream we're going to exterminate Israel. That's something I would never say. Yeah, that's something that my followers I don't think would ever say. And if, if they believe in that, then they could go and support him. But I will say that it is a clash of civilizations. I do believe that on a fundamental level, it isn't just about a power disparity, like this kind of Marxian lens. It really is about identity. And, you know, for example, you got guys like Shabbos, Kestenbaum. He's not powerful. He's some. He's that kid that's suing Harvard, that Jewish kid. It's like, there's a lot of these guys.
- [155:32]
A
I know. Yeah, I know who you're talking about. Right.
- [155:34]
B
Yeah.
- [155:34]
A
Yeah.
- [155:35]
B
And. And I would say even further. Like, as long as there's that element in the coalition, there's always going to be this expectation that we're paying lip service to that there's always this expectation. To me, it's kind of like an all or nothing proposition. Is it America first or is it not? And. And in any case, I don't know that it's even. I don't know what the danger is. I. I haven't seen any groipers go out and do anything.
- [156:00]
A
No, I guess. I guess. Listen, I'm not trying to. The overall, I think the groipers have been very fair to me over the years. You know what I mean? And so, like, I. My, you know, feeling about generally speaking is like, yeah, generally like, they're cool. I mean, you know, the group is a huge group at this point, so it's impossible to like, completely characterize, you know, all of them. I guess it would just be like, well, I know. I saw. Listen, I don't know. I just don't understand. Again, this is my age. Like, there's some things where I feel like someone like you, I kind of like, okay, I'm kind of interested in you. I recognize that you're important and you're smart, and I'm kind of like, okay, let me kind of figure, you know, out where you're coming from. But then, like, I see guys like, okay, I can't remember his name, but the guy who the. The look. Smack. Singular. Yeah. I'm like, I don't. I don't understand how this is real. Like, I just can't even wrap my head around, like, this actually exists. It's not made by AI. You're telling me this is. And then. But okay, leaving that aside, that was kind of not the point. But who's the guy? The builder. Bob the builder. The builder. I'm sorry. I'm fucking real. I swear to God. I'm not, like, acting like, I don't know. I'm just. I'm sorry. I'm old and I don't understand this shit, but that was one. And I did see your take on this, which I very much appreciate it. This was one of the things that people, I really gave you a lot of praise after Charlie Kirk died. And you really had this, this very serious message on your show where you were like, hey, dude, like, if any of you out there are thinking that like, oh, I'll go do something vi violent, I totally reject you. I denounce you. Like, I don't. It was really important to have like a guy who's a radical, politically speaking, like being like, hey guys, like, no, we're not going down this path. And I did appreciate that you also kind of called this out. I think these are things. Listen, I give you credit for this because I think it's an integrity move. I think sometimes it goes against your incentives. Like, it'd be easier for you to just not have to deal with that and go, yeah, you, it's free speech, bro.
- [157:51]
B
Right?
- [157:51]
A
If you want to go call black people the N word to their face, that's your God given right or something. Now, I'm not even commenting on the actual criminal case because my understanding of this is that it wasn't when he was doing a video. It was like some other time and he didn't actually provoke this guy. I don't know, we'll see. But there is, I don't know, there's something worrying, forget making about you or the groipers. Something worrying about like society more broadly. When you're kind of like, guys, what are we doing here? Like, you're going at first of all, like, even whatever opinion you have of black people, like, how about just an opinion on like manners and decency and like, why are you creating a situation here? I also, I could, in fact, me and Mike, our producer, we were talking about this earlier. I actually can make like a advanced libertarian theory argument for why I think the black dude has a right to punch him for saying the N word. And I don't mean that, I don't mean to be a dick. Like, I believe in the non aggression principle principle as a libertarian. But like I, I genuinely, if I walk up to a man with his wife on the street and I walk up to the two of them and I go, hey, sir, your wife's a whore. I believe that I have consented to a fistfight with that guy. Like in the same sense that if you go to a restaurant and eat the food, you've made an implicit contract that you have to pay them now for this. Right? Like in the same sense, I do Kind of look at, like, I don't think you're a free speech warrior if you're going, oh, are you going to ape out? Are you going to chimp out on me? You're kind of calling this dude an animal to his face in front of an audience. To me, that's a challenge to a fight. Right? You know, I don't know. Do you. How do you.
- [159:26]
B
I do, yeah. And. And that's where I think me and the gripers are, actually. And I have said this for a very long time, and for a long time, people didn't even have a clue what I was talking about. They thought it was ridiculous. But we actually are a moderating force in a very good way in the sense that, you know, people do look to me as the radical, the dissident, the guy for those issues. And I am a Christian, I am Catholic. We are against that stuff. And, and so, like, I think, for example, last time we spoke, there were those Goyim Defense League guys in Florida. They were shooting Jewish people with water guns. And I said, that's not going anywhere good. And now it's this situation with Chud the Builder. And, yeah, I'm getting a lot of hate for this. I'm getting shit on for it. You're right. People are saying, oh, he's a free speech martyr, he's a warrior, whatever. And you want to say, yeah, I mean, do we want to live in a society where everybody's a public nuisance? Live streaming, challenging everybody to a fight, and it's just not nice? I mean, the, the hill we want to die on is that if people commit crimes, they get arrested, and people are considerate and polite in public, you know, we just have, like you said, decency and manners. Not that we're going to, like. Yeah, I could say the N word to a person's face. And if you get mad, that's your problem. It's like, I don't think that was ever actually the struggle. Like, that's not actually the civil rights battle of our times.
