Nick Fuentes Sits Down with Crowder

Summary

---

Louder with Crowder – "Nick Fuentes Sits Down with Crowder"

Date: December 4, 2025
Host: Steven Crowder
Guest: Nick Fuentes
Episode Theme: Political outsider Nick Fuentes sits down for a lengthy, candid conversation with Steven Crowder, touching on controversies, populism, political coalitions, free speech, immigration, foreign policy, guns, and media misrepresentation.

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a rare, direct conversation between Steven Crowder and Nick Fuentes, known for his controversial reputation online as a "dissident Right" figure and host of "America First" on Rumble.

Crowder sets ground rules: the talk is not meant to be a debate, but to "illuminate where we agree, where we disagree." The conversation ranges from personal backgrounds to policy, with both sides addressing controversies around Fuentes, discussing political coalitions, America’s future, free speech, immigration, foreign policy, gun rights, and being misrepresented by media and rival conservatives.

The hosts emphasize mutual transparency and good faith, with Crowder promising not to allow dog-piling or "drive-by" criticisms once the conversation ends.

---

Table of Contents

1. Setting the Ground Rules and Intentions
2. Rapid-Fire Clarifications & Reputation Management
3. Nick Fuentes’ Political Journey and Views on ‘Gatekeeping’
4. The "America First" Concept – Definitions and Disagreements
5. Stalin, Strong Executives, and Industrialization
6. On Coalitions, Populism, and Prescriptions for Change
7. Free Speech, Media, and Deplatforming
8. Guns, Second Amendment, and Cultural Identity
9. Addressing Out-of-Context Clips and Internet Memes
10. Chat Q&A: Audience Questions
11. Significant Quotes and Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

---

1. Setting the Ground Rules and Intentions

• Crowder establishes he wants a fair, good-faith conversation, not a debate or a media "gotcha":
  • "This is not meant to be a debate. It's meant to hopefully illuminate where we agree, where we disagree. I mean, I'll sit down with anyone..." (03:09)
  • "People are mad if you platform them... I just hope that we can take our disagreements at face value." (03:09)
• Crowder mutes other hosts to avoid "dogpiling" and ensure a one-on-one dynamic (04:53).

---

2. Rapid-Fire Clarifications & Reputation Management

Crowder promptly addresses recurring internet claims about Fuentes:

• “Nick Fuentes, do you hate all Jews, sir?”
  “No. No, I don’t.” (12:01)
• “Do you consider yourself an antisemite?”
  “No.” (12:07)
• “Do you believe that white people are superior...”
  “No.” (12:16)
• “Do you want to eradicate all non-whites from the United States?”
  “No.” (12:21)
• “Are you, in fact, a fed?”
  “No.” (12:36)
• Crowder: “...Jillian Michaels... says you believe women should be raped as a matter of policy...”
  Fuentes: “Yeah, you’re correct on that. Yes.” (13:08) — Disputes claim.

Crowder: “I want people to actually hear your views for what they actually are... I also really hate seeing gang ups and that’s why I kill the mics of anyone here.” (10:20)

---

3. Nick Fuentes’ Political Journey and Views on ‘Gatekeeping’

• Fuentes shares his background: started mainstream with libertarian and pro-Israel beliefs, but was "blacklisted" for criticizing lack of debate on Israel in conservative media (14:01–17:53).
• He expresses frustration with conservative "gatekeeping" and media monopolies (e.g., Daily Wire). Crowder shares parallel experiences with censorship, demonetization, contracts (18:56–24:00).
• Both agree big tech and conservative corporate structures have stifled real debate and prioritized their own survival.

Fuentes: “I consider myself like the Revenant... I was, like, left for dead at 18, and then I had to kind of fight to repair my reputation and, like, prove what I’m saying.” (17:53)

---

4. The "America First" Concept – Definitions and Disagreements

• Fuentes loves America’s productive strength and admires past empires. He celebrates US “power” and “political liberty”, but wants more robust state intervention on certain issues (28:31–29:47).
• Crowder, from Canadian background, asserts America is fundamentally different (and better) than Europe—more free and less statist (29:55).

On the Founders

• Both praise the Founding Fathers’ brilliance (30:45).
• Fuentes clarifies he is "reactionary"—values freedom but critiques excesses of liberty, especially cultural liberties damaging to order.

---

5. Stalin, Strong Executives, and Industrialization

The Stalin Moment (Stirred by Tucker Carlson)

• Crowder directly asks about Fuentes’ prior praise of Stalin.
• Fuentes clarifies: admires Stalin’s historical efficacy in industrializing Russia, not his evil methods (39:46).

  “He’s an effective ruler. And I think that’s interesting.” (38:32)

• Stresses he "doesn’t support killing people or gulags" and wants state-led industrial urgency, not Soviet methods (41:28).

On Dictatorship, Theocracy, and Executive Power

• Fuentes says he may favor a strong executive briefly, but not a totalitarian or "Catholic theocracy." (43:51)
• Crowder expresses concern about ending up with the bad (tyranny) rather than just the good (efficiency).

---

6. On Coalitions, Populism, and Prescriptions for Change

The "Populist Coalition" Prescription

• Fuentes floats coalition of “populist left” (Ro Khanna) and “nationalist right” (e.g., Thomas Massie) for issues like anti-corruption, anti-war, anti-censorship (58:26–62:16).
• Crowder is skeptical, highlighting deep policy gaps (abortion, guns, trans, reparations). Fuentes admits it’s a long shot but posits: “If the right can come down on healthcare... and the left on anti-white open borders... that party will win 90% of the vote.”
• Both ultimately agree that incremental, pragmatic change via primaries and base-driven candidates is preferable—at least for now (77:52–79:03).

Fuentes: “I just think that we need the young people to climb the ladder... engage in primaries... be active, and we’re going to tell everybody who’s America first and who isn’t...” (77:52)

---

7. Free Speech, Media, and Deplatforming

• Both recount nightmare experiences with big tech and censorious contracts.
• Crowder credits Trump-era populism for empowering moves like Musk buying X; Fuentes is skeptical, says re-platforming happened under Biden due to overreach by the Left, not establishment Republican action (71:27, 72:42).
• Crowder stresses Section 230 reform as vital (74:20).

---

8. Guns, Second Amendment, and Cultural Identity

• Crowder passionately defends the Second Amendment as non-negotiable (86:15–91:51).

  "My prescription is there is no limit. You would probably consider me an extremist on that." (91:51)

• Fuentes admits feeling ideologically in favor, but less “gun culture”; wants an “orderly” society where guns aren’t as necessary; does NOT offer gun control as policy (88:44–89:32).

---

9. Addressing Out-of-Context Clips and Internet Memes

Crowder plays several viral or out-of-context clips and allows Fuentes to clarify:

• Accusations of wanting to execute non-Christians: Fuentes disavows, says it was a years-old, overzealous monologue about occultists, not Jews or non-Christians generally. He would not push the death penalty for religion (97:41–102:39).
• "Having sex with women is gay" clip: Admits it's an absurdist, "in jest" bit; admits to a degree of "incel" status but is voluntarily celibate (112:00–114:07).
• "Women age like milk": Clarifies the point was about preferring youth and being wary of societal antinatalist trends (119:01–120:28).
• "No kids for political cause" meme: Says individuals can be called to different sacrifices, but policy changes must be political, not solely personal reproduction (115:57–116:29).

---

10. Chat Q&A: Audience Questions

Sample Q&A exchanges (segments at [124:48] and beyond):

• Can America be "righted" in four years?
  Fuentes: No; real change will take at least 15 years (125:01).
• Is Islam a major threat to the US?
  Fuentes: No; more a concern in Europe; in the US, is often used to distract from other issues (126:21).
• Technocrats in government?
  Fuentes: Yes; wants experts in federal bureaucracy/advisory (128:08).
• Key to preventing conservative infighting?
  Fuentes: Prioritize demographic/immigration policy and America First; open other issues for compromise (129:29).

---

11. Significant Quotes and Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

On having the conversation:

• "These kinds of conversations need to happen... You need to discuss these things. Sure. Just isolate people?" – Crowder ([03:09])
• "You're the only one with the balls to show up." – Crowder, lauding Fuentes for agreeing to appear when others like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson declined ([24:20])

On being misrepresented:

• "No, I don’t [hate all Jews]." – Fuentes ([12:01])
• "No, I’m not a fascist... I just think in the past 30 years we’ve gone too far in the other direction." – Fuentes ([32:18])

On coalition:

• "That party [populist compromise] will win 90% of the vote and rule for a century." – Fuentes ([59:15])

On media hit jobs:

• "The Hill... edited out... ‘I’m not calling for political violence.’ That’s an indictment on The Hill." – Crowder ([97:41])
• "If I could take it back, I would..." – Fuentes on his "death penalty for occultists" monologue ([102:49])

On guns:

• "I do like a place where people are running around with guns all the time..." – Crowder ([86:15])
• "I'm not in favor of gun control... I just get a little uncomfortable with some of it sometimes." – Fuentes ([89:32])

On humor and clips:

• "Sometimes the edgier... let's be honest, if it's edgy, it's funny." – Fuentes ([108:56])
• "Incel thing is true... Women think I shouldn't exist..." – Fuentes ([113:34])

On immigration and coalition building:

• "I think the number one threat to the country is demographic change... I’m willing to compromise on other issues if we’re going to stop the flow of immigrants." – Fuentes ([129:39])

---

Summary and Final Thoughts

This episode stands out for the rare, direct, and comprehensive platform given to Nick Fuentes, whose views and reputation are dissected point-by-point in a careful, at times confrontational but thoroughly civil manner.

Crowder presses on Fuentes’ controversial statements with transparency and insists on full context, giving Fuentes the space to clarify or renounce past hyperboles.

The discussion underscores the fractures on the populist right — distrust of conventional conservative leadership, hunger for base-driven politics, strong anti-establishment sentiment, but continued disagreements over policy details (immigration, guns, foreign war, executive power). Media misrepresentation and "dogpiling" by rivals are consistent grievances.

Both agree incremental, base-driven change is preferable to nihilistic accelerationism. Crowder reiterates his non-negotiable issues (immigration, guns, speech) but is open to a broad coalition. Fuentes calls for more urgency and is willing to risk coalition-building outside the traditional GOP, though he stops short of advocating actual revolution.

Memorable closing moment:

• "I thank you for giving me the platform and the opportunity. So it's good to finally speak with you." – Fuentes ([138:06])

---

For listeners who want a candid, thorough breakdown of Nick Fuentes’ politics, personality, and controversies, and a window into real disagreements within the current Right, this episode delivers.

Transcript

[A]

What is overpaying on your taxes? Feel like.

It?

About like that. Don't let the IRS bust your balls. Visit tnusa.com crowder or call 9581000 for immediate relief and expert guidance.

Oh, geez. Oh, wow. Okay. I.

I knew that since we were starting later, I asked him, I said, hey, can we just, you know, I have this cup of tea. Can we just zap it real quick? Because it gets a little cold. Real hot. And that was. I mean, they went. It's kind of like the fast forward function on Amazon or Netflix. There's. Oh, yeah, it's a couple of frames. Or DeLorean. Yeah.

I just sipped napalm, so. But you won't taste anything for weeks.

[B]

It's.

[A]

Yeah. Well, we're gonna turn on the air. We're gonna turn on the air unit. It'll be. So I guess that's how it's going today. Today is a special. Well, I guess it's just a guest segment. By the way, are we going to Rumble Premium today, or are we keeping this all wide? Do we know? I didn't get an answer on that.

[B]

We were thinking to keep it all.

[A]

Wide, but let everybody see the whole thing. Well, Mud Club Rumble Premium, folks. You guys let me know. Nick, this shirt, I just. I went outside just to get some fresh air, and then I had water fall on me from the gutter. Ah. Also, it's raining.

[B]

I don't understand.

[A]

Also, we don't have gutters, so I think there was just someone.

[B]

Is someone up there pouring water on you?

[A]

Yeah, exactly.

[B]

They got it dirty and then poured it on.

[A]

He's just an angry old man. Take it.

[B]

I hope he added some leaves for you.

[A]

And then he'd be throwing it. So Nicholas Fuentes, Nick Fuentes is going to be on the show, I believe. We're trying to ring him. He's the host of America first there on Rumble. Controversial figure. And look, I know that for a lot of people, this is a no win proposition because people are mad if you platform them. You have the Barry Weisses of the world, the people out there who don't want you to host anybody if they disagree or they think the views are so abhorrent. And then you have some fans or some people who might identify with Nick, who, no matter what you say, you're paid for or you're a shill or. I just hope that we can take our disagreements at face value. And really, this is not meant to be a debate. It's meant to hopefully illuminate where we agree, where we disagree. I mean, I'll sit down with anyone. Yeah. I mean, these kinds of conversations need to happen. So many people criticized President Trump when he had conversations with leaders of around the world that maybe you wouldn't, like, maybe go meet with them and he would talk with them. And it's like, well, what else are you supposed to do with somebody that maybe people have a problem with or they have problems with certain ideas? And you do have disagreements that you need to talk about? You need to discuss these things. Sure. Just isolate people. So I think it's good to have these conversations. Yeah. Oh, Josh is here.

[B]

Yes. And I concur with Gerald's conclusion.

[A]

I should have concurred. And they just. And, guys, you can comment below. We might take some chats later. So you can either comment below what you think of this segment, this episode, and we'll take some chats later. Questions that you most likely want to ask. The reason they're being quiet is because I have a rule where if we have a guest on and if it could be confrontational, I don't ever want someone to feel like they're being dogpiled on. So I always say, hey, let's kill the mics and just make it mono E Z.

