← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Greenland, Global Elites & the ICE War at Home | Nick Freitas
01:39:35
Loading summary
Transcript167 lines
- [00:02]
A
He's a Green Beret combat veteran, a 10 year veteran of the Virginia legislature, and a dominant voice across both legacy and new media. Nick Freitas is here and we're breaking down the absolute chaos coming out of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
- [00:17]
B
This year's World Economic Forum with truly phenomenal news from America.
- [00:22]
A
The strategic reality behind the Greenland deal and the President's decision to deploy an armada to the Iranian coast. Plus, we're getting his take on the seditious Democrats trying to undermine it all from within.
- [00:35]
B
Just, I can't take this complicity. People rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders.
- [00:43]
A
We covered all. Let's get into it. Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. So, Nick, I woke up this morning and I'm going to be completely transparent with you. I have felt a bit shocked that Trump had not done anything about Iran. And every day I just kept refreshing my browser. Now, I know a lot of people are deeply concerned. They don't want us involved. And I've thought a lot about this and I want you to correct me where you think I'm wrong, but I feel like a friendly Iran is actually better for America. I feel like I've watched Trump take out Maduro. He didn't engage in regime change. The regime is still there. They're currently cooperating. I've watched him end eight conflicts. I watched the previous 12 Day War that everybody said was going to be a trillion dollar endeavor and go on forever. Be, be in fact 12 days and defang Iran. And I'm thinking like these people are being slaughtered. And I, I can't tell if it's me being exceptionally emotional about the footage that I'm seeing, if it's me thinking they're the number one funders of terror. They were enriching uranium not to turn the lights on. And I wake up this morning to this clip and I want to know what you think about this.
- [02:08]
B
Where do things stand with Iran? The US has got sizable military assets. You know, we have a lot of ships going that direction just in case. We have a big flotilla going in that direction and we'll see what happens. We have a big force going toward Iran. I'd rather not see anything happen. But we're watching them very closely. I stopped 837 hangings on Thursday. They would have been dead. Every one of them would have been hung. This is like from a thousand years ago. This is an ancient culture, very smart people, by the way. But it's an ancient culture. 837 mostly young men were going to be hungry.
- [02:57]
A
So he's sending in a flotilla and armada. What do you make of this? Do you think this is good or bad? Where do you see this going? What did I get wrong?
- [03:06]
B
No, I think when it comes to this whole concept of American first foreign policy. And what exactly does that look like? I think there's a lot of people that have interpreted that as well. We're just not getting involved in any more foreign conflicts. And look, I'm sympathetic to that. As someone that's lived at the business end of what I consider to be somewhat poorly thought out US Foreign policy, I certainly don't want the United States States involved in wars for which we have no business being involved. However, to your point about Iran, they are one of the leading global sponsors of terrorism. They've been an enemy to the United States for, gosh, I mean, several decades. And we've had to engage with Iran before several times. Not just with the Trump and the last strike on the nuclear facility facilities, but also when Reagan had to deploy the fleet because they were mining the Straits of Hormuz and they hit a U.S. i think it was a U.S. frigate at the time and within the space of, I think like 48 hours, we sunk a quarter of their navy and they got the message like, oh, maybe we shouldn't screw at the United States. One of the things I've appreciated about Donald Trump is that he understands that using military power doesn't mean you have to engage in a multi decade nation building experiment to try to bring parliamentary democracy to a portion of the world that doesn't want it. Sometimes it's just enough to be able to flex US Power in a way that gets our point across and achieves our objectives. So I don't think Donald Trump is going to again invade Iran. I don't think the 82nd Airborne is going to be dropping into Tehran. I think what he's going to do is he's going to use the sort of military power that minimizes the risk of US Casualties but also maximizes our ability to make surgical strikes where needed in order to, to achieve larger regional objectives. And so I, I definitely think we're watching. We're watching Iranians bravely fight against a despotic, tyrannical Islamist regime that constantly oppresses them and exports terror to the rest of the world. So I would love to, I don't think it's the overall responsibility of the United States to give them all the tools to do so, but I do think it would be appropriate for us to be able to project necessary power in order to assist them. They have demonstrated that they are willing to fight. They have demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice. And those are one of the things that I look at from my experience, not just studying warfare, but engaging in counterinsurgency warfare, is that if you don't have a base of the population that is willing to fight and sacrifice in order to overthrow the regime, you don't have a good mechanism from which to start warfare with Iran. Has that right? And so I, I look, I want to see again, I want to see US power projected in such a way as to be able to help these people take control of their own country and overthrow a government that hates the United States and the West.
- [05:42]
A
Okay, so then you are for the nuance of this conversation. And I can't tell you, I, I watch so many people who, and I appreciate nobody wants the forever wars. Everybody's traumatized from Iraq and Afghanistan. We've talked into the ground, the US and change. But there is also so much nuance here that you just highlighted. And I see people who basically are like, we shouldn't get involved and this is our imperialism. And you're watching people be slaughtered. And I'm thinking, do you really want this on your conscience if you don't really have a full grasp on the nuances of the things you're discussing or the fact that maybe this isn't necessarily United States imperialism and it's possible. Although I wonder if Donald Trump could be intimidated that so much of his base is thinking, you know, you, you, you waffled, you, you were a traitor, you, you didn't make good on America first. I just don't know how you live with that. I cannot believe all the people who are sitting there saying, like, just stay out of it, just stay out of it. But maybe I'm wrong. You know, I'm not sending my 18 year old into a war like that.
- [06:58]
B
My 20 year old is currently in the 101st Airborne Division as an infantryman. Right. So like I, this is, this is a price that my family has been very familiar with, both when I was in the military and now my son being in the military again. I think one of the things that needs to be understood is the United States does play a role in the world.
- [07:14]
A
Right.
- [07:14]
B
We've never been a totally isolationist country because isolation is just, is, is not really feasible and it doesn't really make sense if you're looking at things from an American first foreign policy. It's the Same thing with Venezuela. Look, when Donald Trump said, we're going to run Venezuela, I right out to social media, I said, okay, I have some questions. All right. Because before we start trying to do this, I want to know exactly what the plan is. And thus far, President Trump has run the operation in Venezuela very differently than any other US President in my lifetime probably would have. Again, he hasn't deployed tens of thousands of U.S. troops. Do I think some troops will be involved in Venezuela? Yes, but I think he's actually demonstrating now that it could be a relatively small contingent in order to achieve a very positive outcome for the United States. It's not a good idea for the country with the world's largest oil reserves to be cozying up to China and Russia in our hemisphere. Likewise, it's not a good idea for Iran, which the current regime wants to be nuclear. You know, if, regardless of what the Iranian people choose, whether it's a return to the Shah or some sort of constitutional monarchy or a republic that's actually a republic, not. Not the Islamic republic that they currently have, it's hard for me to see an outcome over there that is. Isn't better than what they currently have.
- [08:29]
A
Right.
- [08:29]
B
Right now, that wasn't as clear in places like Syria. Right. We have. We have a horrible regime in Syria. Was Assad horrible, too? Absolutely. But sometimes you're faced with. With decisions where it's very, very bad versus very, very bad in other situations. You have something where, like you said, it's a little bit more nuanced. So I don't think Trump plans to invade and take over and govern Iran, but I do think he plans to render necessary assistance to a very, very strong, a very, very strong dynamic within Iran that is willing to actually sacrifice and fight to liberate itself from this regime.
- [09:02]
A
And you talk about how we're a global power. There's a responsibility there. We're arguably the top global power. And of course, Davos just went down this week, so I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence, but just in case people aren't familiar, can you explain what the World Economic Forum is? When people say Davos, what are they referring to? Because I think many of us just know it as, like this. You know, that's where they told us to eat bugs. And, you know the famous clip of Roseanne Barr telling Bill Maher, like, all the wef. The evil that comes out of the wef. And Bill was just kind of like, what in the hell are you talking about? But this is a huge, very big Deal. What is the World Economic Forum and what is Davos?
- [09:45]
B
So a couple ways to understand Davos is the. The meeting in Davos. The conference in Davos is kind of the large annual meeting that Web. The World Economic Forum has. It was started by Klaus Schwab. He was a college professor, I believe. It was started 1971. And Klaus Schwab is kind of known for. For three kind of primary things. Like, one is the idea of stakeholder capitalism. The other is this idea of the fourth industrial wave, which is kind of like the. The. Yeah, the Industrial revolution. And now it's kind of the technological revolution and how that's impacting things. And the third is this concept of corporate global citizenship. And so when. When you hear terms like the New World Order or the Great Reset or things like that feeds into that. And a lot of times these things get passed off as, oh, this is just conspiratorial. Okay, well, when you have a conference of people that comprises a whole host of world leaders as well as industry leaders and the whole purpose. What. What Klaus Schwab wants to see more of his public private partnerships. And that's a term that we've become, I would say, overly, overly comfortable with. What is that? Because what. So typically what he's looking for is stakeholder capitalism is a great way to kind of start with this. What we have typically in the west, we call shareholder capitalism, which means that, like, you start a business and I invest in your business, I'm a shareholder. And the job of your business, your fiduciary duty to me is to run your business in such a way as to produce goods and services that people want to voluntarily pay for to make a profit so I can get a return on my investment, you can continue to run your employees can continue to work, etc. Now, it's a. It's a general assumption just within civil society that, well, yeah, of course, if there's things like negative externality. So if I set up my company and it pollutes, well, then I either have to mitigate that pollution or I have to compensate the people impacted by it. Right. This is. This is shareholder capitalism, stakeholder capitalism. Is Klaus Schwab coming in and going, well, no, no. Everyone who is impacted by your business, well, now all of a sudden, it's no longer you're running your business in order to serve your customers or to serve your shareholders. You're now supposed to serve people that don't do any business with you, are not directly impacted by you because you're a part of society. And, well, gosh, who gets to determine who. Who gets to determine how. Whether or not you're doing a good job? Who gets to determine whether or not the work that you're doing is good for society? Oh, I know people like Klaus Schwab, people like the members of the World Economic. And so what he's. What he's looking for is greater central planning and control of the economy. And this isn't really new. And you have a lot of people on the right that will accuse people of the World Economic Forum of being Marxists or socialists. And there's certainly a lot in there. But if we're being serious, and I don't, please believe me when I say this, I'm not using this term pejoratively, even though I hate it. I'm using this term descriptively. A lot of what Klaus Schwab advocates for is not socialism. It actually bears a closer resemblance to fascist economic policy. And. And the primary difference between socialism and fascist economic policy was socialism said the government will own all the means of production. The government will own the factories. The government will own the roads. The government owned the capital equipment. That's who owns it. Right. Fascist. If you look at Mussolini in Italy, or if you look at even Nazi economic policy, which was a little bit different, Hitler would say, the government is going to run the strategic industries and the strategic infrastructure. So they're going to run the trains and they're going to run the, you know, the. The. The major factories that are necessary for defense apparatus and things like that. And then he would allow. He would allow the private sector to own things, provided they were operating in accordance with the public will, which, of course, was determined by the government.