- [160:45]
A
Right.
- [160:45]
B
It's more like just don't freak out at Spirit Airlines, you know, like, just use an indoor voice.
- [160:50]
A
Well, by the way, I agree with you about you being a moderating force in a lot of ways, you know, and not in all ways, but like, in a lot of ways. And that's kind of the point I was making about the Charlie Kirk thing. I think it's. There's a real dynamic there, right, with, like, even with Trump, you know, when people would make this argument a Lot in the first term where it's like, he's not the river, he's the dam. He's here because there's this, you know, this environment that's rich for him. And I do think, yeah, it's like people who want to like, oh, we should take out Nick Fuentes. You're like, yeah, wait till you get The Nick Fuentes 2.0 who's not a Christian.
- [161:21]
B
Right.
- [161:22]
A
You know what I mean? Who like really might be ready to be like, yeah, I don't care. I don't have any of these restraints on me that like, you're not allowed to be violent or something like that. No, I agree with you. And in fact, by the way, with this one with the chud, the builder guy, I said libertarians also taking a hard line around it because it may not be like they love him because he's racist, but they're the free speech absolutists and of course they're libertarian autists. So everything is black and white. And either you're for free speech or you're for this. And that's my role as the libertarian day walker is to be like, well, actually guys, there's. I know you've got your theory on paper down front, but there's also this thing called like human nature. And that's also very important to deal with, I think. Yeah, I mean, I, I think you're, you're right that there's just with a lot of these things also some of it can just be reduced down to like, guys, what is productive about this?
- [162:15]
B
Right?
- [162:15]
A
What is going to help? Like, this actually doesn't make things better. And yeah, getting in people's faces, squirting water guns at people, whatever it is. It's like this does remind me a bit of even say like the left wingers remember when it was throw a milkshake.
- [162:30]
B
Yeah.
- [162:30]
A
And they would kind of, they would very intentionally make it like, what are you mad about a little milkshake? And you're like, dude, first of all, you fucking throw something at me, like, I might assault you. I don't know, like, but. And also then you don't know what's in the milkshake, like all these things. But you're like, yeah, this, this is a really dangerous game to start playing. And it does feel like we almost, we got a little bit away from this threat of like woke leftism. Part of this is, I think it's because of the wars are more distracting to them. So now they're like against the genocide and it Makes it harder to be against Nick Fuentes, right, When you're against the genocide and he's also against the genocide, but he's the bad guy, you know, like, it confuses him a little bit. But yeah, I just think it's a really. A really bad path to go down. And I don't know anything else about this guy. I don't, like, root for him to go to jail for a long time. I hate the fact that his life's ruined over this or something. This is just bad all around. But at the same time, you also. And I think this is something you get that some of the others do not, is that. Well, first off, there's like, being righteous. Like, be the good guy. Be the one. Be, be. Right. And then you don't have to, you know, and then there's also just optics where you're like, dude, how do you think this looks to everyone else in the fucking room? You know, like, if you've got an argument about, like, Jewish supremacy or the Israel lobby or whatever, like, make your compelling argument. But as soon as you're the guy who's doing that shit, it. Almost any decent person who maybe otherwise would have heard your argument is going to go, dude, this is just not for me. I want no parts of this at all.
- [163:57]
B
Yeah, well, yeah, I like what you said. Just be the good guy. You know, like, and I said it on my show, like, the. These scenes that are being created are not good. Like these protests, the. The public nuisance, live streaming. It's just like this big circus. Everybody's yelling at each other, everybody's in each other's faces. Everybody gets arrested. I said, ultimately, who is this good for? Because Chud the Builder himself, his life is over. He's destroyed. I mean, who knows, maybe they'll let him off with some of these charges, but he's got a baby mama and a kid. Their lives are destroyed. Everybody around him is annoyed by this. If you go in public, you ruin everybody's day. And then, you know, it just turns into this big, ugly public spectacle that divides people. And look, you're gonna divide people no matter what. But I think that you gotta do it by doing the right thing, you know, And I. I'm an advocate for, especially my young audience, to just simply rise above. Just be the best version of yourself. Be an ambassador, be a representative of your views, be Christian, you know, go out and be. Be forgiving, be benevolent, be. Return antipathy with kindness. Like, that's how we actually make the world better. I don't Think we make the world better by becoming worse, you know, or resorting to lowering ourselves to the level of our enemy, Our worst impulses. Yeah, that's kind of my message.