Just to be careful. I don't know if we're still going wide on YouTube. Yeah, no, we are still going wide.

[B]

Mono.

[A]

E. No, mono. Is it mono E Mono. It is Mano.

[B]

Mano E Mano.

[A]

Mano. Maniman. That's. I think that's hand in hand. It's Latin, right? What is mano a mano Latin or Spanish?

[B]

Mano is Spanish for hand.

[A]

Oh, I thought it was Latin. It's certainly not hand. All the Romance languages are based in Latin. What the hell is happening? Hand and hand. Sick. Transit. Gloria. Gloria fades.

What is this where you just walk off the scene? You're like. Then it freeze frames at the end or what? A guy had that tattooed once, and he would say it like that. He'd go.

Glory fades. Oh, man. Oh, I already hate you. How was this?

[B]

Pencil, mustache and mullet.

[A]

Yes, exactly. Yeah. His wallet chain from Hot Topic. Hey, don't come after the wallet chains, bro. No, I'm not so much. I'm going after the Hot Topic, actually.

[B]

Got to keep my wallet safe.

[A]

Is there, like, a pickpocket pandemic going on or an epidemic? There was in the UK and the. The Pakistanis are bringing it back.

[B]

I gotta be honest, Gerald sounds suspicious.

[A]

He does sound. He's like, nobody's Stealing wallets out here.

[B]

Why would you protect your wallets?

[A]

I'm protecting that. Who has ever heard of such a thing? A wallet being stolen? How could that happen? It's on your person. There's just that just defies reason.

[B]

This grinds my gears. Now turn around.

[A]

I'm just like the 16 year old with $3 in his wallet isn't like the most likely target is all I'm saying.

[B]

I have $63 in my wallet.

[A]

The problem is Gerald's wallet is Velcro. Pull it out. Prove it right now.

[B]

You don't think I got this cash flow.

[A]

It all just flew out of your wallet. He specifically said 63 DOL. Want to see if he has $63 in his wallet.

[B]

I have 60American dollars and there's three bills.

[A]

No, you lied. $60. Liar. Why am I admonished when he is factually incorrect? All right, guys, do we have Mr. Fuentes on you guys? Let me know.

[B]

Coming up now.

[A]

Coming up now. All right, so when that happens, you know, you guys, your mics are going to be gone for a little while. Any. Any thoughts? Any last. Any last words?

[B]

Last words? I don't know.

[A]

It's a good conversation. Yeah, it's one of those things where this is the problem, too. These kinds of conversations. Again, I've had a conversation with an imam who called for my death on air. Now I haven't. Wasn't wrong. I haven't hosted him since then. To be clear. That's when I developed the rule. Yeah, I'm like, I probably won't actually have a conversation with someone who wants to kill me. Outside of that, I've had conversations with communists. Even worse, the first transgender mayor of a city in Texas. Gross. That one was there. So it's like, who are you going to. I'm going to take my advice and who I can talk with From Jillian Michaels. No, come on. Come on. Not gonna happen. No. That'd be like taking advice on how to use a urinal from Jillian Michaels. Although.

[B]

Well, she might have some.

[A]

She might have. It's surprisingly. It's etiquette. Always leave a buffer urinal. All right, do we have our guest on the show? All right, it's time and again, you guys can leave your comments in chat and we'll take some questions from you later on. Let's welcome to the show, Nick Fuentes.

Mr. Fuentes, thank you for being here. Sir, can you hear me? See me? Okay.

[B]

Yes. Can you hear me?

[A]

I can. I can hear you. And I see. I appreciate the Christmas Decor. A lot of. A lot of people don't do that. Let me get this just out of the way really quickly. Obviously on X. And that's a win. You're back. Nick J. Fuentes. Nicholas J. Fuentes. It's America first on Rumble weeknights, right?

[B]

Yes, Correct.

[A]

Okay. And then as I understand it, next week you are going to be on Piers Morgan Uncensored.

[B]

Yes, On Monday, I'll be doing a show.

[A]

I will warn you, Piers Morgan Uncensored is rather censored.

[B]

I don't know if in what way. How do you mean?

[A]

Well, he challenged me to use the N word on the show and I did it three times, stuck the landing in front of Mark Lamont Hill. They just skimmed past it and then edited it out afterwards.

[B]

So no N word. Huh? All right. I'll have to keep that in mind.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I'll try not to use it.

[A]

If he asks you, well, would you say it? Or he challenges you and you do. He pulls a magic trick where people don't hear it.

[B]

I'll have to record it on my end. I'll just blast off. Maybe if I say loud enough, they'll just play it anyway.

[A]

I actually did that one time, so we can give you some tips. I had a buzzer every time someone interrupt and he edited out the buzzer. Not him, his producers, But Nick, I appreciate you being here, man. You know, right now, it's a weird time where people are trying to tell folks they can't actually have conversations no matter how much you agree, disagree. So if it's. I'd like to kind of set what my expectations are because I did hear that you said you hoped this would be friendly. That's my goal, too. The first thing I will say, we got into it with Jillian Michaels. I did, I should say, this week where she was demanding people disavow. And I'll get to that. I hate above all else. It's like I feel compelled to defend no matter who it is when jokes or statements are mischaracterized, taken out of context. I've had that happen to me. I think it's happened to you quite a bit. I don't want to do that. All right. Hopefully, I think neither one of us does that. And I also really hate seeing gang ups and that's why I kill the mics of anyone here. I really didn't like seeing what happened with Candace and Tucker, especially after you appeared with Tucker and it seemed pretty cordial. And then he took pot shots once you were gone. I promise you I'm not going to do that. Is that fair?

[B]

Yeah. No, I appreciate that.

[A]

Okay. And what I really want to do is I want people to actually hear your views for what they actually are. And I know a lot of people, people are gonna disagree. And some people, you know, they'll be moved, they'll be convinced. And I want them to make up their own mind and be able to contrast it. So I ask that we're able to do that. I will also say, hey, look, I do wanna thank you because, you know, I've been subject to some concerted hit pieces myself and you didn't join in on the dogpile. And I do appreciate that.

[B]

Yeah. Gotta stand up for a guy, you know, it's bros before hoes.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So I'm with you.

[A]

No, I don't so much appreciate you implying that I'm bringing talking points, BlackRock or the Israel lobby, considering I've been sued by BlackRock and even Rumble had to fight back. So I think let's just make sure we take each other's opinions at face value. I don't think that you're paid for to say anything that you're saying. And I can tell you definitively that I've never taken a dime from an outside entity, nonprofit or foreign interest.

[B]

Yeah, Yeah, I believe you. Sounds good to me.

[A]

Okay. All right. Also, I want to make sure we can issue. So we're not mischaracterized. A lot of people watching. This is the last kind of ground rule. I want to kind of address each issue point by point. I'm going to avoid points stacking where I just go rapid fire because people will use that, take it out of context. You know, people go, and Nick wiggled out of this. And they do that with me. I want no one to mischaracterize anything. So with that said, I have a couple of rapid fires, but I think you're gonna like them. Okay.

[B]

Okay. Yeah, sure.

[A]

These are layups. And I mean rapid fire. And then I want to give you the floor. Nick, I think there's some misconceptions of you. I've heard this said. Can you clear the air? Nick Fuentes, do you hate all Jews, sir?

[B]

No. No, I don't.

[A]

Okay. Do you consider yourself an anti Semite? A noted anti Semite?

[B]

No.

[A]

Okay, clears that up. Do you believe that white people are superior to all other races on the planet?

[B]

No.

[A]

Okay. Do you want to eradicate all non whites from the United States?

[B]

No.

[A]

Okay. Well, Barry Weiss will be very happy to hear that. No doubt she's Watching. And then. Because this happens a lot, right? It's a. You're a. Tucker. Did this with you. Fed. Fed. Fed. Nick Fuentes. Are you, in fact a fed?

[B]

No.

[A]

Okay. I'm gonna get through these rapid fire really quickly. They're actually. There's not much. So this week, Jillian Michaels will be on the show next week while you're doing Piers Morgan censored. And she said that we need to disavow you and specifically said you had said that women either want or need to be raped. Now, I looked for this. I have not found, as a matter of prescription from you, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe women should be raped as a matter of policy. Do I have that right?

[B]

Yeah, you're correct on that. Yes.

[A]

Okay. All right. So she's wrong. She's just an angry lesbian. Got it. Now, finally, this one might surprise people because I know you and Charlie Kirk were sort of rivals, as you've described. Been a lot of controversy floating around that, and people often say that you blame the Jews for everything.

Do you believe the Jews killed Charlie Kirk? That's one of the conspiracies out there right now. What's your position on that?

[B]

I don't believe that. As it stands right now, I think it was Tyler Robinson.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, me too. And if there's something else, I hope that we find out, but I think a lot of people would just sort of toss you in that lot. Okay, I think we've cleared that up. So, look, there's some people who might be new to you here. I know you've told your story quite a few times. Some people here may not have heard your background. Tell. Tell folks out here your story. How did you come to your current positions?

[B]

Well, I appreciate the rapid fire intro because that is my reputation. That's what people say, is that I'm pro rape, want to kill everybody, whatever. So I told you you like my audience. Yeah, I did. And I appreciate the opportunity because my audience knows that. But maybe your audience might not or other people might not. So I actually appreciate that. As far as how I came to my views, I've told the story many times. I'll give you kind of the shorter version and feel free to jump in or ask me questions or clarify. But I was a fairly normie conservative in high school. I was very political since I was 12 years old. And like everybody in those days, there wasn't a lot of stuff on social media like conservative informational content. And so what you had was PJ Media. You had the Hoover Institute. Um, you know, you have things like this. And that's kind of how I got acclimated into conservative politics and Prager University and all that kind of stuff. And. And I would say that I was about as mainstream as it gets. I was pro Israel, pro free market, fiscal conservative, basically libertarian, is what I would say about myself. And then the Trump election kind of just hit me like a train. And I had a series of realizations about the media, about immigration and demographic change in America, what the political implications would be for that in elections, but also just in society. And then, obviously, the biggest and most controversial one is I really love the idea of America First. Trump said that at his inaugural. He said that at the rnc. And when I heard that, I said, that's me. Like, more than I'm a libertarian or even a conservative, I'm. That I'm America first. First, I'm a nationalist. And then I just began to notice that there was always just one exception to that rule in the conservative space, and obviously that's Israel. And I remember I knew a lot of people from Daily Wire in college. This was jumping ahead a little bit to when I was in college. I met a lot of the writers there, and some of them were Jewish, and some of them were not, but they were all extremely pro Israel. And I remember first just thinking that was weird because you have the set of talking points from Prageru, Daily Wire, whatever. And it was like, we're in favor of gun rights, low taxes, the free market, you know, pretty standard, standard set. And then it was always, and Israel has a right to exist and Palestine must be destroyed. And. And I said, you know, one of these things is not like the other. Like, this is clearly different, and it's conspicuous, and you never see a critical opinion on those things. And I tweeted that, I want to say 10 years ago, I said, I've never actually seen criticism of Israel on Daily Wire or Prageru. And I remember Shapiro called me an anti Semite for saying that. And I said, how is that anti Semitic? And. And what's more, I said, that reminds me of how if you criticize women or blacks or Muslims, they call you sexist, racist, Islamophobic. I said, so how's that different, right? And for that, I got blacklisted. And. And they really made my life a living hell. Yeah, they. These people went to American Conservative Union. They got me banned from cpac. Cabot Phillips, who was at Daily Wire now, back then, he was campus reform dad is Tim Phillips. At afp, this guy was out to get me. He was, you know, pushing hit pieces. Shapiro was going around calling me an anti Semite and blowing up hit pieces about me. And basically, ever since then, I guess I've been kind of like. Like, I consider myself like the Revenant. You know that movie with Leo DiCaprio where he gets, like, killed by a bear.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And then he has to fight through the wilder. That's kind of how I feel. I was, like, left for dead at 18, and then I had to kind of fight to repair my reputation and, like, prove what I'm saying. So that. That's kind of the.

[A]

What's crazy about that movie is the real story. The guy's actually more badass. I don't know if you've actually read about him in real life. He sexually dominates the bear. But it's. I remember that big controversy when people. There were a bunch of conservatives saying, we're not gonna go see the Revenant. There was this rumor that he was raped by the bear. I don't know if you remember that. That was a big story. And I watched. I'm like, this is just. It's just a CGI bear. I do want to go back to Daily Wire, because I don't know if you know this. We also mentioned PJ Media. That's where I was first doing stuff in 2009 after YouTube. And like you, I grew up in Canada, but. So we didn't have AM radio. We didn't have Fox News. I was at Fox News for about four and a half years, and I'd never seen anyone who was there on air. They just threw me on a panel with Alan Combs and said, debate this guy. And then it just kind of went on for a while, and I reached the end of the road. But I don't know if you know this. I've had a little bit of a. I guess you could say turbulent history with Daily Wire, myself, not for the same reasons. But I will say this.