- [13:48]
A
Right.
- [13:49]
B
And the moment they didn't run their businesses in association with the public will, well, then the government would nationalize or take it over. And so if you look at what Klaus Schwab is operating from, it's this idea that we have all of these objectives that we want. And a lot of his objectives fall under what's become known as esg, the environmental, social and governance policies that a lot of these companies have been forced to implement if they want to get financing. And so the idea is, from the legal perspective, we're going to use governments to require you to operate and run your business the way that we, the world elites, have decided is the appropriate and moral way to do it. And insofar as you do that, we will reward you. We will reward you with favorable regulations that shut out your competition. We will reward you with financing and rates that are better than other people that don't comply. And to the extent that you do not do what we want, well, now you risk the government potentially taking over your industry or regulating and taxing you out of existence. And so you saw this theory, especially after Covid, where they were pushing this concept of the Great Reset, that this was the opportunity to completely rethink everything we knew about society and government and its interaction with the economy. And now, you know, wise experts would engage in the sort of central planning and coordination that we all needed where borders would become less important. And really, we were all just interchangeable cogs in an economic machine. And. And again, I'm being a little bit pejorative now because I don't like what he's trying to do. But it's important to understand that what the World Economic Forum is attempting to do is coming up with a global. A global mechanism for how economics is conducted, for how law is impacted, for how environmental policy is set. And they want the leaders within that are associated with wef, and they work very, very hard to get people elected to legislatures, parliament, et cetera, in order to ensure that that's carried out legally where. Where they have legal objectives. And then financially, this is why you see things like BlackRock and Bank of America coming out saying, well, if they don't properly implement ESG policies, we'll simply deny them loans. Well, you know, again, that. That's also problematic. But that's. That's kind of the best version of the WF I can give in a. In a short little synopsis.
- [16:03]
A
You know, I remember Elon Musk saying the S in ESG stands for satanic. And I remember thinking, like, he didn't get the ESG rating or something. And Tesla's green car. It made zero sense to me. And then I began to learn a little bit more about what you just laid out for us. And I realized it's because he just wouldn't play ball. So they tried to punish him. And as you mentioned to everybody else who would not play ball, now, you would think that Donald Trump would not show up for something like this, but this, I guess, has become such a big deal. Everybody is there, every world leader, everybody's speaking. He shows up this past week, and he basically says, you know, America's killing it. We're killing it with the economy. I'm trying to get Congress to pass legislation that credit card companies can't charge more than 10%. I think now they charge like 25%, which is damn near criminal loan Sharking, you know, he's trying to block these private companies out of buying single family homes like Blackrock. He goes on to talk about the importance of national security and Greenland. Okay, so now, so at first, much like you mentioned with Venezuela, he's like, come hell or high water, this is happening. And I thought, oh geez, you know, oh my God, like what are we, what are we doing? And I, I have a, I have a little friendship with Sean Hannity and every now and again I get to call Sean on the down low and I'm like, what the fuck? You know, just, I just, I'm here for.
- [17:44]
B
Are there warmer places we could take?
- [17:46]
A
Like he, you know, he kind of went all the way back to World War II and how we needed the, the sea lanes there to get stuff to Europe. And Roosevelt wanted it and Truman wanted it, but it was kind of on the down low and they didn't get it. Then Reagan wanted it. And okay, the golden dome. Why do we want green? Why do we want Greenland?
- [18:10]
B
There's kind of three, three large components here. One of it has to do with its strategic placing geographically, so it's access to the Arctic. Because if you actually look at what Soviet doctrine really is and what Russian doctrine is with respect to, if we ever had to get in a conflict with the United States, there's limited bases in the Arctic that we have any sort of access to. And so if, if, let's just say if Russian subs with nukes on them were to, you know, we were to get into conflict or whatnot, they're probably going to approach us from the Arctic. And the question is, is okay, how do we mitigate that? That's one way. The other thing has to do with icbm, so intercontinental ballistic missiles. How do we, how do we set up some sort of strategy like Reagan had talked about, like Star Wars? The idea, because an intercontinental ballistic missile like leaves, you know, the atmosphere and then comes back in. And so we would, can we destroy it in space and things of that nature. Greenland gives us very, very unique access both from an economic standpoint with respect to potential shipping lanes, but it also provides for the golden dome or this idea of being able to provide against missile strikes against the United States or our NATO allies. Now that, that should make a lot of sense, right from, from a strategic bombers perspective, from any sort of counter missile perspective, the United States is the one that possesses the technology to set that up and effectively utilize Greenland. And we did, we did used to have more bases in Greenland. A lot of them diminished after the Cold War for, you know, understandable reasons. But now that we're seeing a resurgence of Russian aggression, not to mention Chinese threats, it makes sense for the United States to once again look at the strategic piece of terrain. A second reason is it's in the Western Hemisphere, and that's always kind of been America's domain. Right. The third reason has to do with natural resources, especially in the form of rare earth minerals.
- [19:57]
A
Okay.
- [19:57]
B
And one of the, one of the of sources of frustration, I believe, with Denmark is let's get beyond, like Stephen Miller pointing out that, well, are you really sovereign if you can't actually protect what you got like that? From a historical perspective, Stephen's not wrong. But we tend to protect, we tend to recognize other people's sovereign territory. By the same token, Denmark relies on the United States for security. NATO relies on the United States for security. I think it was Secretary Bessett that pointed out that the United states has spent 22 trillion more than the rest of NATO combined with respect to our mutual security. So when Donald Trump comes in and tells Denmark, hey, we'd really like to talk about potentially purchasing Greenland, owning Greenland, and Greenland's response right out the gate is, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. Oh, is it Right? I think the comedian, you know, Jimmy Carr, said it best. He goes, well, there's another alternative. They can take it no offense to your fine military, but something tells me you're not standing up to the United States. So I think some of it was just this incredibly rude response that we got from a partner that is completely reliant on the United States for its security when we actually had very, very legitimate reasons why we wanted to use it, not just for our benefit benefit, but for Denmark's benefit, for NATO's benefit, right. On top of that, Denmark had been allowing Chinese companies to go in and potentially buy up mining rights for rare earth minerals. So let me get this straight, right? You want to give us crap, the guys that have spent $22 trillion more than the rest of NATO to keep you safe from communist threats, among other threats, but then you want to hand off mining rights to the Chinese and you want to let them come in and build up infrastructure in Greenland in our hemisphere. Now, I think Trump coming right off of, yeah, Venezuela wanted to do that as well. Now ask me where Maduro's sleeping tonight, right? It's going to Greenland going, you know, we're not going to allow you to get away with this. Pardon me, but I think what it looks like has happened now, I Don't think anybody thought that Donald Trump was actually going to again deploy the 101st Airborne Division to Greenland and take it over.
- [22:00]
A
Over.
- [22:01]
B
It was. He's very good at negotiating and he tends to get what he wants. And I saw this one joke that went out like this where it was Trump saying, hey, can we buy Greenland? We'll give everyone a ton of money and we'll, we'll give Denmark a ton of money for Greenland. No, that's absurd. You can't do it. Well, we could just take it. I can't believe you would threaten NATO like that. NATO is going to send 37 troops to Greenland in order to teach us the lesson. And then finally it comes back and what's the end deal? We get to set up whatever bases we want. We get to use the island for what we want. We get exclusive access to rare earth minerals, but we get to keep all of our money.
- [22:33]
A
Right.
- [22:33]
B
And Denmark gets to keep Greenland cool. Right. So I think, I think at the end, Trump actually negotiated this very, very well. But he did it, and he did it in his typical bombastic fashion.
- [22:46]
A
I think I've told you it's the new year about 50 times already. In the new year, it's January 2026, and on some level, I think we all want a wardrobe refresh. I know I do anyway. And quince is my go to for luxurious, high quality essentials that feel effortless, look polished, and actually last. I love adding new quince pieces to my wardrobe each season, whether it's the Mongolian cashmere sweaters, which are soft and frankly superior to the ones I paid triple for elsewhere, or the Italian wool coats that are sleek, tailored and cozy. And now I've got my eye on a quince leather jacket for a chilly spring evening. Listen, guys, quince pieces are ideal for mixing and layering season after season. And what I also love is that quince sells directly to us, the consumer. There's no middleman, so there's no markup. Timeless quality pieces for an amazing price. And yes, they even have luxe bath towels and silk pillowcases. Game changers for the home. Game changers. Take it from me. Quince delivers premium quality at honest prices. So elevate your wardrobe and now your home without the markup. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Don't wait. Go to Quince.com Jillian for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Jillian, you know, I, I, at first I thought, I've learned now to just sit back, pause, let it play out, have a little faith because he actually has not let me down yet. We, we've listed a host of examples just in the few minutes we've already had on this podcast from Venezuela to the 12 day war in Iran. And here we are, right? So he goes, he speaks at Davos and then Mark Carney gets on and he basically is like, ah, you know, us middle powers need to stand up. You know, the, all the old rules are broken essentially, I guess implying that we've gone rogue. And you know, talking about how, you know, he, I heard that there was talk of him sending Canadian troops to Greece mainland. And then you see Trump come out and he's like, hey dipshit, this golden dome protects all of North America. That's you too. And meanwhile, I'm like, I'm not, I'm just sitting back watching the whole thing. And the very next day, the friggin head of NATO, that guy Ruta, comes out and he's like, yeah, we're going to come to a deal. Everybody's stoked.