- [165:11]
A
Well, I love that. I think that's a great message. Okay, there's a couple more things that I want to ask you. Mike, how long have we been going for? 240. Okay. You good to go? A little longer. Okay, great. Okay. So I wanted to ask you a bit about. Okay. I want to ask you about Sneako, because you and him are kind of like the two guys I know in that world. Like. Well, I don't know in my conception of that world whether this is accurate or not. And I know you guys have had like a little bit of a falling out. I haven't seen the whole thing, but now, again, I don't know Sneako super well, but I like the guy. He seems like. I think I've only. I think I met him in person once. And then I've been on his show like a few times, but we text occasionally and stuff. He was one of the guys who's trying to connect me with Dan Blizzard. That didn't work out, but. So, like, I knew that, you know, I don't know all the details of like your guys friendship or falling out or any of that stuff, but it did just. Cause I know you both and I kind of like both of you. And I was just like, oh, that's almost like kind of a little bit of a bummer that you guys aren't friends. I thought you guys were boys. What happened? But I don't know. I guess maybe. Maybe there's been more to it than. Than what I know about. But are you guys cool? Are you not friends now?
- [166:22]
B
I don't know. I don't know where we are right now. We're kind of off and on. We're always fighting. It's always over stupid personal stuff. And the latest thing is I was supposed to come out here and I was gonna do a collab with him, or at least I thought I was. But he doesn't want to collab with me because he doesn't want people to think he's taken my side over Dan and Jake. And I said, bro, I'm not even asking you to take my side. I said, let's just do a collab. But he doesn't want to alienate all his other friends. I said, well, ouch. Like, if you were f. He was fighting with the Tates not too long ago.
- [166:58]
A
I saw that.
- [166:58]
B
Yeah. After the club Accost. I would have went on a stream after that, but so, but so. It always turns into something like this.
- [167:07]
A
That was dirty, though, dude. I mean, what the toast did to him was fucking dirty. And I got just full disclosure on. What did you call it? Club.
- [167:15]
B
I was Club Accost.
- [167:16]
A
Club Accost. Okay, that's great. Club. Okay, so here's, by the way, my entire take, which I think I believe I texted this to Sneako the day after I said something. Like, I said, adam from PBD and the Tates are being gigantic. Clubs are gay. Don't ever go to them again. The song is funny. Like, that was my take on the whole thing was just like, it's like, I don't know what you're doing in a club, Nick Fuentes, but, like, don't go to clubs, dude. Like, what do you do? It's the worst place on earth is the dumbest. Listen, I. Again, I didn't like clubs even when I was young, but whatever I do, I will say this is my perspective on it. I, I, I don't give a shit at all about playing the Kanye. So the fact that that's a controversy has got to be one of the dumbest controversies ever. Like, first of all, it's Kanye West. Like, I don't know. It's Kanye West. He's a fucking icon. Like, it's not like, also, the song is clearly hilarious. Like, it's just. It's almost like, what world are you living in where you think, like, this was a real. Like, I don't know. It's. It's a hilarious song that is clearly, like, it's almost. It's. It's the equivalent of. Well, maybe you won't like this comparison, but it's the equivalent of, like, Marilyn Manson ripping the Bible on stage. And in some ways, there's something kind of interesting about it because you're kind of showing. No, this is the real religion. You know what I mean? Like, this is the real religion that you actually worship. So I'm just like, tearing up your holy book because I believe it's bullshit, you know? So I thought that was also. It's whatever. So I didn't care. But there was something that I saw in the little bit of that stuff was when there was like a. It was like Andrew Tate and his guys, and they were like. So from my perspective, I look at this, I look at you and Sneako, who I like, I look at the Clav, who I don't believe is real, and I just go, you're young. I don't know, I don't fucking understand exactly what your culture is. It's a different culture than when I was young. But then I see these like 40 year old guys. They are with you, first of all, 40 year old guys being at a club at all is just the lamest thing in the world if you ask me. My humble opinion. But then I literally see them like trying to school the 20 year olds about how you should never listen to a woman. What are you doing having a conversation with them? And I actually. So just from my perspective, I don't give a shit about the Kanye song. I think that's pretty funny, actually. I think that is disgusting, dude. I think it's fucking disgusting to be a man in your fucking 40s, a glorified pimp essentially. And what you're imparting to the young guys is like, yeah, dude, we don't listen to these bitches. Like, what are you, 17? Dude, this is how I talked when I was 17. Like, then you grow up and you're like, yeah, actually I do listen to my wife. Yeah, like we actually have conversations and stuff like that. I know, it's so cringe. It's gay. I know, but like, I don't. And listen, I know you're young and you don't have a wife and a family yet. You know, I hope you get one at some point. I also understand, like, your life is a particularly wild one and so. Okay, fair enough. I would still highly recommend it because it's the best thing you'll ever do in your life is like get married and have a family. But like, there is something about like older men kind of like discouraging that in younger men that I do think is like profoundly wrong. Okay, so that's, whatever. That's my little rant on that. I thought it was really fucked up the way they threw Sneako under the bus on Patrick bet David's show. Not. I shouldn't say they. I guess it was just Andrew who was on the show, but then I think his brother did the same thing where you're like, dude, once you go there and do it, you just got to own that you did that. You can't come back and go, well, I didn't think it was a good idea to play the thing. It was Sneako who did it. And I just thought that was really fucked up. Like, either you're going to all go down for that. Go down. No one's being affected by this. But either you're going to all take the week long controversy or you're not. Or you can apologize. And you, if you want to. If you feel like you did something wrong, you get. But, like, to throw the other guy under the bus. I know. I thought that was fucked up.