There have been some things that I haven't talked about publicly regarding Daily Wire. People knew the contract issues. But I know you've used the term gatekeeping, and I can tell you that was something that bothered me behind the scenes, too. Let me ask you this before we get to that, because it sounds like you're saying, and this is something that I kind of seen. I've kind of watched you develop a little bit, and I can understand why someone who's young, I hate to use the term, lashes out. I'm not Gonna put you on a couch and ask about your mother. But. But I can understand why you'd be upset. Was this, though, when Ben Shapiro was saying that, was it before or after the sort of what he would classify as targeted harassment campaigns from the groipers, like, you know, bombarding his events, and a lot of conservatives were being, you know, doxed and swatted? I'm not holding you responsible for that, but you know, that. That happened quite a bit. I know you've been victim to it yourself. Was his blacklisting before that? So that your sort of campaign or your fans campaign was a response, or was it after?

[B]

It was completely before. So just for the timeline, it was December 2016, and I didn't start my show until February 17th. So it's before I even had a show, before I was anybody, before the groipers were even a thing. Gripers came around in 19. So it was way before.

[A]

Okay. Because I had. I did have the groipers show up to, like, a comedy event. This happened a while ago, and they just sort of went away. And they were under the impression. I don't know if you said this, that I was like, under open borders cuck. And it kind of fizzled out where I was like, well, no, no, I'm not. I think we should close the border, and I think we should deport people who are here not only illegally but have stricter immigration, period. That's not a new view for me. So, yeah, I could see, though, how people. If it was under false sort of pretense with. With Daily Wire, here's what I experienced. Now, I don't know about your timeline. I know Cassie Dillon posted some receipts saying, like, it's. This is not accurate, but I would imagine you were giving general timelines and people. People to sort of paint a picture, Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. With Daily Wire, what would happen is being demonetized. On YouTube, they created the new rule borderline content because they couldn't fully remove me. Sorry about that. It was a third rule, specifically because I had a lawyer and planned for this. I would get into conversations with Google executives, people at YouTube, and especially as we got toward Covid and the vaccine, questioning that or the lockdowns. I would have people very high up at Google, YouTube say, well, we don't have these kind of problems with Daily Wire. And I said, well, I'm not. And without getting into any private information, there were conversations that took place. And that was something that really rubbed me the wrong way. It was sort of, you'll kill us last right and they famously bragged about spending more money on Facebook and Google than anyone else. And then there was pressure being applied from YouTube to sort of step in line. So I can corroborate that that was something I experienced behind the scenes, if that helps illuminate it at all.

[B]

Yeah, and I remember it very well. I remember the adpocalypse and I remember your tiff with them. I remember you going on Tim Pool. I remember the whole thing. And I've heard that even I'm not connected. I'm not tapped in at all. I was radioactive for so long. But, but even I had heard rumors that they had made deals with Google behind the scenes or Facebook. And it's well known they were like the number two advertiser on Facebook. Like number two overall, not like among conservatives, period, for many years. And so even notwithstanding the Israel stuff, nobody knows the fact that they were kind of the beneficiaries of a monopoly in the sense that like all their competition got banned. Anybody that was dissident, anybody that was controversial, basically was. Was no platforms, not de platform. No platformed.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think you got caught up in that as well. I remember it. I remember pretty well.

[A]

Their contracts require it. And by the way, I was never the one to really, just to be clear, there are some people there who I'm friends with. Jeremy Boring was, was never one of them. The contracts necessitated it. Right. Where they would penalize their own creators, I believe was 25% for the first YouTube suspension. 15% more another 50 if you read the contract. 15% for Facebook suspension. And so, so my issue wasn't the money. My issue was like, well first off, this would be 110% penalties for me because I'm literally suspended from all these places right now. But this is de facto doing the bidding of big tech and that's the reason for it. I didn't like being put in that position. But yeah, so I can understand it. I can understand why a young guy would feel betrayed or feel hung out to dry. And I think that might explain it quite a bit. Even if we disagree with your views, like I told Ben Shapiro In 2016, 2017, I don't think we should be giving any money to Israel now. Unlike you, I support them over Hamas morally, but I think we should stop funding all sides of the war in the Middle east. And hopefully you find that a reasonable position, whether you agree with it or not. I don't think that's extreme and Ben didn't seem all too bothered by it. But I Also invited him to be on the show, and he was going to, and he disappeared. But I just saw him on with Don Lemon in David Pakman, so I guess they're not so abhorrent.

[B]

That's interesting. So he agreed to come on, but then he canceled.

[A]

Yeah, it was just sort of informal, you know, by text. And then I just haven't heard back from him. He's been on the show many times, so I'll give you credit. Nick, Candice, Tucker, Ben, Mark, everyone invited on. You're the only one with the balls to show up. I have to give you kudos for that.

[B]

Yeah. No, and I appreciate. Even though you didn't call me out, I saw the clip. I was.

[A]

Cause I knew you would show up. You're like the candy. You're like the candyman. I say your name three times in the camera, you'll show up. No, but we did reach out. I said we didn't want to because we didn't want it to be a conflict. We. We had already communicated or my producer had, and I. I didn't want to call you out as though you were ducking. Those other people have been ducking.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Totally fine. No, and I'm here, and I'm. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you, and, you know, I think we agree on. I. You know, maybe this is going to sound like I'm kissing your ass a little bit, but I do always feel like you were left bad than all the other people in the conservative movement.

[A]

That's high praise.

[B]

Well, and I know that sounds lame, but, I mean, you know, during the Griper war, I know the Griper showed up to your events, and I remember thinking, like, crowder's not even. He's not even really bad on. On many of the issues, like Daily Wire, even, like, Turning Point was six years ago. They got a lot better in the intervening. You know, maybe the past three years. Yeah, but. No, but I always think you. You know, you have balls. So I think you're one of the more creditable people in the Con, Inc. Kind of scene.

[A]

Well, come on. Don't put me in that scene. That's the thing. I'm not in that scene at all. I've been rejected by that scene. Just maybe not quite like it, but quite a bit. I mean, I said the N word on Piers Morgan. That counts for something. I will say this, though. Yeah. There was a. Did you encourage the gripers to go, or was that their own thing? That's just to clear the air.

[B]

You know, I don't know, so long ago you were not one of our major campaigns. We were really focused on Turning Point. So you might have been on the calendar. We threw together a calendar and said, these are all the speaking events in the fall. But we really focused on Charlie Kirk more than anybody.

[A]

All right, well then could you. Could you give me where that you're not gonna send them to like stand up events going forward?

[B]

Well, I didn't send anybody to a stand up thing.

[A]

I was just basically, I was dressed like Che Guevara. Like it was a Halloween. It wasn't the same kind of thing as Ben Shapiro. It might have been Brett Kavanaugh with a beer helmet. Like, it's not the same kind of show.

[B]

Sure, yeah. No, I won't send anybody your way, I promise.

[A]

Because here's a funny before we get into it, because the groipers back then, people, they kind of had like rankings. Do you remember that? Like, like, do you remember this? Okay.

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[A]

So who could forget? Okay, okay. So you do remember. So this is. I'm glad we're able to talk about this because. And by the way, we'll post all the videos and links, like references in the description so if we. We have a clip or people can see the whole context. I believe it was at smu and I knew they were coming because I was posted on this calendar. And so again, the same way infiltrated anfa. I knew every single one of them and I knew they had rankings. I don't remember. Maybe it was like Private Admiral, something like that. But here's how I kind of also. It was a little bit of a mind trick, so you'll appreciate this. It was nothing super bad. I said, okay, everyone who agrees with me, you know, you line up on this side of the auditorium. It was like 2,500 seats. Everyone who disagrees here, we're going to go one and one. And I saw all the gripers line up and they were supposed to go in a sequence like Private to general. The last second before we go, oh, we have to change something in the venue. And we swapped the lines so that the wrong guy went first. And I remember in your groups back then, or not your groups, but whatever the grapebread of Facebook group, one of them said, did you see? I asked a question last night. And they were like, you were a stuttering, disgraceful fool. You are not amongst us. And they booted up him. They drummed him out of the core. And then I was off the list.

[B]

I remember we had generals. We didn't have maybe they did that on their own. We had. We had generals, and it was sort of tongue in cheek, you know, we were a little ironic about it, but. No, but I remember the tricks you guys were pulling. It was pretty, you know, that was pretty clever. I'll give you. That was pretty clever. That was a good counter offensive, you.

[A]

Know, and we were tricking. And the truth is, I just wanted to do some fun stuff. All right, so since we got through that, look, America first. I identify as a conservative, as a nationalist. I wear that since it became a pejorative. Like, I thought that was sort of a default thing for America. So you wouldn't hear me saying nationalist until people were like, nationalist means you're a supremacist. I'm like, well, okay, well, then I'm a nationalist. Now I have to claim it because of course, I want America to do best. Since you, I know, are very clearly America first. Let me ask you, what do you love most about America?

[B]

Well, I love that we're a superpower. I love that we. Because I really do believe that, you know, when you look at the history of Western civilization, I love the idea of an empire. I love the idea of the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, British Empire, and I love the idea that we just have this crazy productive capacity, the, you know, huge population, huge resources. I like the power of America. That's something I've really been liking a lot lately.

[A]

Okay.

And of course, we don't want to take that for granted. Obviously, the power of America, like that can. That switches and switches in a nanosecond. As far as history, is there anything else that stands out to you aside from the power? I mean, if not, we can move on to the next.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I love political liberty. I like the Constitution. I like our culture. I like that we're. We're like a pan European empire. I like that. You know, because when you compare us to Europe, you look at Europe and it's sort of petty and small and they're squabbling and they're fighting, you know, between these, like, little towns and villages. And I like that there's just like this sense of nationhood in America between European Christian people and other people, too, of course. But for the most of our history, it was mostly the Europeans. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of things I like about America.

[A]

Yeah, that's where I would already disagree with you, because I was raised in Quebec, which is much more European, and I think Europe kind of sucks. I'm not a bitch.

[B]

Why?

[A]

Well, because there's far less freedom. I mean, in Quebec and a lot of these European nations, they had an enforced denominational form of Christianity which didn't work out. That breeds atheism. I believe that Quebec is possibly the most unchurched population in the industrialized or Western world, even though Catholicism was a state of enforced, provincially enforced denomination. I think we're better than Europe. That's why we left. But I do understand that the founders obviously were largely white, Christian, European, I mean, Protestant, obviously. I know you and I will quibble about that, but that is the basis here. Doesn't mean that Catholics aren't welcome. But let me ask you, what about the Founding, like Founding Fathers? Is that something. Because I know you have opinions kind of on both sides of that, and I think they're more nuanced, but is that a big part of what you like?

[B]

I love the Founding Fathers. I think they're brilliant. I love George Washington. I love Hamilton. I like John Adams. I think they're remarkable people. So, absolutely, yeah.

[A]

Okay. Political liberty. Can you kind of explain, I guess that a little bit? Because that's where I know you said, you've said that you differ with conservatives, and I don't want to mischaracterize you. I understand you've said that you're not, quote, unquote, conservative. That's not. You identify as America first. So political liberty, what does that mean?

[B]

I would say I'm more reactionary than conservative. That's why I don't mean when I say I'm not conservative, that I'm something else. And so, you know, as far as political liberty goes, I. I like that in our country we have a generally permissive climate. I think, of course, that's gone too far in some ways. But I do like that we have a free press. I like that we have the right to own guns. I like I am a capitalist list. I'm not an ideological free market person. But I. I like that we have private property. I like we can own what we earn.

And, and on some level, I like that we have a republic. I'm. I'm very into the idea that we have Republican sovereignty, you know, that we have rights, they're protected by God. The Constitution respects that also.

And I would say, because I could kind of see, maybe, I don't know if you're comfortable with this. If I could go a little further here.

[A]

I mean, look, yeah, go wherever you want. And if as long as you're comfortable with me disagreeing and understanding that it's meant to be Fair. But I'll let you know where I do.

[B]

Yeah. Because maybe I could see where you're going with this. You know, I'm really not like a totalitarian. I don't want a police state. You know, to the extent that people say these things about me, like you're, you're a fascist, you're a communist or a socialist list, I'm very much not in favor of that sort of thing. I just think that, you know, in the past 30 years we've gone a little bit too far in the other direction, that's all.

[A]

No, and I wouldn't disagree with that last part, by the way. For example, I think it's very reasonable to say, you know what, maybe onlyfans isn't a good thing when you have libertarians going, oh yeah, if they ask for identification to prove you're of age to get pornography, the next thing you know they're gonna take your guns away. I'm like, yeah, I think that being 18 to get hard to hardcore pornography kind of makes sense. So if addressing the hardcore libertarian sort of ideology, I would agree. If it goes towards like a theocracy or something like that, which I know you've discussed, I would disagree. And look, I want to play this because of course everyone's gonna ask me to ask you this about the Tucker Stalin clip. So what I want to do is play it and then I know that you've already explained it more recently. I want to play a longer clip in context and then give you the floor because otherwise people say, why did he softball him and not ask about, about Stalin? Here's the clip. For those who haven't seen it from Tucker Carlson.

[B]

So it was like mid December, mid late December. It's actually funny. It was December 18th, I remember because that's an important date to me and it's Joseph Stalin's birthday. I'm a fan. You're a fan of Stalin's. Oh, he's an admirer. But we don't need to go into that, I guess. Let's.

[A]

Okay, let's get back.

[B]

We'll circle back to that.

[A]

And then he called you a gay fed. No, I'm kidding. But pretty much that's what he did.

People are mad at him for softballing. I think he didn't. I think that would be fair to press. I just think he was fundamentally dishonest in a lot of ways. Cuz the second you left, it was a different Tucker again. Is that, is that a fair assessment? I was kind of surprised.