- [25:17]
B
Yeah, well, because in the end it's going to be great for Denmark, it's going to be great for the United States and it's going to be great for, it's going to be great for NATO. NATO has gotten to the point where they, they, they again, I think a lot of European countries resent U.S. power. Yes, they resent U.S. economic and military power, but they also depend on it. Carney is a joke, right? Like, like this guy sitting up there talking about how, oh well, Trump is undermining the world order. I'm sorry, I can never tell where you begin and G Ping ends. Your head is so far up something, right? So please don't lecture me on the dictatorship in the United States of America when you can't wait to cozy up to a that's got how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of slave labor, you know, you know, cranking out products. And again, leftist going to leftist, Marxist going to Marxist. Right. But they all kind of understand where it's at right now. Look, Carney should focus probably a little more, a little bit more on the fact that his wealthiest province per capita can't wait to get away from Canada at this point because he's got his own problems with Alberta, potentially Saskatchewan, portions of British Columbia, because they're sick of Ottawa running the like a You know, again, a leftist, authoritarian regime. So I think, again, there's a lot of people that will look at Trump and say, well, you know, is this really presidential? You know what, we're in different times right now. We need a fighter. Trump's a fighter. He keeps winning. I'm a fan. I'm a fan.
- [26:49]
A
I am, too. And I hate that about myself. And the only reason I hate it about myself is because I really try so hard not to be tribal, to try to look at things honestly and fairly. And I swear to God, I said to my daughter in the car this morning, my kids are actually conservatives, not because of me, but I'm like, well, yeah. And I just was talking about 10% credit card rates and blocking BlackRock from buying up homes and defanging Iran and Venezuela. I mean, it's just peace in Gaza, which everyone's like, it's not gonna work. Not going to. Not going to work. This is not going to work. Hamas is not going to disarm. It's kind of, it's currently sort of working. I mean, he's, it seems like it's going. Everything that everyone says is not going to work, it ends up kind of worse. So far. Venezuela going, okay, this is where I'm like, son of a gun.
- [27:44]
B
Yeah. I mean, look, I'm not naive. I understand that the fight, the fight over in the Middle east, especially between, especially with respect to Gaza, has been going on for millennia.
- [27:53]
A
Right?
- [27:54]
B
And, and, and yes, things can turn for the worse. I did a whole episode on what is the best in case, worst, best and worst case scenario in Venezuela. How can it go really well? How can it go really bad? You know? And look, whenever it comes to a government, whenever it comes to a president, whether I like him or not, trying to, like, micromanage parts of the economy, I get, I get a little skeptical when he starts talking about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Look, I remember 2008. Let's not, let's not rinse and repeat here. But by the same token, I think what people apprec Trump or what I appreciate about him is that the guy actually does what he says. And the other thing, too, is he's not ashamed of American power or American greatness. He wants America to be great. He doesn't buy into this kind of globalized notion. Like, look, I don't want isolation from the world. I want trade with the world, you know, economic, cultural. I think that's, I think that's all great, but we're a sovereign country, we have our own interests. Those interests need to be prioritized. And I think this president does it. My former chief of staff, when I was in the legislature, she said it best. Someone asked her, actually, it was David Rubin. He goes, you know, we got all these guys talking about Trump. He goes, gina, what do you think? And she goes, you know, if nothing else, I know this guy loves the country. And she goes, and I can't always, I can't always say that about elected officials. I can't always say that about the leadership in the White House. And I think it's true. There's something about that, that he does deeply love the country, and he is willing to use military, U.S. military and economic power, I think strategically and judiciously in order to protect our interests. And the best part about what our allies need to understand about Trump is that Teddy Roosevelt said, walk softly and carry a big stick. Donald Trump says, I'm gonna walk as loud as the hell as I want because I got this big ass stick. But at the end of the day, if you're an ally to the United States, you actually have a very, very strong and committed ally in the, in the form of President Trump and his administration. So it's just like, look, it's real simple. Be respectful, right? And, and, and insofar as our country's interests align, you will find an incredible friend. And insofar as you decide to, you know, f around, he has no problem making sure that you find out and relatively quickly.
- [30:07]
A
You know, I used to be so apologetic for American imperialism. You know, it's like, oh, well, you know, I guess we, we just swing our giant, you know, what around, and I feel so bad about that. And then you start to look at China gaining power and Russia gaining power and radical Islam infiltrating Europe, and, and all of a sudden I'm like, I don't really like this, this shift in power at all. I'd much rather us kind of be in charge of these things. I trust our Western values and use more. And I don't think the way Trump has gone about. I think the way he's gone about it has been better than all of the previous presidents in my lifetime, like Iraq, for example, or Afghanistan, the awful disaster. But I, he. I don't know. So far, as you've just discussed, I, I'm, I'm impressed. I, I'm embarrassed. I don't want to tell you that I feel.
- [31:02]
B
Well, I, I think, I think what it, I hate that I'm saying this Well, I, I'm a, I'm a, like, I, I, I love Ronald Reagan. I do a lot of work with Young America's foundation at the Reagan Ranch. And there is no question that Reagan was just so incredibly articulate and, and upbeat and optimistic. And, and he did it in a way that was just truly, truly profound. And, and so there's, there's been this idea of, like, well, why can't, why can't Trump do it the way that Reagan did? It's like, like Trump is a different person for a different time, but I think he's the sort of person we needed for this time. I think. I like to remind people that Reagan never had a Republican Congress. He had a Republican Senate for a while, but he never had a Republican House. He, he had to work. But the Democratic Party was very, very different in the 1980s than it is today. And, and I've seen this in the 10 years I spent in the Virginia legislature, from the, the time I went in, in 2016 to the year I left, which was 20, you know, 2026. It changed drastically. The, the sort of arguments that we had at the, at the beginning of my tenure versus the arguments after were night and day. The, the worldviews are, are getting to the point where it's so diametrically opposed to one another in, in part because I, I tend to have the attitude of, like, look, I know what I believe, and I want to live out my beliefs and I want to be able to, you know, thrive and raise my family and, and run a business. I want to be able to do all those things. But I'm usually fairly open to you getting to make those same decisions for your life, provided you're not infringing on the, of others. But what I've come to discover is the left does not share that worldview when you are absolutely committed to this idea that, no, the government will run health care and the government will run education, and the government will be the one determining, you know, independent economic decisions for billions of people. You don't provide me, you don't provide me space to actually live out my values. My worldview does provide you space. Yeah, you don't provide it for me. So what am I supposed to do at this point? Point? Well, in that sort of thing, I, I need somebody that actually understands what time it is and is willing to fight back. Not, not for the purpose of, of dominating and controlling everybody else, but for saying, no, that there's a certain set of values within the west and specifically within the United States. And those values define us as a people. And if you don't like it, good news, there's a lot of other places that you can go in the world. But if we lose these values and what made this country possible, there's nowhere to flee to.
- [33:28]
A
To.
- [33:28]
B
So we're not giving it up. You can either get on board with that. Right. Or we can win and you can lose. And I wish it wasn't that simple anymore, but I'm tired of watching people celebrate when people that I consider to be good, honest people, like Charlie Kirk, are getting for having a conversation. And so I just. I think that's where we're at. And I think Donald Trump is the president for the Times. But I. But I also look at the people that are coming up. I'm very impressed with J.D. vance. I'm very impressed with his ability to articulate and communicate. I have been very impressed with Marco Rubio and the role he's played. And so I do think that we're seeing this again. I think all of us want to get to a point where we don't feel like there's all this hostility, but I'm so tired that when we point out things that are, in fact, divisive, we then get. So why are you being divisive? Okay, I'm not being divisive by pointing out the crap you're doing to me. Me?
- [34:25]
A
Yeah.
- [34:26]
B
That's not me being divisive. That's me being aware. I don't think you're pissed that I'm noticing it. I think you're pissed that we're fighting back. Well, that's what time it is.
- [34:34]
A
I would like a healthy Democrat party. I would love to see common sense come out of there. I think it brings a balance, but funny, because the next whole segment of crap that I want to talk to you about, we literally, my producer and I are calling this the sedition. And I. I hate that I am labeling them that. But we just talked about Davos and Gavin Newsom essentially told world leaders not to cooperate with Trump. Take a look at this clip.
- [35:11]
B
Just. I can't take this complicity. People rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders. I mean, handing out crowns and Hanning. I mean, this is pathetic. Nobel Prizes that are being given away. I mean, it's just pathetic. And. And I hope people understand how pathetic they look on the world stage. I mean, at least from an American perspective, it's embarrassing. Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
- [35:40]
A
Representative Chrissy Houlahan.
- [35:42]
B
Congressman Jason Crow. I was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA office officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former.
- [35:49]
A
Intelligence officer, former Air Force.
- [35:52]
B
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
- [35:58]
A
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
- [36:05]
B
This administration is pitting our uniform military.
- [36:08]
A
And intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. Us.
- [36:12]
B
You all swore an oath to protect.