- [171:08]
B
Well, yeah, I would just say to Sneako that he should just try unifying with them. I think he should, because that's. You know, when Dan Bilzerian called me a fed, Sneako texted me and said, you know, you just need to focus on unity. Charlie Kirk was a unifier, and that was his strength. So I'm going to say the same thing as Sneako. I think he should just unite with Andrew Tate. And, you know, it's kind of his fault that Andrew attacked him, because he's looking for leadership. Sneako needs to step up and be the leader. All right, so you're being attacked.
- [171:33]
A
Sneako's hypocrisy. Something here.
- [171:35]
B
But about the club. Here's what I will say about that and about Andrew Tate in particular. You know, it is true, though, that there is just this epidemic of simping that's going on. That's the only reason.
- [171:47]
A
No question.
- [171:47]
B
Because I. You know, as a Christian, I'm also in favor of having a family. And, you know, Christians are pro woman on some level, I guess. You know, they're more. More pro woman than, like, let's say pagans on some level. But, you know, they say that in an environment where all the women are whores, they're all gaslight, all lie. And so men do need to kind of wisen up to this. So, you know, I do. And what's more about the club, I mean, the way it came together, we were all just hanging out. We're at this party, and we were like, wouldn't it be funny if we brought Nick to the club? Like, wouldn't. Because it's like me, and I'm like, kind of hilarious autistic person. Whatever. So, like, we're gonna take him to the club for this first time it. Let's just go. And we went. And, yeah, I hate. The club's like, an evil place, Satanic. Like, just destroy all clubs, den of whores, you know, Like, I hate. I really, you know, so. So, yeah, I will not be returning. I don't see the appeal. I go, I don't get it. Or I went, I suppose I don't get it. I don't. But I don't drink. I don't.
- [172:49]
A
It's. It's for dumb people. The club is for dumb people.
- [172:53]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [172:54]
A
It's like, meet someone without having to talk to them. You know what I mean? Like, it's just. It's inherently kind of like, just like a weird sport. Like, if you're at all a guy, like, even back in my single days, if you're a guy who, like, your game, relies at all on, like, I'm going to be witty or charming or funny or I'm going to be interesting, then the club's the last place you want to be. Like, the club's like, I got nothing to say, but I got abs. So you want to, like, rock with me? I don't know. It's. No, listen, I. I get the point that there's no question, right? There's an epidemic of simping. I completely agree with that. I guess part of this, and I think this is almost a generational thing too, is that I think about 90% of, like, the, like, let me blow your mind with this take of the manosphere is what in my day was just common sense to all 50. Yeah. You don't wipe up a whore. We all knew that. Like, yeah, that's. She's a hoe. Like, she's for hooking up with. She's not for taking serious. You know what I mean? So, like, maybe this is. Maybe this. This ancient wisdom has been lost, and it must be, like, given back to the young men. But, like, it doesn't. It's just like, with all this shit, man, it doesn't have to be this cartoonish overcorrection where it's like, therefore, we should all be pimps. Like, all right, I know, I know. How about this? How about, like, yeah, if a chick's done onlyfans, don't be in a relationship with her. That's a deal breaker. She can't be a prostitute. Okay, yes, again, I don't know. Whatever. Jesus was cool. You can forgive her. Don't marry her. Okay? That's my advice. But also, like, the cartoonish other. I. I see this a lot with, like, the TradCon kind of thing, where it's like, you're not really doing the traditional thing. You're almost doing, like, a fun house mirror version of the traditional thing. And I think that if you want to have a movement that's like, pro white and pro traditional conservative values or things like that, it's like, okay, but they're. They believed in things like chivalry and decency, and they would have never talked the way that you taught never to a woman. They would have never talked that way. Now, look, it's a different time. It's a different age. Different techniques are going to be necessary. But I just think the. The idea of, like, I don't know, that just. It really offended me. Like, the idea of trying to convince young men to be like, you all these bitches. It's like, why isn't it, like, find a good woman. There are still good chicks out there. They're not all whores. There's good chicks out there, dude.
- [175:17]
B
Sparing. Sparingly few. Sparingly few anymore. It's pretty. It's rough out. You don't know what it's like out there, Dave.
- [175:24]
A
Well, look, I mean, there is. There is some degree of that.
- [175:27]
B
Yeah.
- [175:27]
A
I don't know what it's like out there.
- [175:28]
B
The same thing with Tucker. It's like, Tucker gave me for that and it's like, bro, you married your high school sweetheart, 80s. Like, that's crazy.