[B]

Yeah, 100%. And you know, I had the same experience with Candace. I went out there because him and I had beef. Me and Tucker had been privately and then publicly beefing for years. And, you know, he called me on the phone over the summer and we talked a little bit. And then somebody arranged. Alex Jones was a part of it, and somebody else kind of put this together. I went out. Wait, wait, Alex Jones?

[A]

Jones was the mediator?

[B]

He was.

[A]

You do kiss and make up. All right, come on. Is enough. I mean, I can't imagine him being the middle ground, but okay, he's a sweet guy.

[B]

You know, he's a teddy bear. Yeah. So he. He didn't want to see us fighting because he loves Tucker, he loves me. He put it. He kind of put it together for us. And so I go out there, we have dinner, we do the show, and at no point during the show or during the dinner was it really even contentious. Was there really even a explicit disagreement? We had some disagreements, but he kind of tried to avoid those. I don't think that he was very forceful or direct about those. And then I went on my show the next day and said, yeah, it was great interview. I thought it was really nice. And we're maybe we're on the same page now. And then every single interview that he has done since then, he doesn't say my name without calling me an anti Semite. He's going and doing the circuit and every show that he goes on, he says, you know, Nick is really taking talented and this and that, but I don't agree with his anti Semitism and Jew hatred. And I'm like, okay, so where was that during the dinner? Where was that during the show? I didn't. I didn't hear that during the whole thing. I'm an anti Semite now. And I wish he would have brought that up during the discussion because I would have loved to discuss that or to dispute that or whatever. But it's like you said, I got a completely different Tucker after the fact. In all these other shows, he's going around and telling everybody, you know, that, like, it's the making of a murderer. Like, I could see why people like him, even though he's so awful.

[A]

Like, you're the Avery's. Yeah. You know, you got them Jews there. Oh, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And Candace will make another. Make another show about that, like, nine years later. Okay, so that's. She did, like, something about Megan a murderer. I don't. I was like, this is, like, this is very late. Okay. But going back to. That's the clip that people say, ask him about Stone. And I would have, in Tucker's shoes, ask you best on Now I've seen you on another show. Explain it more recently. Now, I can't play the whole clip because it'll be really long, but I want to play a longer one and then allow you to provide any missing context. I can't remember the name of this something. Danny D. Johnny G. Blaine, Tommy G. Tommy G. I was close.

[B]

You have some hilarious moments, but there was a moment from the Tucker Carlson interview I wanted to ask you about. Yeah, yeah. You mentioned Stalin, your fan. His work was that serious or a joke that wasn't a joke. But, you know, it's like anything else. I love history and I love stories. And to me, Joseph Stalin is an extremely compelling figure. I would say more you'd be surprised to hear this than Hitler. Everybody pegs me as like a Hitler guy. I'll tell you. And I'm not saying this to pander. I'm not saying this, you know, because I care about what you think of me. I really don't even know that much about Hitler. I never found Hitler to be that interesting. I think that there's narratives about Hitler that are interesting. In America, if you talk a certain way about certain issues, they say you're a Nazi, you're Hitler. So it's interesting in that way. But for me, Stalin is the far more compelling figure. And I say that because, you know, while everybody focuses on Hitler, Stalin is a person who takes Russia, which is the most backwards country in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Serfs and peasants and, you know, just all around immiseration and poverty. He takes a country like this and by the time he dies, it's a nuclear empire. It's a global superpower. It's. It's like the most unbelievable story in the history of mankind. And so I don't think he's a good person. He's a. He's an evil person. He's one of the villains of history. But in terms of his effects, he's an effective ruler. And I think that's interesting.

[A]

Okay, now that clip goes on, we'll make the link available. I just, I don't want to do an interview where everyone's watching you watch you. But so with that, I was asked about this on Piers Morgan and again asked to condemn, you know, Stalin. I said, look, I don't know he could have meant. And by the way, I don't know if you have a cold. I have a halls in my Throat. Right now I notice everyone's a little bit sniffly. I said he could have been saying he's fascinated. Like, for example, I've been going down a rabbit hole of Stalin versus Trotsky, like how much they hated each other, which would seem odd to us because they're very similar. But spoiler alert, it's two assholes fighting. That's pretty much all it is. And I would be curious to ask him about that. So when people say disavow without having the full context, I think that's wrong. Now, that said, my question to you would be, I know that you have said we need a Catholic theocracy or a Christian theocracy. I've heard the word dictatorship. Correct me if I'm wrong. So I would ask you, since the end point seems much more similar to where Stalin reaches swap atheism for Catholicism or Christianity. Would you be able to name or is there any one thing that you think America, like, concretely should copy about Stalin's rule or methods to get there?

[B]

Not his methods, because like I said, he's an evil person, a murderer and genocidal, arguably, with the famine. I mean, I, I think that's pretty clearly intentional that they were trying to kill all those people there. And so I, you know, I want to make that clear. Sometimes I feel like it's. It's almost childish. And I'm not saying that about this interview, but just in general, when people say, wait, but he was a bad guy, it's like, I know he's a bad guy. Like, I know he was evil. And I suppose the thing that I find maybe more compelling about Stalin as a ruler is the way that he industrialized the country. I'm very interested in this because that is among the other things that I talk about. A very important problem in the country is that we're de. Industrialized. And what Stalin did, and I said that in that clip and in other clips too, he takes a country that has no industry, and he literally, and with brutal, evil methods that I would not. I don't replicate, I don't support that. But he does take the country and drag it into the 21st century, and he does that by bringing in heavy industry, the five year plans, the collectivization of the farms. It was about prioritizing heavy industry so that they could eventually build ships and planes and tanks and, you know, the things that they needed to fight the war.

[A]

So, but it was about, it was about seizing industry and it was about doing it by force. I mean, you know, secret police, the party purges, the show trial. So if you say the, the industrialization of the country, how do you separate that from. I mean, the only methods were largely evil or certainly his calling card methods? Right. That's, that's where people would say, okay, if you point to him as an example, is there anything worthy of emulating other than because you could point to other countries that industrialized, including the United States?

[B]

Well, I, I don't think that is necessary. I think because it starts with the idea that a country, an empire, needs industry. You need to be able to make things. We don't make things. We don't even make the machines that make things anymore anymore. China makes all the things. And so starting from the idea where Stalin says in the 20s, he says we're either going to do in 15 years what it would normally take us 100 years to do, or we're going to die. Our country will not exist anymore because we are encircled. And I feel like America's in sort of a similar position where we need to race ahead of China or else we are going to be destroyed. We need industry back in the country. And I don't think, I don't believe in taking grain to feed the, the factory workers and enslaving people in gulags, but I do think the government needs to set. It's sort of like when JFK said we're going to go to the moon in 10 years. I like the idea, this ambitious idea of we're going to catch up in 10 years. We're just going to go out there and do it. We're just going to build it. And I don't support, you know, killing people. I don't think you need to kill people to achieve that. But I like the idea of urgency, setting targets, having a national strategy, and doing it for the sake of power projection.

[A]

Well, and I agree, by the way, industrialization is good. We went through that in America quite a bit before Russia. The reason they had to play catch up is because it was an awful place and they had to do it by force. So my question is, am I mischaracterizing? And everything that I ask is genuine here, because I'm trying to see where we disagree, because I think Stalin is a fascinating historical character. You're talking to a guy. We did the great Diktok where we did brackets for three days of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. Funniest one was Papadoc in Haiti because he sucked Pinochet, who wasn't all wrong. And we were very clear about this. And I think Mao ended up winning. Might have been Pol Pot, though. The number wasn't as high. But he was just really dumb and really brutal, which is a bad combination. How could you get, if we're talking about now, to Stalin's industrial results without Stalin's methods? If you want to get to a Catholic, first off, have you said Catholic theocracy? Is that, am I misquoting?

[B]

I might have said it, but I don't believe in a Catholic theocracy. I think that the government should be Christian, but not a theocracy.

[A]

Okay. Not a dictatorship either.

[B]

We might need a very powerful executive for a short amount of time. I think that's maybe unavoidable, but not an ideological totalitarian state. No.

[A]

So how do you get to that? And the industrialization that you talk about with Stalin, how do you get it? How do you get there?

[B]

I think that you need tariffs, I think you need subsidies. I think you need a massive public works program, something like the New Deal. And I know you're probably not a fan of that because I know you're a huge free market guy. But I think that, that one of the things the free market doesn't do well is it doesn't allocate resources efficiently on like a long term timeline. You know, in a long term timeline, America needs to have a ton of industry to be able to support its navy, to be able to protect supply chains and trade routes. And the free market has, has not been able to accomplish that. So I think that the government needs to intervene in this case and basically say, like, we're not going to import these manufactured goods from China. We have to make them ourselves, we need to subsidize them. And maybe we bring people on, you know, onto the dole of the state in a public works program to accomplish some of these things. So I believe in an intervention from the state to do that.

[A]

Well, okay, so, and I understand, by the way, tariffs. I understand. And especially when you look at the revenue they'll be generating, I don't think that's an infringement of the free markets. I think it's a correction of an unfair market, of a market where we've been fleeced. So I think we agree on that. Subsidies are massive public works. I mean, we have a debt. Is it, Are we at, is it 39 trillion? I haven't looked at the clock recently, so I certainly wouldn't say that we haven't been subsidizing things. We absolutely have, and we can't afford it. And the old joke, right, in Russia is they pay us to look like we're working. And you know, we look like we're working. Like they, they look like they're paying us, we look like we're working. We've done this here in the States. I mean, if you go back to, and maybe you're a fan of FDR's approach, certainly Barack Obama, the biggest modern spending package I was around for that shovel ready jobs, was awful. And same thing for Russia. I mean, if you throw enough bodies and human suffering at something, you can get something done. But even then it was still significantly behind the world that was more free, the United States. So.

Where have we not done it? Because I look at it and I go, well, we have been subsidizing almost, almost everything. I agree with you on China, I agree with you on tariffs. I think that's a huge threat. What would that look like?

[B]

Well, I don't, I don't think we've been subsidizing industry. I'm not saying just like subsidies across the board. I mean, we need to actually subsidize and prioritize the industries that we need in the country. So, like for example, the CHIPS Act, I think that was a great thing. I don't think it was enough and I don't think it was comprehensive. But I want more things like that. Like, there's no reason why, you know, they're doing it in Arizona. They're, they're bringing TSMC over to Arizona, they're building a chip fabrication facility. We need that. And I think the government should give tax breaks or just straight up give subsidies to the companies that are going to do that. And I think that we need aggressive trade negotiations. I guess maybe where we differ ideologically is that I want a very smart government. I liked what Doge did. I like the idea of bringing people from the private sector into the government. And even Trump said that in 16 to work on trade deals, to work on. You know, for example, China steals all our intellectual property. They steal all of the developments that we have. We need people that know about technology almost in a technocratic way, like true experts guiding our trade policy, guiding in some ways our economic policy, setting a benchmark that it's like we need like 10% of the economy or 15 or 20% of the economy to be productive in five or 10 years. We need to be making ports, ships, or we need to have countries in our orbit that can do it for us, like South Korea or Japan. But we just need people that are in charge, that are kind of aware of this Problem. So, yeah, I guess that's maybe the difference.

[A]

No, I don't think that's the difference. I can outline maybe the difference based on what you just said. I don't have a problem with tariffs. I know what you're talking about with the CHIPS Act. I agree. And I think a big problem is. Yeah, absolutely. Chinese stealing intellectual property. That's why I think they're a huge threat. What I see, I mean, then you could point, though, to, like, American auto manufacturing, which has been abysmal. I mean, industries that have been heavily subsidized. I mean, if you look at insurance industries, pharmaceutical companies, if you look at energy companies. I mean, you remember also about Solyndra, green energy companies. Totally. Every company that's been heavily subsidized and regulated tends to be less efficient, and it tends to be more expensive. But we do need to protect, certainly, things that are. I would say that chips are a matter of national security. But my thing there is. You say you like Doge. Well, I don't know why you think I would differ. That was largely axing things. You just mentioned stuff that really, for the first time, has been done under this administration. And where we differ is I go, is it perfect? No. Is it a step in the right direction compared to Biden, compared to Barack Obama? Yeah. And then I know that you've also talked about having to burn it all down. So where I differ is, you know, you've said you're reactionary, or I've heard you use a term, maybe accelerationist. Well, accelerate toward what? Because if that's what you want, and I agree with you, we're getting more of that than ever before. So how would you get there? And why would you burn down the progress that's being made?

[B]

Well, I'm not an accelerationist. I think that. Okay, I think that's sort of misguided, because if we're. And I agree with you. Accelerating towards what? That's the operative question. So that's why I'm not an accelerationist. I think that to make things worse is only basically to vote in favor of chaos and death and potentially civil war, low level political violence, and I think you're rolling the dice with that. So I'm with you on that. As far as the Trump administration is concerned. I mean, not.

[A]

Can I pause you? And I don't want to interrupt, but like I said, I want to address kind of the points.

[B]

No, totally. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. And hopefully you think this is fair, because I really do want to be. And I know that I Disagree. I disagree with you on some fundamentals here, but you did say that Kamala Harris would be a better choice. And you did take billboards out against Donald Trump and told people not to vote in certain elections. That would be. And just maybe you didn't use the term accelerationist, but you said at least then that would sort of ignite what we need because it's a uniparty. It's all the same. Right. So I view that as accelerationism.

Whereas I see where we agree, where we find progress would, I would argue, is better than four years of Kamala. And I would argue that we were at the precipice of really we were looking at sending into the abyss 15 million on the low end, illegal aliens. And not to mention the legal immigration problem. Add another 10 million with Kamala Harris. We no longer have a country where you and I would both agree. So that's where I don't understand your position.