- [36:14]
A
And defend this Constitution.
- [36:15]
B
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
- [36:24]
A
You can refuse illegal orders.
- [36:26]
B
You must refuse illegal orders.
- [36:29]
A
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
- [36:33]
B
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
- [36:36]
A
But whether you're serving, serving in the CIA, the army, our Navy, the Air.
- [36:40]
B
Force, your vigilance is critical.
- [36:42]
A
And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for.
- [36:49]
B
Our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up.
- [36:55]
A
Don't give up the ship. Well, are you all ready to defend this democracy? Are you ready to fight fascism?
- [37:08]
B
Are you prepared to destroy authoritarianism once and for all?
- [37:13]
A
Okay, so basically this. This obviously could have gone on for hours. But what I'm trying to illustrate here is you've got a state governor going to Davos telling the leaders of the free world, the leaders of the entire world. Sorry, my bad. Don't cooperate. And if you do, you look pathetic. You're pathetic. If you try to cooperate with the number one superpower in the world, sabotage. Then of course, we end up getting Greenland, and he looks like a complete jackass, which is nothing new for Gavin Newsom. And then you've got senators telling the military and the CIA not to listen to the commander in chief. And then you've got governors and you've got mayors and you've got police chief telling citizens to go after under ice and the National Guard, and as we all know, a woman was doing such a thing. And I'm just. I'm sitting back going, this is nuts. Like, I don't understand how this is legal. Explain to me what I. What is happening here. This is where the Dems lose me forever.
- [38:17]
B
This is. Again, I think this is the. This is the difference between the Dems now and The Dems, whatever 30, 40 years ago was especially insulting is. Is all those particular members of Congress saying, we will have your back. We really could. You know what? The military really could have used them having their back when we were withdrawing from Afghanistan.
- [38:37]
A
Right.
- [38:38]
B
All right, but you didn't say a damn thing then. So this is the. The comedic part is these guys getting up there and saying this as if the military is like, oh, gosh, yeah, you've really got our back. Yeah, I remember when Kamala Harris was bragging about no US Troops anywhere else in the world, and you got all those guys and take go, where the hell are we at? Right? Like, they have never had our back. They've always seen the. They've never seen the military as anything more than a petri dish for social engineering. Right. They don't treat us with respect. And you know what? Look, I'm. I'm so thankful that they put out a video about you. You have an obligation to refuse illegal orders, because when Tim Walls calls out the National Guard to fight ice, I want them to say, sorry, Timmy, we'd love to come out there, but we saw this video about refusing illegal orders. So there's no question that many of these people have. There's. There's some of this that is carefully crafted, Right? When they say you have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. That's correct. Now show me the illegal order that Trump has issued.
- [39:32]
A
Right?
- [39:32]
B
Oh, well. Well, he hasn't. Oh, so you're just full of crap or what is this exactly right? You have their back on something that hasn't happened. What about all the things that did happen? You never had their back. Right. Or this instance where it's, I can't believe ICE is going in and they're doing this. Well, you know, if your party hadn't been not just complicit, but it hadn't actively helped orchestrate tens of millions of people coming into the country illegally, this wouldn't be necessary. But you guys did it. And guess what? When Bill Clinton was throwing them out, you didn't do this. When Obama was throwing them out, you didn't do this. Now that it's Trump, you've activated your little army of useful idiots to go out there and put themselves in danger. And now they're calling on the same law enforcement institutions, like the Minneapolis Police Department. We need you guys to go out there and fight these guys in the street. I'm sorry, is this the same police department you want to defunded? Right. If you're. If you're looking for logical consistency among any of this. I'm going to give it to you right now. Here's the only logical consistency, right? They want power and they don't like the United States. And nobody gets to tell me that's not the case anymore. Because I sit there, as I look at, as I look at every institution within the United States, as I look at all of our tradition or history and what do I see? The left continually doing. Doing denigrating it. We are supposed to be ashamed of ourselves. We're supposed to be ashamed of our history, our founding, our Constitution, our declaration. All of it is couched in this idea is nothing more than written by a bunch of rich white slave owners that didn't want to pay their taxes. And everything after that is slavery and Jim Crow and segregation and imperialism. That's all we are to the left. And then when it suits them, it's like, oh, I think this violates the Constitution. You mean that document that you denigrated is nothing more than the musings of rich white slave owners like you show me in the 1619 project or anything else coming out of the left, you show me out of leftist college professors any sort of genuine love for the sort of the philosophy, the ideas that created the United States and has sustained it. Show me. I don't see any of it. And so now I'm expected to believe, believe that Gavin Newsom has the best interest of the United States and mine.
- [41:50]
A
Oh man.
- [41:50]
B
I mean, Gavin Newsom, I mean, look, if I ever want to know how to scam billions of dollars at a high speed rail or homeless eradication, I will go to Gavin Newsom. But other than that, I need his advice on nothing. And the idea that Gavin Newsom would speak for Americans. No, he would speak for people that happen to live in the United States that have zero law love for the United States, that think that we are someone and that we are a country to be ashamed of. And that has become the dominant vision of the Democratic Party. We didn't push this on them. We didn't, we didn't implore them to take up this position. Right. And not every, not everybody on the left is like this. I think I could have a perfectly reasonable conversation with Bill Maher where we would disagree on any number of things but still come to the conclusion that, that the America overall has been a positive force in the world. It's a great place to live, it's a great place to raise a family. You know, and part of the reason for that is Because Bill Maher, as much as we may disagree on individual policy positions, Bill Maher doesn't think that logic is a tool of the patriarchy. Right. How am I supposed to have a constructive conversation with someone that honestly believes that truth is subjective? Right. Morality is subjective. Now, I can't have. I can't have a civil debate with that person because they've already decided I'm a bad guy by virtue of either my skin color, my sex. Right? That's where we're at. And the Democratic Party chose it. It wasn't imposed upon them. And I wish I like you. I wish it wasn't that way. And. And I hope that one day they will reject it. But right now, it's alive and well and it's actually manifesting itself in open rebellion to the United States government.
- [43:33]
A
Right? That's the thing. That's. That's what deeply alarms me. We've kicked off 2026, and I'm all about bold action. Taking the idea that you've been nurturing and turning it into reality. Whether it's launching your own fitness apparel line, wellness supplements, or just a passion project, don't let it gather dust, guys. This is your year to build something epic. And you got a tool like Shopify there. And there's no excuses. They give you everything you need to sell online and in person. Hundreds of stunning customizable templates to match your brand, built in AI tools that write killer product descriptions, generate headlines, and even edit photos in seconds. I mean, marketing is seamless. You can create emails and social campaigns that meet customers where they scroll. And as you scale, Shopify grows with you, handling more orders, new markets, all from one intuitive dashboard. Millions of entrepreneurs, from breakout brands to solo creators, have made the leap. And I know the power of owning your vision, guys. So get started today and make this your breakthrough year in 2026. Stop waiting and start selling with Shopify so you can sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today@shopify.com Jillian. Just go to shopify.com Jillian. That's shopify.com Jillian. And hear your first this new year with Shopify by your side. Jillian here. I get it. Most of us just sort of resign ourselves to these utilitarian bras and undies that dig in and stretch out and they lose shape. Why? I mean, I've tried countless brands and nothing holds up like skim's cotton jersey, full briefs. The fabric is awesome. It's soft, it's supportive, it's incredibly resilient. Wash after wash Skim still looks and feels brand new. There's no rolling down, no stretching out. They're incredibly comfortable. They fit friggin perfectly under any type of clothing so you don't get horrible panty lines. Look, Valentine's Day, it's around the corner. So treat yourself or your loved one to something that is truly better. Skims is just designed differently. Quality fabrics and construction, soft, seamless and supportive. You feel secure, lifted, which is, I mean, at 50, that's a good thing and still totally natural. So you can shop my favorite bras and underwear@skims.com and after you place your order, be sure to let them know that I sent you. Just select podcast in the survey and please be sure to select my show in the dropdown menu that follows. And if you're looking for the perfect gift for your valentine or for yourself, guys, the Skims Valentine's shop is now open. The manifestation in open rebellion. And you know, you talk about the left, but the thing is, is all the Bill Mahers left the left. I was a Bill Maher. Musk was a Bill Maher, Tulsi was a Bill Maher, Kennedy was a Bill Maher. You know, these are obviously the, the most forward facing individuals. You know, I know many people who are not famous public figures that left the left. And we saw it. I mean, Trump won the popular vote, the House, the whole thing. He won all the swing states. When do they appreciate that this is a losing position? I thought for sure after they got their asses kicked, we would kind of come off of the 20% on the 80, 20 issues. And instead it's like, I'm doubling down. We're back to the Supreme Court trying to get biological males in women's sports. I'm like, that's not popular. We're transing kids. Not popular. It's just what, where is it?
- [47:18]
B
But it is, but it is, is in, it is in certain areas. I'll give you. And look, this is heartbreaking for me because we just got crushed in Virginia. I know they have complete control of the legislature, the governor's mansion, the attorney general, the, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general who I know, like that's the other thing too. For most people. They're looking at this on the outside going, I can't believe these people got elected. I know each one of these people individually, right? Jay Jones, the Attorney General who was fantasizing about Republican children dying in their mother's arms terms. He wasn't talking about random children. He was talking specifically about Todd and Jennifer's children who he knows. He knows Todd and Jennifer. He knows their kids. He was there when Todd got sworn in as speaker and his little kids were kind of running around the General assembly forum. We all thought it was the cutest thing. And once upon a time, Jay Jones was one of the moderate Democrats. He was one of the moderate ones. If you had I served with him in the House of Delegates, if you would have asked me. Nick, Nick, I'm gonna. I'm gonna read off a text thread of somebody just fantasizing about this. Who do you think it would be on the other side of the aisle? He probably would have been my 46th pick out of 49.