- [175:36]
A
But it's a fair point. Well, it's a fair point. I mean, I haven't been. I've been with my wife for a decade. About. We're married, will be eight years this year. And then we were dating for a couple of years before. So, like, I've been with her for like a decade. So, like. Yeah. I have not been a single guy since kind of a different time. I had pre. Me too. Pre Donald Trump or the very beginning of Donald Trump or whatever. Like, I don't know. It is a different culture and I was not on dating apps and Instagram wasn't a thing. And like, believe me, I. I had not even when I was in high school. Like, even the slutty girls, I feel like never would have been like this. Like, the idea of, like, they would just, like, post pictures of their ass.
- [176:14]
B
Yeah.
- [176:15]
A
Is like, that was not a reality in my. Like, you had to hook up with a girl to see her ass. Like, you didn't just get to see. So granted, it's a different world. I will say I can understand you being, like, pissed off about Sneako being like, I don't want to, like, have you on the show. That seems. That seems like a strange position from him. But I also think that, like, I think he was done dirty in the club.
- [176:39]
B
Yeah, I do agree with that. I just say that because I'm just trying to repay. I'm just trying forward, you know? I do agree with you.
- [176:46]
A
All right. I was. Let's. There was a couple other things that I wanted to talk about. Okay. Venezuela. I think we really disagreed on this one.
- [176:55]
B
Yeah.
- [176:55]
A
So I wanna. I was curious about that because I was surprised Now, I don't, I don't know exactly what your take was. I was like kind of told by people that you were for the war in Venezuela, and I was kind of surprised by that. So what, what is your position on that?
- [177:09]
B
I'm all for it. I believe in the Monroe Doctrine. I believe in hemispheric defense. And I think it's legitimate. I think it was a low cost, low casualty, brief intervention that in the end is a huge strategic victory for, for a few reasons, which is we're gonna be able to go in there, increase their oil output and then take the oil, and then we also get Cuba to boot. John Ratcliffe was down there negotiating with them. And, and I think that's all legitimate. If you were fighting in Iran, that's on the other side of the world and they've been preparing for this war for 30 years. They got 190 million people. Venezuela, Cuba, that's our backyard and that's where all our shipping occurs. Mexico's our number one trading partner. That's the Gulf of America. And Russia and China are spying on us there. China's building all this dual use infrastructure in Latin America, the Caribbean, Russia has military partnerships with these countries. So I think that's one of the few instances where you can say that's legitimate use of American power.
- [178:08]
A
But what, what is the connection to the Monroe Doctrine exactly? Because I see a lot of people invoking Donald Trump kept invoking it, but I don't really see how it's even consistent with the Monroe Doctrine. I mean, number one, we're not. There were two parts to the Monroe Doctrine. Everyone seems to forget the second. And the second part was that then we won't interfere over there. So we're certainly not following that part.
- [178:26]
B
Right.
- [178:27]
A
But the Monroe Doctrine essentially said that there can't be any more European colonies here, that you can't colonize any more of our hemisphere. There were already European colonies at the time, but they were like, no more. But that's a lot different than just maybe they do some business with some people we don't like, or maybe there's some, you know, like loose, you know, I don't know, connection to a foreign power. That doesn't seem like the Monroe Doctrine said we can invade any country, invade whatever, we can go to war with any country we want because it's in our backyard. So I don't, I don't think that's exactly right also. But it's not like the Monroe Doctrine is law. It's something a president said a Long time ago. But I don't know, I don't think it's consistent. I would also add, you know, if you're going to say Venezuela was low cost, I think you got to add the Iran war into that cost on some level. I, I think there's no question that the Venezuela strike being such a success is a big part of why Donald Trump was primed to be convinced that he could have another big success in Iran. And I think coming off that big success, it did seem to really encourage, hey, I'm not trying to remove blame from anyone else, but it did seem to encourage him that like, yeah, you can do this, you can be great, you can be tremendous and awesome with the military. I don't know, I guess when we said earlier when we were talking about the war in Iran and I said like, look, part of it's a moral issue for me, just like, you can't go murdering people like this. How is it? And I don't like to be the guy, I'm not a Christian. I don't like when non Christians, like try to lecture Christians about Christianity or something. So I'm not like lecturing, but I guess I don't see like how is it consistent with Christianity to almost like, if you have a view, let's say, look, some people died in the war in Venezuela. Well, our Cuban bodyguards or something, I don't know. Not that many people died, but some people died. And if it is like, let's say something's in our hemisphere, it's good for us, we could go kill them and take their shit and then we'll have their shit. You get my, like, how is that consistent with Christianity?
- [180:27]
B
Yeah, well, can we get into the Monroe Doctrine stuff as well?
- [180:30]
A
Sure, sure, whatever you want.