[B]

Yeah, well, let's sit in this for a minute. So, first of all, and I just want to clarify, I know you know this, but maybe your audience does. And I never told people to vote for Kamala. I didn't vote for Kamala. I never told people to vote for Kamala. I didn't endorse Kamala. My plan in 20. And again, as long as we're in good faith, I'm going to explain to you my thought process on this. Last year. It looked at one point like this was going to be a very contentious election, like it would be very close. It turned out not to be. And eventually baked became. It became clear that it wouldn't be. But it seemed like maybe this election would come down to one state like Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, one of the three Rust Belt states. And my problem in 24 is that Trump was not promising an immigration moratorium. In fact, he was saying the opposite. He said that he would staple green cards to diplomas, which is a very famous policy. It's been around for, you know, for decades. And Democrats and Republicans have said, said, we're going to give green cards to every foreign student. I said, that's a disaster. That's terrible. And then the other thing is, there was a rumor that he had a quid pro quo arrangement with Miriam Adelson that he would allow Israel to annex the west bank and intervene in the war with Iran. And so those were kind of my two issues. As I said, if we elect Trump, we're going to get all these Chinese and Indians, they're going to get green cards, and we're going to get H1BS because that's what what Silicon Valley wants and we're gonna get a war with Iran. And so I looked at it this way. I said, if the base, if the America Firsters rise up and sort of tell Trump, here's the ultimatum, you can come out and say you're against the H1Bs and the F1 and green cards, then you could say you're not gonna bring us to war in Iran and we'll vote for you, but if you don't, we can't vote for you. And that was kind of the idea. It was like a contract with the Trump team. Now, ultimately, Trump became basically his advantage grew to be so big that he didn't, he wasn't worried about losing in one of those states. And I felt that way. I said, we don't have leverage anymore because he's leading by so much. It's clear he's going to win. And that's why we sort of abandoned it in the middle of it. But aside from. So that's where that came from.

[A]

Just to clarify. Abandoned what?

[B]

Abandoned that project, the Griper war too. Because we were going to go to Michigan and we were literally going to knock on doors and hand out leaflets and stuff. And we said, you know what, let's just not anymore because he's going to win anyway. So we really, we bought one billboard.

[A]

You're going to knock on the doors and tell people to vote for Trump? The Gripers in Michigan?

[B]

Yeah. No, no, to, to sign on to something like a pledge that would say, you know, we will not vote for Trump. Unless that was kind of the idea. And, and we sort of spun that up, but we abandoned it when it became clear that he would win.

[A]

Okay. And I understand that, by the way. I understand the idea of holding the representatives accountable. I mean, that's why we have primaries. But hopefully that's part of your strategy because a lot of people just don't run in primaries and that's a viable option. But I do remember what caught me off guard, you saying that Kamala Harris was a better choice. And I remember part of what you said was because Trump, if he's elected, legitimizes the system. And that would be worse. You didn't want Trump to be elected because it would legitimize the system. Explain what you meant by that. Cuz that sounds to me like you want to delegitimize and almost revolution instead of Trump.

[B]

Well, and here's the thing. I think that Trump is obviously the better president if you're just taking like all the nominees, figures like fewer illegal immigrants, he secured the border, the economy's going to be better, the government's going to be more efficient. Like, so, I mean, we're in agreement on that. Here's the problem. And I, I try to make people think about it in these terms. It's.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

And I don't want this to sound like a cop out, but I'm trying to get people to think, which is that, right, Trump gets elected. And let's think about what happens on day number two. Whereas in 2020, everybody said the election is rigged, like 86% of Republicans said, oh, the election was B.S.

[A]

Now, it was close to half of Democrats too, I think.

[B]

Yeah, it was, it was substantial. It was across the board. Now, nobody believes that. And whereas at one time people believe, like, oh, like the system really needs to be overthrown, like we really need radical change, now they're saying, oh, Trump won. Oh, I feel relieved now we're okay. And look at the things that Trump has done. And we're going to get in. I can tell we're going to get in, into some of these things. The Epstein files, bombing Iran. And I'm not Gish galloping, I'm just giving a little list of things I don't like. The H1B visas, the 600,000 Chinese students. Yeah, all these things happen. And because they're happening under Trump, he is legitimizing them and he's legitimizing the moneyed interests that are responsible for them. And I do think that deflates a lot of the fervor for change that existed before. And, and I just think sometimes, is that necessarily better in the long term? I don't disagree that Trump is. There's a very big pragmatic benefit. But in the long term, I worry about that.

[A]

Yeah, I definitely think it's better in the long term. And I agree with you completely on 600,000 Chinese students. I don't know if you saw, we did an entire hour on that H1BS. I was throttled as a result from. Well, I can't say Elon Musk directly, but I believe I perhaps called him a retard. Whatever it was, I insulted him quite publicly and for my troubles made $27 in the course of a month on X. Ashley Sinclair made like 26 grand in two weeks. Who knew, Right? That's kind of odd. So, yeah, I agree with you on H1BS. I will tell you, worse than 600,000 Chinese students would be another 15 to 20 million illegals and changing the census rule, which is what we were looking at, where that redistricts the entire map. And there's no chance to any type of conservative, Republican, nationalist, populist being elected again. And I do think that there was a lot of progress made. I would go, I mean, a lot of wins, not only the board. 99% is not marginal to me as far as reduction. I think that's pretty significant.

But I'd like to go to. I understand where you're coming from. I understand that perspective. But I also don't understand what the threshold is as far as, okay, burn it all down. Or we want to delegitimize the system. Because I know we lived through that. Like you just said, Republicans thought it was an illegitimate election. I did as well. Not a whole bunch of folks at the Daily Wire back then. So I think we were on the same, on the same page.

And, and I also, obviously, when we had the lockdowns, all of that, we then lived through four years of Biden. Right. So it was already seen as not legitimate. We saw the results. I think the results of not electing another Biden is better. But I would like to roll a clip. Cause I think it's in this vein and might help set it up. It was where you discuss. Oh, Epstein too. That's one thing. Of course, I absolutely agree. I don't know if, you know, I recreated the Epstein cell down to the millimeter and tried to hang myself with a force meter.

[B]

I saw that.

[A]

Yeah, it's possible. Not likely. So I thought it was a huge mistake. I think Pambani's an idiot. And I mean actually like an idiot. Like she potentially could be a mongoloid using the term hate speech. She's a moron. And I've always said that using the term and that rollout was terrible. That doesn't undo the things that a lot of people who elected not just Trump, but the cultural wins that they want. I think there's a lot of good there, and I don't think burning it down is the best approach. But here you mentioned a new potential coalition and I think sort of lay out a prescription as to how to go forward. And I'd like to ask you about it. And again, we'll make sure to the full show available so that no one mischaracterizes anything.

[B]

Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie working together against the interests to compel the files. What do you think? That has a 90% approval rating.

If you add progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans working Together, let's say, to compel the release of the Epstein files. What kind of approval rating do you think that has? 90%.

And what if they got together and they opposed foreign aid to Israel? What approval rating do you think that would have? 90%. Do you think that re that Republicans or independents running under that brand, do you think that that would become more popular or less popular over time?

4 becomes 8, 8 becomes 16.

It snowballs. And we need to propel someone into the White House that is just a populist. If the right can come down on healthcare and on a social safety net and maybe on some subsidies for education, and if the left can come down on the anti white open border stuff and they can agree that we have a country that party will win 90% of the vote and rule for a century, that's the compromise. That's the populist compromise.

[A]

Okay. And I think you were, you know, you articulated that pretty well. I would say Epstein already has a coalition. Everyone voted to release the files except Clay Higgins, who is a punchline, deservedly so. Like, that's the first time everyone knew Clay Higgins. Like, he really must love pedophiles. I wish I loved anything as much as he loves defending sex islands.

I would like to hear your prescription for how that works, because I would say this. If the only compromise was the left on immigration and if I believe that there was any semblance of a reality in which they compromise on immigration and compromising on free markets to varying degree. Okay, but what do we do with a Ro Khanna on the Second Amendment, on the First Amendment, on transing the kids, on reparations that someone like a Ro Khanna or any member of the Democratic Party, but Ro Khanna specifically says is a, a priority economically and morally on abortion, what do you do with all the other compromises that aren't listed? How does that coalition work and bring me through the end point?

[B]

Well, and I'm not a huge fan of either of them, actually. You could also say Thomas Massie on H1BS. You could say Thomas Massie on immigration also.

[A]

You could say him on Israel also. As far as his biggest donor, it's not aipac, but a lot of influencers.

[B]

Certainly, certainly. But what I'm, what I'm referring to is maybe more something like Trump 2016, who is basically a populist. And you look at Trump in 2016, and to me, that's kind of the prescription where it's like in 2016, he comes out and he says, we're gonna get the money Outta politics. He says, I'm not gonna take donor money, I'm not gonna take super PAC money. I don't listen to special interests. He says law and order close the border. As far as how healthcare. He didn't even give a plan. He said, we'll just take care of everybody. He said, we'll get rid of the lines around the states and we'll just take care of everybody who even knows what that means. And he says we're gonna put America first in foreign policy. Now I think that here's the thing, I'm under no illusions. We're not gonna win 80% of the laughter, 40% or even 30%. But I'm thinking that if we can win because I think there are a lot of people on the far left or even some of the abundance liberals, they're getting tired of a lot of the far left too. There's a lot of these liberals in the center that are saying, how are you gonna have public transportation when you have people getting stabbed in the neck and there's no police, like we can't defund the police and even have these cities that we wanna have. I think there's a lot of people on the far left too that are saying, you know, maybe the woke has gone too far.

[A]

I'm sure.

[B]

Was that a quote?

[A]

I meant it. Did Ro Khanna say that or was that a just a general.

[B]

No, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not talking specifically about Ro Khanna. That's just a, that's just an example.

[A]

Because I could when I hear it. I almost thought you said like, I was like, oh yeah, it sounds like something a liberal would say like stab the cop in the neck.

[B]

No, no, when people are being stabbed in the neck by like black people.

[A]

For example, that's also something I could hear a leftist supporting. But yes, okay, go on. I just didn't know if it was okay.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, well, and here's the thing. I mean fundamentally it comes down to the fact that let's just talk about it in general. So that's my prescription is like populist Trump and let's just get a small percentage of, of the left liberals, you know, who I think are. Have come a long way in the past five years since COVID But I would say that in general. I think maybe where we disagree is I look at this Republican team. What has it actually done for us? Because you seem to be defending like, well, we're supposed to vote Republican and we're supposed to say, well, this is Better than the alternative. And he's making these wins. Well, hang on. And. And I look at it and say, it's been 10 years of Trumpism. And, you know, I know Biden brought them in, but we're 10 million illegals up since Biden, and there's no mass deportations. I look at the wars we're getting into, more wars, not fewer. He wanted to keep us in Afghanistan and Bagram. He's building bases in Syria. We're getting into Venezuela. You know, I look at what we have not done in 10 years, and I say, you know, this is a prescription where it hasn't been working. And so I'm very against this line where you say, well, we're going to vote Republican and we're going to what exactly? I mean, what's your prescription? If Trump is failing us miserably, what are we supposed to do here?

[A]

Yeah, well, here's the thing is I don't agree that he's. That our representatives are all failing us miserably. I think they failed in quite a few ways. If you're talking about, like, the Johnsons of the world and the Rhinos, absolutely. But the things that you just listed. And I would again ask you for your prescription, because I give mine Monday through Friday. I mean, every day, 11am Eastern. I've done one on voting, what we need to do. I've done one on immigration, done one on Big tech and section230. I'm very curious as to your prescriptions so that people can contrast them. You mentioned law and order. I don't know of any president who sent the National Guard in as aggressively when we're talking about D.C. and Chicago that way. You talk about law and order in Chicago. Well, I'm saying, any effort being made. I know what we've lived through as far as what Ro Khanna would support. Black Lives Matter, the Police and Justice Act. Again, I don't think.

So. Let me ask you, what's your prescription? Why hopscotch? All the people who I think watching right now would agree with you if they think that you're on board with them on lgbtq, on immigration, on Second Amendment rights, on First Amendment rights. Why hopscotch then? To compromise with someone who has actively fought to destroy all those things, like a Ro Khanna. Wouldn't it make more sense to form a coalition with more than half the country who already exists because you don't want to take them for granted? Take Trump out of it. I'm talking about the people, the voters. What's your prescription?

[B]

I would say that it's a structural problem, which is that the reason, first of all, I mean, we. We have to deal with the fact that Trump is not delivering. Like, if you don't want to gish gallop, let's just start there. You say, well, I don't think it's a complete failure. Yeah, it is. And you bring up BLM. BLM happened in 2020 because Trump let it happen, because Sean Hannity was calling him out every day and saying, this is better for us in November if BLM burns down the cities. So the Summer of Love happened in 2020, when Trump was president. And then Trump comes back.

[A]

It started under. It started under Barack Obama with going back to Trayvon Martin.

[B]

The George Floyd. The George Floyd Summer of Love.

[A]

Yeah, it was a continuation.

[B]

Well, I think they. They kind of picked up on it, don't you think?

[A]

It wasn't like I was there and I had people on my show back then with hands up, don't shoot. And I remember the assassination of the Dallas pd. Donald Trump was elected specifically his first term because of how disruptive Black Lives Matter was and Law and Order. And I would say there was significantly more than under Barack Obama. But if you say they're the same, that's just where we disagree.