- [48:24]
A
Oh, wow.
- [48:24]
B
But here we are. And then. And then Abigail Spamberger just said, she does a brilliant job as running as a moderate. A brilliant job. Her marketing is phenomenal. Day one, what does she do? She signs an executive order telling state and local law enforcement to no longer cooperate with us.
- [48:40]
A
Price.
- [48:40]
B
And then you look at the bills they have, right? Because everything was about affordability. Everything was about return to normalcy and civility. And then you look at the bills. There is literally a bill that makes it illegal for state agencies to actually demand that the. The 501C3 is in the charity. Charitable organizations that they give money to vet their clients to make sure that the money is going to people that are actually eligible. Like, wait a second. You made it illegal for a state agency to make sure that the tax dollars it gives out actually goes to the people that are supposed to get it? Only the qualified people. Yes. That is the bill right before the General Assembly. And we could go through a litany of all the stupid bills, but let me give you one of the most nefarious. 863 House Bill 863. This removes mandatory minimums for a whole host of crimes to include assault and battery, assault of a law enforcement officer, her possession and distribution of child pornography, multiple felony violations. Like, here's my question. Anybody. Anybody sitting in Virginia that was like, you know what? I'm gonna. I'm gonna give those Democrats a try, because I don't like that Donald Trump said a mean word. And you know what they're. They're doing? They want to do some nice things. They want to bring everyone together. That's what this is all about, togetherness. How many of you received a television ad? How many of you received a mailer that said, hey, if you put Democrats in charge, judge, we're going to remove the mandatory sentencing requirements for child pornographers? None of you got that in your, in your mailbox, right? And yet the moment they took power, the marketing went away and the policy began. And now this is what they're doing. And at some point I'm looking around going again, nobody forced them to prioritize this legislation. They did it all on their lonesome. When are we going to start recognizing that they are showing us who they are? Right? Maybe it's time to believe them. Because this is not a caricature on my part. This is what their bills do, you know?
- [50:40]
A
Okay, so I'm very familiar with similar things that have gone on in California, which is one of the key reasons I ended up leaving California. There was a bill that passed by Scott Wiener. Oh my God, is this guy the devil? I cannot even. He is as bad as Newsom. All day long. He wants to take over Pelosi's gig and he put forward a bill that said basically a 24 year old man can sleep with my 14 year old son and arguably not have to be labeled as a sex offender. There's like a 10 year age gap that allows adults to sleep with children and not be labeled as a sex offender if the judge doesn't deem it necessary. And I, when I was absolutely flabbergasted about this and I'm like, what is the logic here? And it's like, well, we have to be fair to the game, gays, because.
- [51:32]
B
See, straight people, weird thing to say.
- [51:36]
A
Straight people can, can engage in sex with minors. So, so the gays need to legally be able to do so as well. It's like, why don't we just make.
- [51:45]
B
Yeah, I got a better idea. Straight people, you're not allowed to do this either. How about that?
- [51:52]
A
I mean, and it is, it is. But then when you tell people about these things, they have no idea. I'll give you one more. More. Scott Wiener made it illegal for cops to go after sex workers. So they can't go after people who are loitering in any way. They can't stop them, they can't ask them for id. They can't ask them what they're doing. And of course what's ended up happening is the cartels and the gangs. The gangs are kids, teenagers who have fallen through the cracks of a broken foster care system because they don't fund that. But they fund the high speed rail that went nowhere to give to the NGO that then donate back to their campaign and nobody knows about it. I'm like, it's, it's, there's a whole article about it. In the New York Times. Is that liberal enough for you? Like, this is what you're voting for. But they don't know, Nick. They're just like, I want. I want gay marriage. Listen, I want it, too. Great. But, but, but. But personally, I understand that that's not the conservative thing, but. But look at all of this evil shit that they're doing under that pretense of, like, well, you. I don't know, man. I don't think they know, Nick. I don't think they know.
- [53:05]
B
I. I wish that was the problem. I think they do.
- [53:09]
A
It is. Okay, then why would anybody want that, though?
- [53:12]
B
Well, because once upon a time. Once upon a time, I would have agreed. And I. And don't get me wrong, there's still a sizable part of the population that is. Is not really involved in politics whatsoever, and they just kind of vote instinctively based off of their perception. Exception. Okay, but there. There are a lot more people out there that. No, they know. And here's how you know that they know.
- [53:33]
A
Okay.
- [53:33]
B
Here's how you know that they know. We had this issue in Virginia, and it was all over the country, but it came to a head in Virginia because there were very, very deliberate pornographic images that were going into schools, public libraries. And everyone was like, that's not happening. Okay, fine. We had a bill and we said, look, we're not going to ban any books. Books. We're not banning anything. We're simply saying that books which actually meet this criteria of having explicit materials in them, you have to let parents know that they're in the public school library. That's it.
- [54:02]
A
Okay?
- [54:03]
B
Not banning anything.
- [54:04]
A
Right.
- [54:04]
B
And then we showed the pictures, and it was pictures from graphic novels of, you know, small girls being by older men.
- [54:12]
A
Oh, my God.
- [54:13]
B
It was teachers being, you know, shot with, you know, rifles and things of that nature. It was guys, guides on, guides on, on again, a variety of sexual positions and sexual acts that were being marketed toward children. It was the sort of material that if a random adult walked up to your child on the sidewalk in a public space and handed it to them, they'd be arrested.
- [54:36]
A
Okay?
- [54:37]
B
But as long as it was in a public school library, it was acceptable. And so we. We showed all these pictures. We said, look, we. Every book that we are giving you right now, Delegate Tim Anderson, when he was still in the legislature, he goes, every thing I'm about to show you is either in or has been in a public school system within Virginia. So we're not. We're not going far afield to try to Find some. This. This is here.
- [54:59]
A
Okay.
- [55:01]
B
And I remember one of my Democrat colleagues who is a. Was. Was a pastor, said, nick, what Tim Anderson did on the floor of the House of Delegates was unacceptable.
- [55:11]
A
Oh, my gosh.
- [55:12]
B
I said, why? He goes, well, for him to hold up those graphic images. I said, are you kidding me right now? Now, so let me get this straight. If he holds up those graphic images on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates among a bunch of adults who are policymakers, that's unacceptable. But if they're in your kid's public school library, that's perfectly acceptable. A celebration of literacy. And he goes, nick, nobody wants those books in a public school library. And I look back, I said, we'll see when we have the vote. Not one. One Democrat voted to give parental notification that those books were in the public school library. Not one. The library association showed up and opposed it. The public school library association showed up and opposed it. The teachers union showed up and opposed it. This is not ignorance. They know. So when something like this is happening and we call in the press, we call it the four stone step. Step one is, that's not happening. Okay, fine. I show you proof that it's happening. Step two is, why do you care that it's happening? And that's where you should stop the whole conversation and be like, wait a second before you said, that's not happening. I've now showed you proof. Yeah, right. If. If you didn't care, your response should have been, I don't care, but instead it was you. You claim that I was lying to you, but so it's step one that's not happening. Step two, why do you care if it's happening? Step three is, okay, it's happening, but it's actually a good thing.
- [56:43]
A
Thing. Yeah.
- [56:44]
B
And then step four is you're a bigot if you don't like that it's happening.
- [56:48]
A
Right.
- [56:49]
B
Every single time. And so the way. The way that I decipher between ignorance and subversion is, ignorance is. That's not happening. Here it is. Oh, my gosh. I had no idea. Yeah, that's. That's going too far. We. We should probably put some guard rails on that. That is a good faith argument. But the moment you tell me it's not happening and I show you irrefutable proof that it is, and you now shift your argument. Why do you even care? Okay, now I. I see you for what you are. This was not ignorance. This was deliberate. I'm so disappointed. I've just. I've seen too Much of it. I've been in the fight too long. I've been in the legislature too long. I've seen the conversations out in public. I've seen them behind the scenes. They're not ignorant.
- [57:32]
A
So, okay, I understand why the Democrats would vote not to notify the parents if the teachers union is showing up. It's the same reason Gavin Newsom didn't open up the school. We were the California was the last state to frigging open up the schools because the teachers union was like, we're not going back, we're not gonna do it. And they give him so much money now that. But, but then I go to the teachers union and I just think, why though? What is happening here? And I guess that is ideological capture.
- [58:03]
B
Like, yeah, I, I mean there's a, there's a really interesting. There's, there's a man named Antonio Graham. She was actually an Italian communist that was imprisoned during Mussolini's rule in Italy. But it's, it's where you get the term cultural Marxism for. And it's fascinating because 10 years ago, if you look at Wikipedia, cultural Marxism was just, it was, it was a term defined by a Gramsci, but kind of outlaid his strategy to get Marxism to work in the West. If you look at Wikipedia now, it's like, oh, this is an anti Semitic, you know, conspiracy theory. Like, no, it was just Gramsci essentially had a theory. What he said was, is that the reason why Marxism never thrived in the countries that Karl Marx assumed that it would, because he assumed it would be in late stage capitalism countries, when instead it was czarist Russia, which was not exactly late stage capitalism. And, and Gramsci said, well, the problem is, is that you have all these cultural institutions which uphold the societal norms within a civilization. And so if you actually want to bring about that sort of change, then what you have to do is you have to infiltrate the culturally shaping institutions. And these are things that you would expect. Education, media, arts and entertainment, bureaucratic institutions, civic organizations, the church, etc, you infiltrate those and then you do one of two things. You either use it in order to shift the dialogue in the overton window in, in the direction of the left. And, and for Gram Sheet was Marxism, or you use it to undermine and destroy the legitimacy of that organization so it can't fight against you. You. And so there's no question when you, when you look at what's going on within our university system, James Lindsay talks about this as well, where he says the step one is always we need access. You need to give us access. Because that's, that's how you demonstrate your tolerance is let us have access. Then it's like, well, now we need, now we need accommodation. Now you need to change the way the organization operates in order to accommodate us. And then it's, well, now we need a seat at the table. Because the reason why we didn't have access or accommodation before was because we didn't have a seat at the table. Then it's, we want a majority of the seats at the table. And by the time they get to that stage, they exclude everyone else from sitting at the table. And so when you look at arts and entertainment, when you look at journalism, when you look at the university system, when you look at the public school system, when you look at across the board, there's no question that there has been a very, very concerted ideological effort when, when the teachers union is less concerned about opening up schools in order to make sure that kids can get an education. Even when the science demonstrates that Covid is not, not, you know, the schools are not the problem with respect to Covid, and yet they spend more time with respect to pushing gender ideology or critical theory or whatever else. That's where you can tell, okay, this organization does not exist to promote reading, writing and arithmetic. This organization promotes to push a particular social, economic and political philosophy. And, and that's what they see as one of their primary objectives. And it, and it, it shows in the way they donate. It shows in what they show up to, to protest. Protest. I mean, they were all calling for teachers, you know, don't show up to school, go protest ice. I'm sorry, this is your primary function now. I mean, don't get me wrong, if you're the sort of public school teacher that wants to get out there and protest ice, I'd much rather you do that than like, you know, you know, you know, confuse young children. But it's a little bit ridiculous that that's what you're organ. That's, that's become the animating feature of your organization.