- [180:31]
B
So, you know, as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, if you look at it has evolved over time and it seems that it has evolved as America's become more powerful. When it was promulgated originally, we really had no navy and so no ability to enforce it. And there was a corollary added to it in the late 19th century when we became the preeminent superpower in the Western Hemisphere that basically said, we are the sovereign of the Western Hemisphere, our edict is the law, like whatever we say goes. So it is consistent with that. What's more, Venezuela and Cuba are effectively influenced from Russia and China in the same way that a colony from France or Britain would be in the 19th century because they produce missiles, they have spying posts like intelligence operation, they've got dual use infrastructure and so it does actually represent Chinese and Russian influence in our sphere of influence. So I would just say that as far as the Christian angle is concerned, I don't think it's very clean because in the era of strategic weapons and intelligence and all the modern technology, it gets a bit convoluted. What constitutes national defense? Because there's, there's really is convoluted layers as, you know, strategic thinking about nuclear weapons and how they're delivered and then cyber weapons and intelligence agencies. So you could say like reasonably speaking, if Cuba has some kind of Russian, Chinese spying post on it in preparation for some future global war, it is theoretically in self defense to try your best to neutralize that. Now that doesn't give you carte blanche to go in and like, well, let's just kill everyone in Cuba, because we could do it. But I think within reason you're able to conduct these kinds of extraordinary operations that are outside of what would be considered like a, a just war in the Middle Ages. Like we're going to war with this kingdom because whatever. Um, and, and in the case of Venezuela, it was so limited, so it's really. We extra. I wouldn't even call it a war, even a military operation. We just extradited one person who happened to be running a country that is a criminal enterprise. You know, Venezuela is a socialist dictatorship and arguably they, they are like a criminal regime. Socialism's against the Catholic Church, but what's.
- [182:44]
A
What makes a criminal, you know, from my perspective, runs on like human trafficking. They're all criminal regimes. But yeah, so, but like. Well, I mean, it's a different. Some are worse than others. But like, what makes them a criminal regime?
- [182:53]
B
Like they make money off of. Kidnapping is huge there. Like people get kidnapped all the time and like pay to release the hostages.
- [183:00]
A
No, but I mean, you mentioned dictatorship, but you don't believe in democracy. So like, I don't dictatorship. To me, to seem like that would be a bridge too far for Nick Fuentes.
- [183:08]
B
There's good dictatorships and bad dictatorships. Point. Point being is like if you want to use the moral angle, it's not like this was something kind of like decent humanitarian regime, like this was corrupt regime.
- [183:19]
A
Listen, I'm the libertarian, so you've got me convinced. I am no fan of like the Maduro regime or the Chavez regime or anything like that. I guess like the, the updated just war theory that you just laid out just seems to me to be vague enough for the Israel lobby to drive 10 wars through. You know, like there's the, well, they're in connection with another country. They could. I mean, the nuclear issue is not an issue with Venezuela or Cuba. I mean, to me, I think Donald Trump has celebrated how wonderful this is. Claimed it was a regime change, claimed we're in control of the oil now. Now, of course, for other factors, but Americans have only seen an increase in oil costs since then. What seems to me to have been accomplished by the war is pretty brutal energy blockade of Cuba. I mean, this is a little island that's been destroyed by communism for many, many decades. It poses absolutely no threat to the United States of America any reasonable way. The Soviets aren't bringing nuclear missiles to Cuba. They're trying to get a ship full
- [184:24]
B
of oil submarine off the coast.
- [184:26]
A
Well, they're trying to. Well, they were trying to move oil in, which Donald Trump allowed them to do, which I think was a good move, not worth starting a war with Russia over. But I just, again, I think that like, again, these are your people who came up with the just war theory, right? Like, these were all Catholics. Yeah, I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think it was all Catholics who came up with this. But the idea of at least having some, like, I understand the, like, when Thomas Aquinas and those guys, when they're coming up with just war theory, they're clear, and they were very well aware of this, that they're balancing different things. Right. Like you're, you're balancing Christian ethics and then war, which is a very difficult thing to write. There's like the worldly realities of these wars at, like they're doing, they're attempting to go, look, obviously Christians can't accept killing someone and taking shit from them. So like, here is. The only way that it could be justified is if it's a defensive war, you're attacked, you fight it proportionally, something like that. I just think saying that, like this regime ran off of like, you know, criminal activities. I mean, certainly true, but I don't know, just seems like a justification to start a war anywhere at any time. And I do worry about that because that's, you know, those justifications are almost always used in very bad ways.
- [185:37]
B
I would just say that, you know, again, it just gets to be a bit convoluted because the nature of warfare has changed because of strategic weapons. You know, like when I say nuclear weapons, I mean Russia and China are nuclear armed. And that means that we're kind of engaged with them in every way at all times. As long as those weapons exist, we're always going to Be spying on them. We're always going to be in some like virtual state of conflict with them. And that is global because you know, the whole basis of the Monroe Doctrine is nobody can touch us because of the oceans. Well, what are our adversaries going to do? They're going to try to get on our side. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, whatever. Or you know, even building the dual use stuff in every other country. Argentina, Peru, Jamaica, Haiti, whatever. So I do, I would classify that under something like self defense and with proportionality. Like I said, we're not saying like, and by we I mean me. I guess I'm not saying like we can go to war with Venezuela and like invade their country and take their sovereignty, take all their supplies. I'm saying though that if they're aligned against us in our hemisphere in a way that's threatening, we should be able to go in and change that. If they want it to be better, they should just align with us. You know, you say, well, Cuba's this tiny defenseless island. Okay, well then you better submit to Washington because you're right next to the superpower and they're playing games saying you
- [187:00]
A
better submit to Washington is how we've got the whole situation in Cuba for 60 years. You know, I mean that was the, that was what they said initially. You better submit to Washington.