[B]

What are we debating about? I mean, in the George Floyd Summer of Love, maybe I'm wrong about the calendar. It was in 2020, when Trump was president, and it was the worst, arguably the worst BLM violence, I think, in the 2020, 21st century. I think that was worse, actually, than Mike Brown or Trayvon Martin. And Trump was president, and he didn't intervene because he was told to be better for him. And now in 2025, there's no national Guard. He chickened out on that. He. He chickens out on all that stuff. He was gonna send him to Chicago, gonna send him in every major city. Never happened. Even here. You know, they're doing the deportations in Broadview. Here in Illinois, they brought in, like, 400 National Guard hard. And ice is still getting chased. And they're. They got boxed in by a bunch of different protesters, one with the semiautomatic rifle. There's no law and order. Irina Zarutska died under Trump. The crime in New York, under Trump, the crime in Chicago under Trump, it's a failure, and we're 10 years in. And so you say, what is it going to take? Because we elected him, just because.

[A]

This is the point I'd like to address him. You say Irina Zaratsky. Now, obviously, we've covered that. And I think we're in agreement. When you look at the judge and you look at the man who was released, I believe, 14 times. Right. Under the guise of equity, Black Lives Matter, precisely the kinds of policies that only exist because they have been supported by the radical left who run the entire Democrat Party. Right. So, yeah, some of that happened under Trump's watch. And I agree he's definitely far from perfect, and I think he's failed in a lot of ways. But who has been orchestrating. You talk about these constructionists. Right? Right. They want that. And people like Ro Khanna, people who you talk about in your coalition. It's their raison d'. Etre. So why hopscotch? The voters who would not vote for that coalition precisely for the reasons we're discussing, because they're against all of it. Because Trump hasn't done enough to fight. I mean, Covid happened under Trump, too. Huge mistakes, Fauci. Awful. But I certainly think that 20 million illegal aliens in four years is worse than a reduction of 90 something percent. I certainly think that the people who orchestrated Black Lives Matter and the people who ran those cities and the people who have blocked ICE from doing anything is worse than the guy sending in ICE with any effort at all.

[B]

But let's talk about even that. Why do we get all these people from Venezuela? Because Trump hired John Bolton to destroy Venezuela's economy and then on his last day in office, office gave Venezuela temporary protected status. That was one of his last acts as president. And. And that means they can't be deported. And then you got 6 million Venezuelans in an exodus. And how many of them ended up here? And by the way, Trump ran in 2016 saying, we're gonna build the wall and we're gonna solve immigration. It didn't happen. There's no wall. He didn't solve it. What he did was executive orders, which Biden immediately overturned when he took power and then brought in 10 million. Okay, so Trump gets elected again. What does Trump do? You're right, he did secure the border. That's true. But we're 10 million deep. That's a little too late. He promised mass deportations. We've had maybe 300,000 deportations this year. Is that going to go up during the midterm elections? Is that going to go up when everybody's running in the primary in 27? I don't see it happening. And either way, it hasn't happened. So this is my frustration where I'm like, like I was with you in the first Term, as in the first term. When I was in college I was like, yeah, like vote for Trump, never coming down. If he falls short, we'll go on Twitter and tell him to try better. But 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, you know, Republicans have called for our vote all these times and things are not getting better like at all. And that, that's sort of the frustration where I start to say let's turn the table around. And I'm not hopscotching over the voters. I want all the right wing voters. Why I want a hopscotch is the donors. I want to hopscotch the party, which is the rnc, which is, you know, little tech Silicon Valley, which is the Israel lobby, which is Wall street. Because they're driving the stuff. Like the reason that Trump is, is not really what he, what he delivers, you know, or what he promises is because, you know, if you were to deport all these illegal aliens, it's going to be bad for big agriculture, Wall street and inflation might tick up.

[A]

And so Marjorie Taylor Greene's construction company.

[B]

That's right, yeah, 100%. And that's why I want to bypass.

[A]

Okay, so bypass. So. And nobody is saying that President Trump is perfect. And I'm not a micropolitical guy, a cultural guy largely. And I think there's been a major shift culturally. I mean half of all gay characters are going to be going away and Glad is lamenting that. I don't know how much more happy I can get. I think that the replacement platforming is a big thing. Right. I mean as someone who's been also debanked, demonetized through PayPal, Shopify, all that, very similar to you. The fact that you're able to sit here now and have this conversation. I mean it took a lot of work from coalition people like me turning down a $50 million contract and migrating the world's biggest conservative right leaning nationalist YouTube channel over to Rumble so that you're able to do that. That's a win. Right? And you could look at that, that like a light switch de platform, including the President himself replatformed. Is, is that a. Is to me that's a probably the biggest thing. The fact that you are able to sit here and talk when you weren't.

[B]

But I got replatformed under Biden. I got my Twitter account back in May 24th. Musk bought Twitter in 2022 and Rumble really started to grow after Trump got banned in 21. That's when all the little tech money jumped in. Cuz they said we're going to do true social Trump media group Rumble these things. So, you know, now that Trump is back in office, there's might be more censorship. Like you have people, but Elon Musk.

[A]

Put you back specifically. He bought that to balance the powers that be. I mean, there was a point in time, but. But that's the reason for it, right? There's no world in which you're replatformed unless Donald Trump is running again and someone like Elon Musk sees and already, already existing populist movement, that is important. And right now this will actually be clips on YouTube that could never have happened. I mean, I was literally deplatformed for having Kerry Lake on in a midterm. That's why we couldn't stream the elections. So to say that, well, that's because of Biden. Are you giving Biden credit for Elon Musk buying X and bringing you back? Because I think that you gotta give some credit here if you wanna build a coalition. Can you build a coalition with the people going, hey, we are really anti censorship and we're really hesitant to get back in bed with the party that pushed for all of it because there are other people not as popular as you who've also been deplatformed and replatformed as a result.

[B]

No, I'm not giving Biden credit. All I'm saying is you attribute that to Trump or for Republicans being in power. All I'm saying is one's got nothing to do with the other. And actually it was a response. Musk buying Twitter was a reaction to the overreach of the Democrats because they banned the president from Twitter. And I would add to that also, you know, you know, censorship is a big problem. I don't think we're in the clear with Rumble or Twitter. There's gonna be a lot regulatory. Yeah. And. And what is Trump doing to solidify this free speech beachhead that you have built, that Elon has built? Nothing. Was that in the big beautiful bill? And is the FCC getting on top of that? You know, they flirted with doing that in 2020 when they said they were going to do section what, what is it, 270 or 280? They. They talked about doing that. They never did it. And so that's my problem where. And I'm with you, like.

[A]

Well, no, can I just pause that? Because that's kind of in my realm of expertise because this is, this is something where I've been here this entire time. Totally. And not to take credit, but certainly a pioneer in being Demonetized and. And hiring. My biggest expense, especially coming up, was legal outside of payroll because I saw this type of censorship coming. I'm the only one who was named in the Facebook files by name until I met my lawyer, the Twitter files, and Susan Wojcicki and Congress women. I don't know if there were any men. I know there were a few women. I think Pelosi and what's her name? The Hirono, the lady from Hawaii who always talks about sex, asking for me to be in. Have you ever had sex?

That's how she opens every single hearing. It's like, how horny are you, lady? So that is something that I've lived through, and I think you're maybe discounting how bad it can get. And 2:30 is important, right? I've issued a prescription on how to fix that. And yeah, I'm disappointed that there hasn't been something fully solidified. But I would say there's a reason you're back. There's a reason that people are not afraid to speak out. And. And people like Trump, people who are more populist. The populist who exist in the right, they listen to their base. And I think it's good that you're pushing him. But what would be enough? In other words, would there be a threshold enough so that you don't just sort of, you know, elope with the Ro Khannas and the Bernie Bros of the world?

[B]

It's not about eloping. And I would say, what does enough look like? I would know it when I saw it. It would be like bombing Iran. Iran is like a punchline for what Israel wants. That's pretty bad. I would say that. Not mass deporting people. You don't need to deport 10 million in one year, but a million per year. And how about anything and literally anything on free speech? You know, Ron DeSantis had some legislation and Texas had some legislation about free speech. Could we get something like that? Regulatory or legislative? You know, I just look across the board and. And here's. And maybe this addresses the heart of the matter. I sort of look at Trump and I say, I see what you have done for them. Can you bless us in the same way? Because they will move heaven and earth to lower the corporate tax rate. They will move heaven and earth to give a trillion dollars for AI and they will give Saudi Arabia non. Non NATO major defense ally. They'll give Qatar security guarantee. They'll buy. Bomb Iran for Israel. They'll bomb Yemen for Israel. What will you do for US a middle class tax cut? Will you give us law and order, National Guard, mass deportation? Like, how about pick one, something. So, you know, maybe we just. Different approach. Because I think you share these frustrations, but you're saying, let's work with them, let's not burn it all down. And you look at me as someone that's saying, let's throw the baby out with the bath water. And I get where you're coming from.

[A]

But is that, is that a wrong. Is that a wrong assessment? Because I. But, and first off, I do want to correct, because it does matter. Two million are gone. A lot of people self deported, which to me is like a magic trick.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Yep. 2 million are gone. That's fake. And a 94%. Okay, well, I'll make sure the references are available and if people disagree, they can check that out. But there's a lot of self deportation going on. Also a 93 to 99% reduction. So if 1 million, 2 million are gone, I would argue the number is 2 million and you reduce it. I don't think that's marginal. And I think that's probably the biggest issue if you want to preserve a country. Is it enough? Is it ideal? No, but it's better than another 15 million. And the people who brought in 15 million are the people you are suggesting to be part of a coalition after it's burned down. So what's the prescription? What does it look like when you say throw the baby out with the bathwater? What does it look like? You get Trump out, you get four years of Kamala. Right. If you had your way, four more years of Newsom. What is. What does it look like? I'm asking you for the prescription because I'll tell you, mine is primaries. Mine is having people who listen to their base. Mine is making sure that we can make incremental change. The biggest disappointments would be H1BS for sure. The biggest. 600,000 Chinese students, huge disappointment. Section 230. Right. I have prescription for all of those. What is yours? What does that look like? Revolution or coalition? And then burn it down. Throw the baby out with the bathwater. The alternative is. That's where I think I'm missing you.

[B]

Here's my prescription. I just think that we need the young people to climb the ladder. I wanna march through the institutions, get them in the college Republicans, to the campaigns, to the congressional offices, the think tanks. I think that we need to engage in primaries in 2026. I'm gonna be very active and we're gonna tell everybody who's America first and who isn't and who to vote for. And I think the people that are not America first, I think they should lose their elections in 2028.

[A]

So do I. Yeah.

[B]

Okay, so then, you know, we agree that in 28. I think we should back a presidential candidate who is going to basically emulate what Trump did in 16, which is anti corruption. America first, close the borders. And if that person can make inroads with the left, left. I think that's an interesting idea because maybe what you're. Maybe the area of disagreement is there are a lot of people in our right wing coalition who are kind of part of the problem. I would say there are. Like, for example, when Trump bombed Iran, you had like 70% of Republicans supporting that. That's a load of crap.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And you have a lot of Republicans.

[A]

I'm okay with you.

[B]

I know you are. And I've heard your argument. We could have that one out. But like, like, I think that's a huge problem. And I think that there's a lot of people that, you know they're going to vote for Trump literally no matter what. And what that does is it creates moral hazard because then Republicans know that they can come in, they can screw us forever. And I guess the question is, for me, my prescription is like, I want results now. If you don't give them to us, we don't care, we will burn it down. And I'm being the unreasonable person in the room. I feel like you, because you're being reasonable, you are allowing the establishment to get away with everything. And they'll always be stringing you along, telling you, oh, well, you know, it's better than the alternative. Well, in the next two years, we're going to get it. Two million. That's fake. That's from the community survey. They pulled 65,000 people. You know, there's a response bias. It's not happening. And you say, well, it's better than nothing. It almost isn't. Because. Because what happens? We get a Democrat in four years.

[A]

Hold on a second. I'm not saying it's better than nothing. I'm not saying it's better than nothing. I'm saying that it's better than what you suggested was a superior alternative. Kamala Harris. That's the standard that we do need to use here because you said Kamala Harris would be a better choice. I'm not saying it's better than nothing. Good enough. I mean, you're talking to a Dan Crenshaw. We'll never be Back on this show because I called him to task on the Taps Act. I was like, well, how is this not red flag laws? No. There's no one who likes those in positions of authority who betray their base. And I think that base, by the way, is a pretty big coalition. Includes conservative. It's bigger than ever with Donald Trump. Donald Trump isn't really a classical conservative. I think it's better than Kamala Harris. And I can't think of anyone less America first than who you suggested. Ro Khanna. That's why I bring it up. That's why I bring it up.

[B]

You're getting hung up on that.

[A]

Okay, so any member of the Democrat Party. I can't think of anyone less America first than the current Democrat Party. Republicans are flawed. I believe that that go through it, Warren. Kamala Harris, you said, would be a better choice. Gavin Newsom Whitmer. I believe they fundamentally hate everything about America. I can't name one thing.