- [61:21]
A
You know, you bring up ICE and we talk about how this kind of radical ideology is infiltrating society. There was recently, gosh, I think it was a poll that said 93% of the representation in the mainstream media of ICE is negative. And I pulled a clip for you to see the way CNN evidence of this and the fact that, that CNN back in the day used to totally support ICE under Obama and Clinton and the way that they are representing ICE now. And I'm gonna, I'm gonna show it to you in just two seconds. But it's like, is the question that you are just, you think you're morally superior and you're, you're trying to protect immigrants or that you're pushing a political narrative? Cloak of darkness in Chicago.
- [62:14]
B
Tack one, guys.
- [62:15]
A
An immigration and customs enforcement enforcement team gears up for another long day pursuing undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes in the U. S. ICE agents mistakenly arrest the target's brother.
- [62:29]
B
In the process of talking to him in the vehicle, he then said, oh no, I'm actually so and so. Who you're looking for is over here. This other address. He led us to that address and we were able to actually arrest the individual.
- [62:43]
A
You have evidence, right, that he's using a fake identity or.
- [62:46]
B
That's correct. We believe he's been using a u. S. Citizen's identity to live and work. Has an Illinois driver's license. Third target. He has an unauthorized use of a weapon which was a firearm. He has a couple DUIs. He is a criminal. He has extensive criminal history. And by taking him out of the community, it's making the community SAFER. And that's ICE's purpose.
- [63:07]
A
We have arrested 2,500 criminal legal aliens off of the streets of Minneapolis. No one. If I can finish, if I can make my point, I appreciate your having me, but I do want to be able to make my point. Sure. The point of the matter is I have not seen CNN cover who some of those individuals are. An individual from Ecuador who is three month old son. An individual who is perpetuating human slavery and human trafficking. Scores and scores of pedophiles. Why does the media not talk about that? We continue to see that people love to demonize law enforcement, vilify them as they're facing a thousand percent increase in assaults against them. And yet we're not talking about the great work that they're doing on the ground. The fact that they are risking their lives day in and day out to get these criminals off the ground. Gang members known as suspected terrorists. These are all the people that we've arrested in Minneapolis. You see, you obviously see the juxtaposition. It. Now, are we, are we pushing some sort of a narrative? Is this like George Soros actually funds CNN and he wants chaos or do you. Does CNN suddenly think that they're just really good people who care about the, you know, as Dave Rubin says, the abuela who runs your favorite little Mexican restaurant? Like, I just don't.
- [64:22]
B
I think the issue is never the issue. The issue is power, or the issue is the revolution or whatever you want to say. This is why Obama could do something and it was perfectly justifiable. And when Trump does it, it's evil and horrendous and tantamount to fascism. It's all about which team is, is doing something. And, and additional context isn't necessarily required for any of that. And, and that's why, again, when we get, we get, we get told, why are you dividing us? Like me pointing out the things you're doing, it is not causing the division. The things you're doing are causing the division. I'm simply noticing. And. But yeah, I'm just not at all surprised anymore because there were any numbers of topics that would come up that you would have thought 10, 15, 20 years ago that we could have looked at and said there's some sort of objective criteria by which we can analyze this information and then come to a logical conclusion. Right. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. The problem is, is that when you, when you look at critical theory and people know about critical race theory, but it's, it's something more than that. Critical theory is a way of seeing the world through this lens of power dynamics. And so this is how you get posters going up in the Smithsonian that list out things like the scientific method and linear thinking as attributes of whiteness.
- [65:44]
A
Yes, the white culture posters. I got into huge fight on this.
- [65:49]
B
So this is, this is where, this is where I go back to, is that it used to be that when I was debating with someone on the other side of the aisle, they might have one perspective that based off of their experience in education, that led them to conclude something, something. I may have a different experience. But then we both agreed that we could use facts, evidence, and logical thinking in order to come to a certain conclusion. Well, one side of that debate later on decided that linear thinking was an attribute of whiteness. And now all of a sudden the question is, is that, okay, if logic is off limits now, if truth is subjective, well, then how do we arrive at what the proper conclusion is? Oh, well, that's easy. Intersectionality. So if you're, if you're higher up on the intersectionality pyramid, because then you're, then you're a bigger victim. You're part of the oppressed class. And the oppressed class must be heard. The oppressed class must be liberated. Right? Now, if you don't fall in, well, then you're an oppressor. And nobody cares what an oppressor thinks. Nobody cares what sort of logic, reason or facts the oppressor is bringing to the argument. Because clearly this is just some sort of manipulation of reality in order to continue oppressing, guessing. Well, how do you know I'm an oppressor? Well, it's easy. You're a straight white male. Well, then how do I argue with that? You can't.
- [67:02]
A
Yeah, right.
- [67:03]
B
You can't. All you can do is capitulate.
- [67:05]
A
Right.
- [67:05]
B
And, and so that's where we're at right now. The whole, the whole way that we make these arguments has very, very little to do with facts and evidence. That's why when the first videos came out of the, of the ICE officer, the, the shot. Renee good or. Yeah, shot Miss Good. Conservatives. Now, right off the bat, you went into two different camps, right? Conservatives were like, I am more inclined to believe that the ICE agent had a rational reason on why he would pull a firearm and shoot. The left was like, she was murdered in cold blood. That's the only possible explanation. Then the first videos came out. Well, I, I know a little something about escalation of force. I know a little something about rules of engagement because I was, I was a Green Beret, I fought overseas. And our rules are a little bit different. Different. But I understand how they operate. And I'm looking at this first videos going, okay, this, this, maybe there, maybe there's some room for some criticism here. And then other videos came out and now all of a sudden you're seeing the officer get hit by the car and you're like, okay, no, I'm sorry if he's getting hit by the car. That, that's a justifiable shooting. And what was amazing to me is that the videos had zero impact on what you thought about this if you were a leftist. But it did have impact for a lot of people if you were on the right. Because we don't see logic as a tool, the patriarchy. We see it as a system that anybody can use in order to come to rational conclusions. But for the left, all it did was make them more mad, right? All of a sudden, getting hit by a car was not a big deal for a bunch of dudes that like to protest in the middle of the freeway. I'm pretty sure you don't want to start perpetrating the idea that not getting hit by getting hit by a car is not a big deal. Right. Otherwise it's going to look like Grand Theft Auto 6 out there. So. But that, that is such.
- [68:52]
A
Oh, my God.
- [68:52]
B
Such an important dynamic, right? If I can't convince you with facts and evidence. If there are, if there are no, if there are no, for lack of a better word, neutral tool, which at the very least are not partisan in nature that we can use to have civil discussion, arrive at different conclusions or arrive at the same conclusion, if that doesn't exist anymore, if I'm automatically a bad guy based off of immutable characteristics that I can't change, well, then you're not asking for civil discourse. You're asking for dominance. And if you're not willing to have, and if you're not willing to be peacefully convinced that I'm not going to submit to you, well, then you leave me no choice but to fight. You've set those conditions, not me.
- [69:30]
A
That's, that's the other part of this, is that when I look at these escalations, it kind of becomes a chicken and an egg conversation. If you weren't attacking them and doxing them and throwing things at their cars and spitting on them and throwing cinder blocks onto the. I mean, if that stuff calling them Nazis, telling them to die, I don't think they would have to wear masks. I don't think they'd have to wear riot gear. I mean, when, if somebody isn't dragged 300ft behind a car several months prior to being in the Renee Good situation, I don't think your brain is automatically going to default to she's going to drive over me. I, I which is why I find all of this rhetoric and the propaganda so deeply alarming of like the police chiefs, the mayors, the governors, the media. Oh, it's the secret police. It's the Gestapo. If, if you were to give. And one more thing I want to say about this. What I found interesting about CNN covering ICE back then is they got the wrong guy and they released him. Now they're like, oh my God, they've arrested the wrong guys. These bastard Gestapo efforts. Sons of a. Blah, blah, blah, racist pigs. And by the way, most of the ICE guys are of color. A lot of them are Latin or black, more so than white, by the way. But it's like they made a mistake. They released the guy, he helped him, where they to go. And it wasn't this huge racist explosion. If you had valid critiques of ICE right now, what would they be.