- [187:07]
B
And if they want to avoid that, if they want to avoid a war, then they could always choose a diplomatic option.
- [187:12]
A
So could Iran. So could all Israel's enemies though, you
- [187:15]
B
know, But Israel can, I would say that's a different story because.
- [187:19]
A
Okay, but that is, that is true about both of them. You know, I mean, I don't know. I guess I just think that, I think, you know, essentially my, my take on all this shit is that. And I think this is right. I know this is kind of like a boring, you know, there's just not the energy to. Some of my views that they're already yours because this is just. But I think that the bottom line here kind of is we can't afford the government we have or even close to it. You just can't afford this. We're living under the biggest government in the history of the world. I mean, by orders of magnificent, like it really is. You just look at how much money Washington spends every year and you know, we can't afford the entitlement programs, let alone the world empire. And so we're $40 trillion in debt. And that's not even representing it because even the four, even our entire tax base plus the $40 trillion in debt couldn't pay for this size of government. And so we just have to print the money to make up the difference. And we've printed. I know you might even know some of these numbers better than me. But it's. What is it? Since George W. Bush, I think we've created like 80% of the money that's ever been created. We're just printing trillions and trillions of dollars. This is how we've essentially bandated over this shot, this bullet wound of an economy. And because of this, this is what's destroying essentially the currency. It's what's making life unaffordable for young people and working class people. And if you're going to continue to debase your currency, you're going to continue to see life like this, where, you know, it really does destroy any hope at having a conservative country. I don't mean just conservative, like in decent values, if you can't, if young people can't afford to start families. And all this stuff about like kind of looking for another war and another war when they're. Even as you describe it, this isn't a war of necessity that you're describing. You're describing a war of choice. Like maybe things would be better if we fought this. I just think it's really bad policy to allow our government to always be in search, as John Quincy Adams would say, of another monster to destroy. You know, these people do not. And I think this is one of the fundamental problems with government in general, and it's one of the problems with the Trump administration. And all of this is that these people, as you said at the beginning, they are not on our team. They're not, they're, they're not working based on our incentives, they're working based on their incentives. And if you give them that type of power, I mean, to just kind of say anywhere anyone's interfering that maybe could be strategically bad for us. We can go fight a war there. I mean, man, I just. The military industrial complex is gonna be like, okay, we got some thoughts.
- [189:52]
B
I'm saying that from a moral point of view, from a moral point of view, as long as. Cuz I think the case could be made like for example, you know, in the Cuban Missile crisis, I mean, would you say something like, well, Cuba's a sovereign state, they're allied with Russia, so they're putting nuclear missiles to defend themselves. You would say, no, that threatened us. It's too close. And the same goes even, you know, for other conflicts that have happened in the world. I think morally speaking, it just gets a bit more complex because of the nature of how things are. And I would take it a step further and say when it comes to, you know, this being a war of choice, if you actually look at the strategic situation, we've been losing the western hemisphere for 15 years. China's become the number one trading partner of basically all of Central and South America and the Caribbean. And what this does is it allows them then to go in and build all this infrastructure. And that's part of a very concerted play, like they are trying to increase their influence. They're building this stuff and they're building this stuff in anticipation that they're going to put their navy there. They have 400 times the shipbuilding capacity as us. They're building deep water ports everywhere eventually to put their ships. And like, for example, there's a new technology. They put a missile launch system in a container, like a shipping container, so they could get their biggest container ships, load them up with shipping containers that may or may not contain all missiles. Or like in Operation Spiderweb last year in Ukraine, they could contain all these drones. So if there's a future conflict, let's say in Taiwan, do you want Venezuela and Cuba to have Chinese spying posts and do you want a Chinese deepwater port in Peru? And they've got all their shipping there and it's simultaneously surveilling us, but also loaded up with weapons. That obviously puts us in a big disadvantage. So, you know, it's. It's like that other expression, if you want peace, prepare for war.
- [191:41]
A
Yeah.
- [191:42]
B
How do we check China? We. I don't think it's a war of choice. I think this is. We're kind of getting our act together because we let it go in the Western hemisphere.
- [191:49]