[B]

I'm not talking Ro Khanna. I'm not talking about him specifically. And like I said, I'm not even talking about Thomas Massie. I'm using them as an example, as a model. Well, as a model because as sort of a proof of concept because you have a Republican and a Democrat that who, by the way, I don't even agree with them on most things. Like, I criticize Thomas Massie a lot. But it's an example of bipartisanship on a populist issue, an anti elite issue that everybody supports. And who is against it? The Republican establishment, Trump, Johnson. And I'm saying that's an example of cooperation where the right can maybe lean into these issues that, you know, maybe they're nonpartisan issues and rally everybody against the establishment in our own party. And it's just, just to me that's always the disconnect is you want to talk about Kamala Harris and Ro Khanna and I'm saying let's imagine a different scenario.

[A]

No, no, I don't want to talk about them. You brought them up and repeatedly.

[B]

So you brought them up.

[A]

Well, I brought up you. Come on, let's be fair. I disagree with you. I understand your approach though too. I understand your approach because I feel that way, like I said about the conservative guard in media. In other words, we'd be pretty much on the same page anyone in conservative media. And we've seen it where they are gatekeepers. But there's a mechanism to fix that and we've seen that change and rumble is a big part of that. And I agree with you, more needs to be done about section 230. But I brought them up because you used those examples. And as someone who believes that they fundamentally disdain America, Kamala Harris, to be fair, she's really dumb, so she may not actually know what she believes or thinks. But I do believe, like a Whitmer hates America. I do believe that a socialist like Bernie does. And I know people say he's a populist, but I don't go along with that. But I. Okay, I understand your point. Let's just chalk that up to a disagreement. There are some other areas if we want to go through where we probably agree, probably disagree, because I think you presented it pretty well. I just think we disagree on that, if that's okay.

[B]

Yeah, sure.

[A]

So some of the positions that you've presented for me, where I think we might disagree, but you could clarify, have given me pause. Second Amendment, that's a big one to me, a fundamental one, because I come from a country. I would also say socialized healthcare, because I put several family members six feet under who would have lived in the United States. Being raised in Quebec, it's awful. But the Second Amendment, considering the amount of threats, and we've talked about this, everyone has since Charlie Kirk. Right. People just see the one that got through. I would imagine that you who live under perpetual threat and need extra forms of security, I probably have that right.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Yeah. And so for me, Second Amendment is pivotal. And I do see some rhetoric, not just from you, but from some people who sort of dismissive, that is disconcerting. I'd like to roll a clip on this and then give you the floor to clarify, because we probably actually agree more than we disagree. Sure.

[B]

There's this question of our government has no efficacy and it's not responsive to the needs of the wants of the people. So it's not really a democracy. And it also isn't working. So what do you do in that situation? Well, people start to say, and this is, you know, as you. As you know, this is the natural evolution of things. The people cry out for a tyrant. The people cry out for a dictator. Give us change. Give us reform. And I certainly feel that. I think that's compelling. I'm a little skeptical of it as time goes on, because as I get older and more mature, I think we maybe take for granted the institutions that we've built up. And maybe I've become ironically more conservative in my disposition and saying, like, maybe let's not race ahead of ourselves and get rid of things which have been around for hundreds of years. I would argue the constitutional system is already impaired because it's being abused by all the other organs of government. You know, even the Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 that said these injunctions are out of control. And you've got these, like, procedural things in the Senate, the filibuster. The president can't fire as many people as he'd like to fire without all this oversight. It's like, you know, we do need an executive organ of government. So I would say that we should start with a more powerful president. And I would not be opposed to, you know, something like a king that sits over the presidency. I think that maybe they didn't get it wrong, but I think maybe we've outgrown a lot of those considerations. I'll even go as far as to say something like the second Amendment. I mean, you know, and maybe I'd get criticized for this, but I'm just free thinking here. Ideally, you would want a society that is so orderly. Do you really want people running around with guns all the time? I mean, I know the argument about. And I am pro second Amendment, I have guns. But. But, you know, something like that. It's like that. That is a clear instance where the left kind of makes a point about how we've outgrown some of the things that are in there. I'm gonna get a lot of shit for saying that, but I just think that's true in, like, a modern city. You know, should everybody be packing heat like that? I mean, ideally, you'd have so much public order, it wouldn't be necessary.

[A]

Okay, so first, let me just be really clear in my position. I do like a place where people are running around with guns all the time, because I've been a place where they haven't. Canada, and it's a nation of pussy. Also, I will tell you this on this topic. I have seen the video where the police. I don't think arrest police showed up at your house. One of my producers here, who's a lawyer, said people should watch that as textbook on how to deal with police. And he's not Jewish. He's Greek, One of the very rare Greek lawyers. He's not very good.

[B]

I like him.

[A]

Yeah, he's not very good. So I wouldn't hire him in a divorce. She'll get everything. But. So I do want to give you. In other words, I want to let people know that this is not a position taken from someone who has not been under threat. But I will say this, what I heard there and in watching you concerning to me, because what I see communicated is in your ideal utopia, to use a word, would involve a much stronger state with much more executive power. And I agree on the executive authority, but the end game, a much stronger state and much softer civilian arms, softer second amendment rights. And it sounds a lot to me like the left saying, well, it was for muskets and we can just revise it.

Explain if that's a mischaracterization, how do we know when we decide? And how do we decide? We probably don't want people running around with guns anymore.

[B]

Well, I'm not in favor of gun control.

In America. I just don't even think that's practical. What, 400, 500 million guns or something? I, I don't think it's possible to control guns here. It's kind of gone away. Um, but I, I will just say it really comes from a feeling. I don't really have a fleshed out, like, hot take on it, but I do think about a modern city like New York or D.C. or LA and think.

Where do we draw the line? Uh, you know, I know in Texas, for example, you have open carry, and I've done it. I was down in Texas with John Doyle actually, years ago, before we became enemies, and we were walking around with guns in our back pocket in the gas station. And I'm thinking, I actually don't know that I want to live in a city where people are literally walking around with guns hanging out of their pants. I guess I already do live in one. I live in Chicago. They said they don't do illegally.

[A]

That might just be a Chicago thing, because everyone in the studio is trapped right now. And I love it. Like, you're almost making me arrest Correct in your description.

[B]

I was, I caught myself. I'm like, oh, wait, that sounds like the south side. Sounds like Inglewood, actually. But, you know, so I guess I'm in favor of like concealed carry. We should be able to own guns. I, I just. Maybe it's a cultural thing because I did grow up in the Midwest and my, my parents actually trained people in how to use firearms. But we're not like a gun nut family. Forgive me if that's a pejorative statement, but we're not enthusiasts. And, um, so there's something to me about it that I just feel like at a certain point it becomes less safe more than more safe. So. But like I said, I don't really have a fleshed out take. I'm, I'm ideologically in favor of the second Amendment. I do support it. I don't have any prescriptive gun control measures. I just think there's a limit to it and I get a little uncomfortable by some of it sometimes.

[A]

Okay, well, I think that's a fair answer. If it's just sort of a feeling thing. I think that. But in combination, hopefully you can understand where it's prescriptive as far as a stronger state or theocracy or. I feel like. I know I've heard you use the word dictatorship. It could be, again, tongue in cheek with softer Second Amendment rights. That's a huge concern to me. But I think that's a fair answer if you don't actually have a prescription for it. All right, just. I would ask that you not create any kind of a coalition with someone who would take any guns away, because I have them hanging out of my pockets all the time. As a matter of fact, I've created new pockets for my guns.

[B]

I keep forgetting you're Canadian. That seems like a big hang. Maybe because you come from a country without it, but I was American.

[A]

I was raised in the land of pussy. So I was born in Detroit and was raised in the land of the spineless from trans American.

[B]

Huh. Identify as a man American. Aunt not.

[A]

Well, I've actually tried to publicly reject, denounce my Canadian citizenship many times. And I don't know how to. I've just said it on air like I denounce it. I'm so ashamed of that. And my mom, who was French Canadian, I mean, gosh, many decades ago, is embarrassed by it. So I'm not Canadian. I'm never running for office. I just don't want people to actually think I'm Canadian because that would be awful.

[B]

Okay, sure. Sure thing. Well, I mean me, as far as just. Just one last.

[A]

We agree Canadians are awful. We have to agree they're the worst.

[B]

But they're your people, Steve.

[A]

They're your people.

[B]

They're not.

[A]

Oh, son of a bitch. All right.

I hate, I hate that country. It is awful. It's also, by the way, probably why I'm much more in favor of a two party system, because I come from where I was raised, a parliamentary system. And when I had it explained to me, I said, so someone can become the leader of this country with like 28% of the vote. How is this not retarded? You know, and it doesn't work very well either. It doesn't mean that either is perfect. But yeah, Second Amendment is a. Is a really big thing. But I also understand too, because I was, I was under that impression coming from a place where not a lot of people had guns. But I will tell you this, my prescription is there is no limit. You would probably consider me an extremist on that. And.

Almost all mass shootings take place in gun free zones. The lowest number you'll find is 94%. Increased gun laws do not at all correlate with decreased crime. Matter of fact, quite often the opposite. And guns save far more lives each year than they take. So that's one of those, if you're a pragmatist, which I know you've said, guns, homicides each year. This is my soapbox and I'll get off just since I know you said you're not convinced either way, there'll be anywhere from 15 to, to 20 something thousand each year. Homicides. Defensive uses, low end, half a million to 3 million. And that's a low count because so many defensive uses of firearms, like you mentioned, just someone showing it right, they don't need to be fired. They save far more lives than they take. And that's one where I say, yeah, I want an armed society because I know what it looks like where they're not. And in Canada, Montreal, where I was raised, they pretty much invented the school shooting. We had Ecole Polytechnique Concordia. I had friends at Dawson College where there was a guy who roamed the Maritimes with like a shotgun and shot multiple people for days and no one could do shit. That's how bad it is. So that's my, that's me making a pitch since you seem like you're reasonably open to it.

[B]

Well, I agree with all that. I guess the feeling comes from, you know, there's this sense in American conservatism of like, well, they can't take the guns. And I feel like there's a sense that guns are gonna protect us from tyranny. And I feel like they haven't. I feel like especially someone like myself. The government can touch you. The government can do what they want to you. The government took my money, put me on a no fly list, and if they wanted to get me, they could get me. And so I just.

[A]

They have gotten you. They have gotten you. And they've gotten me too. You know, thank God we're here. But no, and I, my heart goes out to you. I mean, being subpoenaed by the ATF and being threatened to be investigated by the FBI along with Nashville police, they can but then apply that to society at large and you end up like Australia with COVID camps.

[B]

Yeah. And I'm not like, I'm not against all guns. I just think that conservatives need to think beyond that issue because they tend to consider that the last line of defense. I feel like if you lose everything else, the guns won't protect you either. That's why I'm more proactive. Like, we really need to do other things, and that's why the Second Amendment's less a of.

[A]

Yeah, And I understand that. I would just say if you're not pretty steadfast on that, you will lose everything else. Historically, there's no exception, and that's why it's so important to me. But I think we're pretty close on that. And maybe if ever you're around, I can take you shooting. What about this guy? I have a little gun right here. I had to take it out because when I sit down, it digs into my gut fat and leaves a gun imprint. That's a cute little gun, right? That doesn't intimidate you. Look at this tiny little gun.

[B]

That's a good gun.

[A]

It's a little Kel Tech. But, you know, if you come down, we can shoot it sometime and they won't even know about it in Chicago. Don't carry illegally. Okay. So that's a big issue for me. I would say the biggest issue since you can go back when I was a teenager as well. We share that in common. Second Amendment, First Amendment, again, socialized healthcare. Very important to me, just because of the results. I understand where you're coming from saying that our system is broken. I just have seen how much more broken it can be. Immigration, I think, is probably the biggest issue of our time, both legal and illegal. I think we agree, maybe different methods, if that's fair. But it's a I am for you. I don't want Texas to look like India. We have a segment I on India where it's pretty much just human beings throwing shit. It's a terrible, terrible place. And I don't believe that they're smarter. I don't believe that we should be replacing Americans. So I think we're on board there. But freedom of speech, big thing for me. Me, the fact that we're able to have this conversation and the fact that I will take so much crap for even having it. I hope that you can appreciate it, and I would do it again. That's a big one. Now I want to play a clip for you that the Hill took and they edited some stuff in this clip, I'm sure you're aware. And then towards the end of this, for fun, I want to go through some rapid fire viral clips that have no context so that you can address them because these are the ones that people see of you sometimes.

[B]

Sure, yeah, yeah.

[A]

So this is the one from the Hill that they ran regarding. I guess you would say freedom of speech, but seems pretty severe. And then I would like to roll not the whole two hour show but a longer clip so that people can see what they cut out and then we can talk about it. Is that fair? Sure, yeah. Here's the Hill clip with I think the two hosts who presented it. I think one of them is gay or just acts like it.

[B]

There is an occult element.

At the high levels of society and specifically among the Jews. So many of the people that are perpetrating the lies and the destruction on the country.

They are evildoers, they are people that worship false gods. They are people that practice magic or rituals or whatever. And more than anything, those people need to be, when we take power, they need to be. Be given the death penalty straight up. And I'm far more concerned about that. I am about even non white people or mass migration.

These people that are, that are communing with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff and these people that are suppressing the name Christ and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power. This is God's country. This is Jesus's country. This is not the domain of atheists or devil worshipers or perfidious Jews. This is Christ's country.

[A]

Now, for those watching, that is what the hill ran. Right? And of course people were horrified. They did edit out a very particular portion of it which I think is relevant. So forgive me if you need to take a sip of water. I want to play the longer version and let's see if people can see what was edited out and then give you the floor to explain it. Sure.