- [71:06]
B
To. To the. I'm sure you could look at. Here's the problem. It goes back to what you said before. You have to look at it in the full context. So, for instance, if an incident like that had never happened before, we would all be wondering, okay, well, could he have said out of the way, did he tactically, did he stand in the right place? Should he have stood right there or should he have moved out of the way and maybe moved his car? Like, there's all kinds of ways that you can look at to say what would be the optimal outcome. And my father was actually on the officer involved shooting team with lapd. And so this is one of the things that he had to investigate is when there was an officer involved shooting, it was always this relentless search to find out what would have been the best, most tactically sound way to do this, to prevent civilian harm and to get the bad guy right. And so I'm sure that we could go through and we could look at the thousands of interactions with ICE and say, well, that one wasn't as tactically sad as this one, and this one should be done differently than this one over here. But when I, when I look at most of the complaints, so the most popular one recently was like, oh, this woman is crying because ICE is dragging out this poor man who's a US Citizen in his underwear in the middle of the cold. And, and you're looking at it going, wow, that looks pretty bad. Bad. Why would they do that? Oh, it's because they were looking for two, I think, I think sex offenders who are here illegally who live in the same house as this guy. And when they went in to talk to this guy and they're trying to get identification, the guy refuses to give him their name, refuses to give an identification, refuses to cooperate with them. So they detain him. And once they are able to establish that, okay, no, this guy's an American citizen, he's not the guy we're after after they release him. Because that's how investigations are done, right? Like, the cops don't show up with perfect infinite knowledge of what's going on. And so the, the ideal is, is to protect civil liberties and civil rights, to go through the Mirandizing process, to go through everything that you need to do in order to try to effectively do your job. But if someone is not cooperating with you, being temporarily detained until you can establish identification is not a violation of your civil liberty liberties. I, I use this example once because so many people were talking about violation of due process, and it was a complete misunderstanding of what due process is, because in their minds, due process was, I go to court and I get an attorney and there's a judge and there's a jury and there's a decision, and then something happens. And I said, okay, I want you to imagine a scenario, I want you to imagine you come home from work and somebody has broken into your house and is sitting on your couch watching your tv be. So you call the police. The police show up. Due process at that point is them identifying whether or not this is in fact, your property and whether or not that other individual has any right to be there. Right. Now, the moment they ascertain that that other individual has no right to be there, guess what they do? They remove them from your property. I want you to imagine. I want you to imagine saying, hey, cops. He's right there. Here's my id, here's my house. Cops come in. Yep, this is your house. You got a right to be here.
- [74:03]
A
Here.
- [74:04]
B
Nope, this guy doesn't. But I'm sorry, Jillian, this guy is going to have to stay here until we can actually have a trial. He can get counsel, and a jury has to decide whether or not he's guilty of breaking and entering and trespassing. And only after we've done that, does the guy actually get to leave your house. I don't think any of us would think justice had been done in that particular instance. No, we think that's ridiculous. Due process in that instance is you don't have a right to be here. You leave. Leave. It's the same thing with deportation. You don't have a legal right to be in the United States. You leave now. If we want to convict you of committing additional crimes, if we want to convict you of something else and then punish you for that and potentially fine or detain you for that or imprison you for that. Yes, you go through the due process of a trial and establishing guilt and everything else that's associated with doing that. But it's not a violation of due process to remove someone that has no right to be here. Here.
- [74:58]
A
Right.
- [74:58]
B
And. And so.
- [74:59]
A
But again, they gam it, though, with the whole asylum play, though, right? Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I need asylum. And now you have to go through all the shenanigans and the rigamarole, despite the fact that they're taking away true asylum by backing up these asylum courts years from people who really are refugees and whose lives are really at risk.
- [75:19]
B
Well, that's where also. That's where. That's where this goes from. Just not being ignorant, being. Being nefarious. This. Because there are legitimate refugees that are fleeing, you know, hostile conditions and need a safe haven. There are people that are trying to legitimately come to the United States and do so through. Through the legal process and every Time, you're allowing people to skip that line. It's not only an insult, but there are resources that are now not being used in order to help other people who genuinely need it. This was something I pointed out with the whole DACA debate, because DACA was probably the most most sympathetic case you could come up with. It was the idea that an unaccompanied minor comes over to the United States. You know, should they just be sent home? Who do they get sent to? And the problem I had with it was is this all sounds nice. It all sounds nice to say, well, of course, somebody that was brought here that had, you know, they couldn't make the decision for themselves because their minor, of course they can stay. But then you're not taking a look at what sort of incentive structure have you just created. You've just created an environment where now, if you're a parent that legitimately wants a better life for your children, do you send them to the United States unaccompanied? Because that way they can stay. And, oh, by the way, when they're here, there's a far better chance that you can actually be reunited. And now you get to stay. And oh, by the way, how do you do that? Do you just book them a flight? Or do you. Do you do. Do you do some business with some pretty nefarious criminal organizations such as drug cartels? And then, oh, by way, by the way, your kid doesn't just get sent over here now. They're. They're being sold into the sex trade or they're being sold for human labor. Right? Until you start understanding the sort of perverse incentive structures you're creating through these policies, you will have no appreciation for the amount of damage that they can actually do. And all. None of this, none of this. If you don't like what's going on with ICE right now, I don't like that ICE has to wear masks to cover their identity, but I'm not going to tell a father of four, hey, dude, sorry, you're not allowed to cover a mask. I know Antifa is going to directly threaten you, your wife, your children. I know they're going to come after you because that's the sort of thing they get off on. But you're not allowed to cover your identity, Kennedy. No, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do that. And this is where we find ourselves. It's no. It's no appreciation for how the perverse incentives set up by bad public policy created the conditions that we now have to deal with. And it's not always going to look nice, it's going to look messy a lot. Because it turns out when you have to return tens of millions of people to their country of origin who don't want to go there, many of whom who have since engaged in follow on criminal activity facts, they don't go peacefully. But you know what would make it a whole lot easier? If the same Democrat mayors that stand by and let Barack Obama's ICE do this did the same for Donald Trump. Then we probably have far fewer people that decided that rather than prioritize doing useful things with their life, decided they want to obstruct federal law enforcement, we'd have fewer of those people actually getting hurt in the process.
- [78:08]
A
You know, one other thing I want to say about the mask is to be totally honest, if you could see their face, would that make it different? And you would know that they were law enforcement. That's the one part. Like, oh, how do we know they're law enforcement? Well, what about their random face tells you that they're a law enforcement? Is it the. They have got their name, the badge, the car with the plate and the thing like, that's not going to do the trick. But if you really are concerned about people who are masked up in the streets causing chaos, what about the no Kings protesters? What about all the riots and all the vigilantism and all those guys that are wearing masks and costumes, how come we're not concerned about it there?
- [78:47]
B
Like, well, you're right. Saul Alinsky wrote this in Rules for Radicals. Right. He said that their action is our reaction. And so they will create conditions where now ICE agents feel like they have to be able to cover up their identity lest their family, their children will be put in danger. And then the moment that's the reaction, they come out and say, oh my gosh, look at this. They're operating like ice Age isis. They're operating like a terrorist organization. They won't show their identity. We're living in fascism. So again, they, they, they engage in a particular action in order to elicit certain responses. And when those perfectly reasonable responses took place, that becomes the next thing they're complaining about.
- [79:24]
A
Yeah.
- [79:25]
B
When in reality, we could just take this back to its origin. Like you said, the chicken, the egg. Okay, what started this? Oh, you, you guys started targeting the family of federal law enforcement for carrying out their constitutionally authorized responsibilities. Okay, so I guess you're the problem then.
- [79:44]
A
There's one other thing that I want to ask you about. It's unrelated you know, this past week a video went viral of. I call them kind of like nihilistic black pilled influencers. Like you know, the Fuentes's, the Tate brothers. I don't even sneako this. That engaging in what I think is repulsive behavior and. Okay, so actually let me just, let me just show you a clip of some of the, some of these guys and the things they say and do. So the first one is their, their dance, their like celebrating a song called Heil Hitler. And then they're talking about sexually assaulting women.
- [80:54]
B
All my, A lot of women want to be.
- [81:06]
A
And when I say raped, I mean.
- [81:08]
B
Like that sounds bad when I say it like that. But there's like a lot of women.
- [81:13]
A
That really want a guy to beat.
- [81:15]
B
The out of them.
- [81:18]
A
But also they have to pretend.
- [81:20]
B
But part of it is they have.
- [81:21]
A
To pretend like they don't.
- [81:22]
B
I guarantee I change the way you look at sex forever. You're gonna be crying. I won't cry. I bet you cry. I bet you cry. You're saying I, I wouldn't cry. You're challenging me to a fight. You're saying I can't hurt you. You're out your mind. I don't even have to. You forget the sex part. That's a distraction. My dick can stay my pants. I'll start beating the out of you. How about that? We walk in the bedroom, I start kicking your ass. No sex.
- [81:49]
A
So here's the thing. I'm not looking to condemn these individuals. That's not my concern. By the way. They've all kind of subsequently been like, oh, they're kids, they're not, they're middle aged guys. These are 40 year old men. Most of them a couple are like 20 years old. So I can't do the whole like dumb kid game. That's not what's happening here. But two things, three actually come to mind for me right now. Now my concern, and I've said this for such a long time now, is that the fact that the left has gone after white Christian men who are now like, yeah, and now you actually have a wolf. You got, now you've got racists and you've got anti Semites and you actually have dudes that don't like women. And everybody thinks it's cool because they've been demonized for so long. And the last thing is that if it seems benign, it's not. There are so many young boys that are being influenced by this. And I've talked to guys like Adam, Carolla and yourself and how do we role model? What? Masculine. I can't do it. Women can't do it. And one of the things I love so much about you and I'll never forget when I listen to you talk about, about your daughter's wedding and you were in tears and I was like.
- [83:11]
B
I love this guy.
- [83:13]
A
And like that to me is like, that's a man. The left has demonized these boys and now they're leaning into this darkness and there's, there's what in the. Where does this go?