A
I. Yeah, well, Taiwan's going to have to submit, I think, to China.
- [191:53]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [191:54]
A
By the way. No, that's. I mean, I say it kind of tongue in cheek, but I actually agree with you on that one. I think that. So you brought up the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example and I would certainly agree with you that. No, that is something that is totally reasonable. To go like, no, we can't. I understand you haven't bombed us yet, but I can't be expected to sit here with a knife at my throat and go on with life as normal. It's. This is intolerable. But of course, the solution to that, as you well know, was for Jack Kennedy to get on the phone. And that was, that was not solved by invading Cuba. In fact, when he invaded Cuba, it was an unmitigated disaster. But this was solved by getting on the phone and making a deal and saying, listen, we can't live with this, so you got to move these back. And in exchange for that, we will pull our. Was it from Turkey? I think we are nukes back. Just seems to me like with all these problems, that would be a way better way to solve them. And of course, the US does have tremendous leverage if it were willing or able to use it. Now, this is one of the interesting dynamics with our government, is that it's this giant organization, but it's not exactly like the guy at the top just runs the whole organization. There's many factions within it. And if the guy at the top is going with the wind, he's very powerful. But if he's going against the wind, like, in other words, if. If the President of the United States of America is the most powerful position in the world in some respects, if Donald Trump wants to start a war, he can start a war anywhere he wants to. There's really no more congressional, you know, authorization or even war powers or anything. And honestly, like, does anyone believe, even if they did, if this War Powers act had passed and Donald Trump just went, suck my dick, does anyone think like that anything would have changed? So if he's starting wars, he's very powerful now. If he wanted to. If he wanted to destroy the military industrial complex, he basically has as much power as me or you, you know, so, like, if you're going with the grain, you're. You're very powerful, but going against it, you're not. But, like, for example, if you wanted to end, say, like, the war in Ukraine, a little bit tougher now at the beginning, maybe. What. But we have enormous cards we could play. We could say, hey, look, we'll. We'll leave NATO. The US Will leave NATO. It'll be just a European alliance. You can come in and we'll leave. But you all work. Like, you could get Putin to stop, but you'd have to give him something, you know, and even as you say this, I don't disagree with, like, some of the potential issues that you're talking about. And it is a very new world. And look, even as we're watching in Iran, you know, I've been at this for 20 years now, and drones in war were just not a thing. Like, it just wasn't a thing. It was a brand new thing when we had them. Now, all of a sudden, this is a new reality. Totally changes warfare. Now, when they can essentially close the Strait of Hormuz if, I think, if need be, just with cheap drones. But again, China's been doing over the last 20 years, while we've been fighting endless wars and spending trillions of dollars, they've been doing business with everybody. And, like, perhaps then maybe that would be, if we want to get into that strategic fight, that it would be to, okay, yeah, let's do diplomacy. There's a lot of shit that the rest of the world really hates that we do. China, when. When Donald Trump even just went over there now, right? Like, he wants them to stop helping Iran and whatever logistical, intelligence way they've been, and they want a whole lot of things from him. Like, we can get things. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's just even things like big military mobilizations in. In. In Asia or something like that. They have a real problem with that. And so us arming Taiwan or stuff. So I guess my point is just that, like, we could. Rather than, like, launching wars over this stuff. And look, the Venezuela one didn't turn into, like, a catastrophe, but you risk that every time you launch one of these wars. And I think we would be much better off at just, like, being smart, being much more restrained. You know, saying. What was the phrase you used in order to end a war, you got to. Or whatever is a peace through strength, essentially. I mean, I've been hearing peace through strength out of the Republicans since Ronald Reagan. I was too young to remember Ronald Reagan, but I did. I know he said it. They've been saying it my entire lifetime, and all we've gotten for it is permanent military, permanent militarism, forever wars, crushing debt. And so don't get me wrong, I guess maybe where we could agree and then we could leave it at agreeing to disagree is that I'd rather. I'd prefer we be more involved in our backyard and not around the rest of the world. I'd prefer it be in our national. National interest rather than in some other country's interest. Or, by the way, I don't even really think any of this shit is in Israel's interest. I think this is in what the Likud nicks perceive as the interest of Greater Israel. I think they've gotten Israelis killed and probably made them more of a hated pariah state than ever before. But I also think, in the same sense, it doesn't really seem to be the way DC Works. They're not really working in the interest of the American people.
- [196:37]
B
I agree. I mean, I. I think diplomacy is preferable where possible, but sometimes it's not possible. And it sounds like a lot of this root causes, you know, it's like when you go to these Democrats, they say, well, the reason these, these kids are committing crime is because they don't have like after school programs. And it's like, dude, they need to go to jail. Cops need to beat the shit out of them and take, take them to jail. And with Venezuela, it's like, look, Rick Rennell proffered a deal with them. They didn't take it. I mean, they, because they wanted Maduro to stay in power. And our, our sticking point was you gotta realign with us and Maduro's gotta go and they wouldn't agree to it. So we had to go in and take care of them. And I, and I agree with you though. I'm a restrainer. I believe in restraint. You know, I think that we should be very selective in our engagements. Keep him in our backyard. Prefer diplomacy, but sometimes you gotta kill people, sometimes you gotta do it.
- [197:29]
A
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but also I think there's a lot going on that we don't know about there. And I think Maduro was all tied in with the CIA and a whole lot of stuff going on that, that we're not aware of. Okay, I'm glad you prefer diplomacy first. Nick Fuentes. I very much enjoy our diplomacy. I hope this doesn't break into a hot war.
- [197:50]
B
Ceasefires in tax.
- [197:51]
A
Ceasefire. The ceasefire is still in tight, hanging on by a thread. It's a lot stronger than the ceasefire in the Middle east right now. Dude, I really always enjoy talking with you. Thank you so much for coming back on and look forward to doing it again in.
- [198:00]
B
Likewise, man. Thanks for having me.
- [198:02]
A
All right, thanks for listening, guys. Have a good one. Peace.