- [83:23]
B
I think so. First of all, thank you. You're one of the, you're actually one of the few people that is, as I think, frame this question in a way that can actually get us to the best part of understanding of why is this going to. Going on? Because it does, it does have to start with the idea that for the longest time, young man, for the last 20 years, young men have been told they're the problem, they're the source of all the world's evil, and if they would just behave more like women, it would be better. And the future is female and say what you want, but it was this idea. There, there's a. She used to be more of a center left YouTube personality or show was shoe on head. And she was, she did a video once just saying, hey, are men okay? And then she read off the comments from her female fans, basically saying like, I hope not. I hope they're horrible. Who cares? And, and she was just saying that this is the sort of, this is the sort of attitude that young men have gone through. And I'm, I'm 46, but I have a good friend who's 31, and he was explaining it to me, Nick, or explaining me. And he goes, Nick, you don't understand. Like from the moment I can remember having these conversations, I was the problem. And every instinct I had as a man was toxic. And that's what was keeping women down. And that's what. And if you're a white man, that's what was keeping minorities down. And so the, the solution was for you to shut up and sit down. And now all of a sudden it's harder to get in college. And it doesn't matter if you're qualified because you don't get the job because of, you know, DEI requirements or the corporate world wants to see, they want to see more of everything except you. You. Yeah, you're the one thing they don't want to see more of. He goes, so when you're, when you're growing up in that Kind of cultural environment, you got a couple of options. He goes, but you, you start looking for anybody that's going to stick up for you.
- [85:12]
A
Wow.
- [85:13]
B
And the problem is, wow is that the guys, some of the guys that were the first out the gate to stick up for him. Right. Because it's not like everybody sees the full complement of what people have done or said head. They see the thing that pops up on their feed that shows that guy defending them. And some of the guys that were out there defending him right off the bat was Andrew Tate, Tristan Tate, Justin Waller, Sneako. Right. Miles, Nick Fuentes. These are the guys that were sticking up for him. And so it's not like they started off with this idea of, oh, I really like this guy because he's singing this Kanye song. Or I really like this guy because the anti Semitic addict. No, initially what it was is that young, 16, 17, 18 year old guy who's looking for some sort of male mentorship is, is looking at a guy that, if it's, if it's Andrew or Tristan, these guys, they're physically fit, they're fighters, they're, they're very prosperous, they're constantly around beautiful women. Look, if, if you don't have a strong moral code or grounding like in your faith, if you don't have role models that have said, said, yes, you need to be strong and capable as a man, but you also need to do it in service to something greater. And you're looking at this, it's like, you know what? These guys all key. And then here's the other part. This is really important. The left immediately came out and called Tate and Fuentes and all those other things the same names they were calling everybody else.
- [86:35]
A
Yep.
- [86:36]
B
And so the thing was, is that, okay, I'm 17, I'm 18, I'm a young man and I've been called my entire life. I'm a Nazi, I'm a fascist, I'm a jerk, I'm a toxic, I'm this. And now you're calling these guys the same thing. I guess that's my tribe. I guess that's my tribe.
- [86:52]
A
That's, you know, they called my son that.
- [86:55]
B
Yes.
- [86:56]
A
After I was on CNN. I had to make his. He's 13. I had to make his Instagram private because comments were little Nazi. And I was just like, he's fine, he's. But I, you know, deleted. Closed it up. Little Nazi sisters. Black, gay, little Nazi.
- [87:13]
B
The thing is like, after a while, you're looking at this from the perspective of, I guess I. If. If the only thing you will allow me to be is the thing you're accusing me of, then I'm going to go find other people within that sphere that I can look up to. And, And. And all of us, we've all heard horrible things that, you know, Andrew Tate or Nick Fuentes have said. We've also heard other things that they say where it's like, okay, that kind of makes sense. And the problem is, I was actually talking about this with someone else. There's a tactic called the Mott Bailey argument, and it's a fallacy. And what it is is it's this idea that I make this horribly outlandish statement that's like, either misogynist or sexist or racist or whatever else it is, and then when you challenge me on it, I retreat back until an actually reasonable statement. And these guys do this quite a bit. But can I tell you where the biggest problem is, Jillian? It's the. The biggest problem is not these guys kind of giving in to what I would argue is, because I agree in the sense that men should be powerful and they should be strong and capable and competent. The real question is, is to what purpose? And the only purpose, the only purpose these guys are ultimately offering at the end of the day, is so you can get what you want and get revenge on everyone that treated you poorly. And the thing is, is I'm. I'm not rejecting that simply because I think it's incorrect. I'm rejecting it because nothing will leave you more hol fully embracing that, because there is no greater. The greatest depression is not being denied the thing that you think you want. The greatest depression is finally attaining the thing that you thought you wanted and having it leave you completely miserable and hollow and empty inside. But the problem is, is that for too long, a lot of the men that were in the Christian space, or a lot of men that were in more of what you'd call maybe the traditional space case, they weren't sticking up for these guys. Right. They bought into it as well. Whether it was at their churches or within their civic organizations. You know, it's. Whatever it was, they didn't stick up for him. And now the first time they want to come out and. And say something is to condemn Tate or to condemn Fuentes. And the young men are looking at me going, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You don't have credibility with me.
- [89:25]
A
Wow.
- [89:25]
B
Because you weren't there when we needed you.
- [89:27]
A
My God.
- [89:28]
B
And so the way that you want, the way that we have to address something like this, this is long before we ever get into the, the conversations and, and they need to happen, by the way. I'm not, I'm not going easy on anybody. But as men, we also need to take responsibility of, like, okay, have you modeled for. First and foremost, have you modeled for your son what it is to be a good man, to be a good husband, to be a good father? Have you actually given him the tools to be able to stand up for what he believes in? Have you actually drawn him, have you shown him a picture in your own actions of what he should be replicating one day when he's that young man? Because he's looking for mentorship, he's looking for guidance. And if he finds it, if he finds it with a good, honorable and noble man, then that is what he is likely to become. But he's going to look for it somewhere. Because I'll tell you this much, WOKE doesn't win. There is literally no possible future where the WOKE wins because you cannot alienate the same men, the same young men that you rely upon to police your street streets, fight your wars, and build your civilization. That's not to take anything away from the contributions that women. But there is no question that men play that critical role. Young men especially so they're going to revolt against woke. And let's all pray to God that enough good men step up in order to show them direction. But those good men, you better have some credibility, and I don't just mean credibility in your ability to talk. You better have lived your life that way. You better have some credential. You better have credentials spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, professionally and physically. Don't give me. I don't mean. I don't mean this to be harsh. Young men are not looking from a lot of fat wise guys to show them what, what goes on. They actually want to see men that they think are capable. And, and I, I've seen this before. I was, I was invited to speak at a men's luncheon for Young America's foundation. And I'm not, by the way, I'm not like body shame or anything like that. I'm talking about responsibility and dissonance, discipline. But I'm getting up at Young America's foundation, and all these young men are there to hear me speak. And all of them are interested in politics, right?
- [91:33]
A
All of them.
- [91:34]
B
Young America's foundation is. It's a cultural organization, but it's also a political one. And so all of them are interested in politics. And I'm standing there, reform I said, okay, guys, I got a question for you. Whenever I get called to speak anywhere, there's always three things that they put in my bio to introduce me. One is, is that I've been a legislature, a legislator for 10 years. I've been in politics for long, long time. One is, is that I have a social media presence. And the other is I was a Green Beret combat veteran. Which one are you guys most impressed with? And all of them almost in unison. Green Beret combat veteran.
- [92:04]
A
Same. Same.
- [92:06]
B
Why? Why? Why? They. They're not looking to be Green Beret combat veterans. Right there, maybe 10% of them wanted to actually join the military. Why is it that? Because it's. Because it's the thing that demonstrates that if somebody dangerous was to walk through the. The doors in the back of that room. Room, I would be able to do something about it. And every single man wants that. You don't got to be a Green Beret. You don't got to be a soldier. You got to be a professional fighter. But every man, I think God wrote it into our hearts that every man wants to be the sort of guy that their wife can depend on, that their kids can depend on, that they can protect and provide in a meaningful way. And if we have more men willing to step up and show them the honorable way to do that, I. I call it biblical masculinity. But the honorable way to do that, then I have a lot of hope for this country because young men are rebelling against the status quo. But what we need to understand is ours is not the only voice out there, and it's certainly not the only convincing voice out there.
- [92:58]
A
I just think you're fricking fantastic. I cannot thank you enough for giving me your time. As I said, you know, before the show started, when I listen to you, I feel better, and I feel so much better. Hopefully the audience feels better. Can you tell everybody where to find everything that you do social media handle everything, all your appearances, all the things?
- [93:28]
B
No. Sure. Thank you. Yeah, we try to make it easy. If you just go to Nick J. Freitas, pretty much all of our social media platforms, YouTube, you know, Instagram, meta, all that is Nick J. Freitas. We have a podcast we do called Making the Argument. And then we have another series that we've done, and we're going to be investing a lot in this year, which is kind of our. It's called the Be a Man series. But we did all these videos. We did a lot of these videos on, on just. And again, I I never try to set this up as here, I'm going to tell you what to do. I try to set it up more as these are the things I've learned through combat, through politics, of being a husband, through being a father. This is the information I would have liked someone to have given me. And so now I'm passing it along. And so we're going to be doing a lot more on that, on everything from raising sons to raising daughters to, you know, arguing with. How do you successfully argue with your wife? Oh, gosh.
- [94:17]
A
If you figure that out, I'll take some of that advice. Good Lord. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. And if there's ever anything. I don't see how. But if there's ever anything I could do to return the favor, just know you have a huge fan out there. And thank you.
- [94:36]
B
Well, I'm both honored and very flattered. Thank you, Jillian.
- [94:39]
A
Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like, like comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.