[B]

It just makes me sick to my stomach. There is an occult element at the high levels of society and specifically among the Jews. And you know, whenever I see that stuff, it just makes me want to proclaim louder and more firmly and more rigidly that it is nothing other than Jesus Christ. No, no pagan stuff, no false gods, no deities, no demons. It is Jesus Christ and Pete and we need to start saying that name more. I feel like I haven't said his name enough on the show lately. But that, that is what breaks the spell. It's the name. It's the name Jesus. Talk about it, Say it. Pray to him.

Talk about the sacrifice on the cross. That's the answer. Because so many of the people that are perpetrating the lies and the destruction on the country.

They are evildoers. They are people that worship false gods. They are people that practice magic or rituals or whatever. And more than anything, those people need to be. When we take power, they need to be given the death penalty straight up. And. And I'm far more concerned about that than I am about even non white people or mass migration.

These people that are communing with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff, and these people that are suppressing the name Christ and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power. I'm not calling for political violence, but that cannot have any quarter in our society. And we need to put up. We need to put up a crucifixion that parts. They cut out in every home, in every room, in every school and every government office to signal Christ's reign over our country. Not. Not that God needs it, but it must be outwardly expressed from the interior that this is God's country. This is Jesus country. This is not the domain of atheists or devil worshippers or perfidious Jews. This is Christ country.

So anyway, I know the guy earlier said, can you be agnostic and be America First? I'm amending my answer.

[A]

No.

[B]

You must be a Christian and you must submit to Christianity.

[A]

Okay, so. And I know it feels tedious, but this is. This is the game that the media plays. I noticed they cut out the part where you said you were not calling for political violence, which I think is an indictment on the Hill. But I would also ask. You say that, but you also talk about executing people. So if you're not advocating political violence as it relates to.

Putting people to death, how would you do it?

[B]

Well, that was a few years ago. And I would say that I'm not really in favor of the death penalty at all anymore. But I remember that monologue well because I saw a lot of this satanic occult, cult stuff. I'm talking about, like, Pizzagate stuff. Like, we have to acknowledge there are a lot of people in the elite that are straight up devil worshipers. I firmly believe in this, like, Eyes Wide Shut kind of thing that does happen. I don't think it's necessarily a grand conspiracy, but.

[A]

No, there's spiritual warfare for sure. For sure.

[B]

Yeah. And I think there's a lot of those types of people out there, especially in, like, Hollywood. I saw it up close and personal when I was with Ye. And I just hate that stuff so much.

[A]

Wait a second. I want to give you the answer because it. What do you mean you saw it up close? Were you at an Eyes Wide Shut party with. Yay.

[B]

No, I wasn't at a party. But, you know, being with him, you see, you know, like with Balenciaga. They did that at Balenciaga, all right. They had that like SNM Teddy bear, you know, and there's things like that. It's like a wink and a nod to. To basically just evil. Just straight up evil. And so. So no, I. You know that they always do this. I do a show every night, as you know, and you sometimes get whipped up and you say something. Something like that. So I don't know that I'm. I have a policy of like, when I get in charge, I'm going to give everyone the death penalty. But. But suffice to say the people that are involved in that kind of stuff, they. They can't be negotiated with. It's not going to be a power sharing agreement with people that worship Moloch and BAAL and the Epstein's and, And who is it? The Podestas? Like, those people are going to have to be like imprisoned or something like that, because that stuff just makes. Makes me sick to my stomach. So that, that was the gist. But it's not like my. My program is. So we're gonna become president, that we're gonna kill a bunch. I'm not in favor of the death penalty even at all.

[A]

Really. Okay, so even if, let's say, you know, Perfect World Coalition, you reach that point that the Nick Fuentes government. You wouldn't be executing people for. For not being Christian.

[B]

No. No. And that's not what that was about. I mean, even in that clip, I'm talking specifically about the occult, which I hate.

[A]

Okay, but you wouldn't execute people for worshiping false gods either. You wouldn't execute people at all?

[B]

No, no, not at all.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. Because for me, I mean, I, I just go, oh, well, it's interesting. They cut out the. I'm not advocating political violence, but then I still come back to. Did say execute. So I do want to ask him about that.

[B]

Yeah, it's an unfortunate statement, but it's one of those things. If I could take it back, I would, but I just. That call. I don't know about you, but when I see that kind of stuff, like it.

[A]

It.

[B]

It pisses me off when I see like order of nine angles and stuff like that. I'M like, in my bones. I hate it.

[A]

Yeah, well, I hate evil, wherever it may be. And I do think, I do believe this is my belief, that the progressive left is a death cult. That's the only common denominator that I see. If you look at the abortion policy, if you look at the mutilation of children, if you look at. Yeah, even it's whenever you see an LGBTQ flag next to country that's represented by Hamas. Now, I'm not saying all Palestinian people. I'm saying those two can't be reconciled. Where you go, how do they have this? How do they have these? Well, the only commonality is that they can't stand the United States, and it's a death cult. And I think what does bother me a little more sometimes is I see a lot of immature Christians, and I know you've talked about this as a Catholic who obviously has much more of an understanding of your theology, or maybe sometime we can have a conversation about that. We agree or disagree, but I see a lot of young Christians who come in and they think that everything is, like, satanic, like a proactive satanic worship. I'm going, well, hold on. The biggest threat is making yourself God. Like abortion is just sacrifice at the altar of self. Are there people involved in the occult? Knowingly, yeah. But there are far more people who succumb to temptation and evil and worship the devil without knowing it. And I think a lot of people kind of sound nuts and unreasonable because they don't understand theology sometimes.

[B]

Yeah, no, and I agree with that. I just. To me, it's completely irredeemable when. When you just. It's explicit because they're like you say, there are a lot of people that do it unknowingly, and maybe it's guided by the best intentions. You know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It might be out of empathy or, you know, some. Some kind of ideology. And I agree with you. But to me, it's like that explicit occult stuff. It's, you know, that, to me, is irredeemable. I mean, it's. Obviously, Whereas Christians, we don't believe it's actually irredeemable. But to me, like I said in the clip, there can be no quarter for that, especially in the halls of power. As far as the left is concerned. I mean, you're right about that, but I don't. I don't hate it as much, actually.

[A]

The left. Yeah, okay. No, we just. I. I do.

[B]

The left is evil. I agree with you. But that other stuff is just on its next level.

[A]

No, no, obviously anyone who is anyone who's like, you know, doing a bloodletting devil worship ceremony is the worst. I'm just saying that I believe the left in general is an evil, evil movement and ideology. And for proof, look to Canada. It's both evil and a nation of pussies. It's almost hard to make that happen. But somehow they pulled it off. And I also think the coalition that you see with the left and big business, this is where you say donors, but I just mean corporatism, period. Like blackrock. I mean, we had an investigation. People can go and watch Funny enough, McKinsey Company was one where we got a lot of blowback. But BlackRock then threatening Rumble if they don't remove us to take legal action. And I don't even think it was a Jewish lawyer, which is kind of funny just as an aside. So I think that's why it didn't go anywhere. Wasn't very good. Say what we want about they tend to be good as lawyers. That is a really unholy coalition and leads to a lot of our problems with big tech and censorship. I will say this. I find that I agree with, with you on a lot. And I know you have a lot of time. I don't want to take up too much of your time. I don't know if you saw Coleman Hughes just released this whole thing on you last night. Did you see that?

[B]

I did, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

And it seems to me when I saw that, that they have some sights set on Rumble because they started bringing Rumble Nick. Rumble Nick. They said it was said like 20 times. And of course I believe Coleman Hughes works under Barry Weiss and CBS and. And they spend a lot of money on YouTube, would have a vested interest in alternative platforms going away. So that kind of raised an eyebrow and I want to look into it more. But he did say that you, Nick, you'll give one face to the audience on Rumble and then sometimes a different face when you go on podcasts and moderate quite a bit.

Do you think you've been doing that here? Because I know you'll say I could take that back. Or do you think it's this is fair and it's consistent?

[B]

I think I'm being fair. You know, they've been saying this about me for 10 years where they say you're presenting a more normie friendly face. I would just say I'm a three dimensional human being. And when you watch a show, it's a performance and it's me as you know, well, maybe because you have. You got other people, but for me, it's like I'm in a room by myself, and when I do a show, I'm just talking to myself. And when I. Talking to myself, you know how it is. You get whipped up and you. You make jokes or use hyperbole. You're being rhetorical. Like, that tends to happen. Then when you're in a serious conversation where they say, do you want to kill everybody? You're like, no, no. Like, here I was joking, or here I meant this. But no, I think that's a dishonest characterization of it.

[A]

Yeah. Let me ask you. You say. You've said one time, I think you were giving an interview, it's funny. Said sometimes jokes don't land. And you were just. You just were straightforward about it. I know that all too well. Believe me. A crowd full of drunks in Schenectady will let you know when you're 19. Let me ask you what, in your mind, when you're doing it, what's the perfect joke?

[B]

I don't know if I. For me, if it makes me laugh. I mostly do my show from my own sense of humor. The things that I say, it's because I think they're funny, and I literally can't have help, but I have to say it, and I make myself laugh. And so to me, the best jokes are the ones that I laugh out loud if I watch the clip.

[A]

Okay, and do you. Do you, like. Do you. Do you ever write a joke? Or is there, like. If you ever think of a perfect structure, this is just sort of. You mean, these are sort of joking statements?

[B]

I don't write jokes. It's all extemporaneous. So if I think of something funny, like. Like, you know, just like a funny scenario or a big. I just. I have to. I have to perform, and I have to act it out. And sometimes the edgier. Let's be honest, if it's edgy, it's funny.

[A]

Right?

[B]

That's in my opinion. I mean, I've always had an edgy sense of humor. If it's a little offensive, it's a little bit sharp. If the audience doesn't like it sometimes I like it more if half the audience gets really mad about it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Rage bait, you know, So I understand.

[A]

That's actually the only reason I have people in the room, because I talk to myself, myself all the time. So it's just so people don't think I'm crazy because I don't know about you. Most, most of my ideas usually come to me in the shower or driving. And I think it's that sensory deprivation. Right. You, you ever drive and you go, wait, where was I for an hour? And you have a bunch of things you have to pull over and write down?

[B]

Yeah, it's almost like if, if you're doing something, it like frees a different part of your mind. You know, if you're not doing anything, if you're idle, you're a little too in your head. So that maybe that's.

[A]

Yeah. I think Norm MacDonald said once he said the perfect joke is where the punchline is the exact same as the setup. And he had a joke about Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett. And the punchline was just when they realized that Julia Roberts had married Lyle Lovett. Like that was just the punchline. But to me, I think in topical stuff, cuz I've caught a lot of flack for jokes and I believe at one point Matt Walsh even joined like a bunch of conservatives joined and gave me crap for a tweet. And this is why I say I feel compelled to defend when I go, well, hon, even if it's not a joke, it's a statement made in jest. I'm using the term broadly. The one I wrote was, I said it was in response to Elena Dunham. Back then, if an angry feminist is raped in a forest, but no one there to hear it, is she still heinously unattractive? And people got so mad and conservative saying, we have to be better than this. I was like, that's a solid bit. Yeah. Like I don't. And then Anna Kasparian, who's been welcomed into the fold with open arms. I don't know why I was called a garbage person. One of my favorite jokes that I ever wrote, and a lot of it is not necessarily written, was, remember Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh? I was a big fan and it was something like the setup was like she accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape in a letter to Dianne Feinstein. And I'm paraphrasing. And the letter that she gave to her psychologist contradicts the story that she gave to the New York Times and that contradicts the story given to her attorney. And the attorney version contradicted with the story that she had given to the authorities, who are still, it should be noted, pursuing the distinct possibility of her being a, quote, dirty lying whore. And Agasparian goes, I'm better. That's a garbage person who would make that joke it's just a fact. Christine Blasey Ford was a dirty lying whore.

There's not much more to it than that. Let me go. So on that vein, this is. And again, I want people to know. Don't take this out of context. I want to run some clips completely out of context the way they have been run as hit pieces on you so that you can clarify. So this is going to seem really shitty, but I know that people have seen these and I probably already know the answer, so we can have a bit of fun with it. Here's one that people might have seen they use against you that, you know, the whole the dating is gay thing.

[B]

If we're really being honest, never having a girlfriend, never having sex with a woman really makes you more heterosexual because honestly, dating women is gay. Having sex with women is gay and having sex with men is gay. And, and you know, it's really, it's all gay. And if you want to know the truth, the only really straight heterosexual position is to be an asexual incel.

[A]

Now.

I have to treat this with the seriousness it deserves. Do you believe that having sex with a woman is gay because some could argue that intercourse with a woman is the most heterosexual thing that someone could do?

[B]

Well, you would think that by definition, but yes. At the same time, you know, it's the closeness with women. I, I sort of see women as like the abyss. And it's like the longer you stare into them, the more they stare back into you.

[A]

That's an experienced woman.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, a lot of these, like hypersexual men, they become more like women. They become a little more gay. So, yeah, yeah, we have to acknowledge there's something very true there. Something very true.

[A]

Well, I think the reason people also use this and it really bothers me, they go, oh, Nick is an incel. As I understand it, you have always said that you are going to be waiting until you're married. So they take something that's a virtue and use it against you. Combined with, I think what you just said was in jest and go, he's an incel who's gay.

[B]

Well, the incel thing is true. I mean, women hate me. Women can't stand me. I'm five nine. I'm five nine. Women think I shouldn't exist.

[A]

That doesn't matter.

[B]

I think I should be dead.

[A]

Yeah, I can see right now. You've got big hands. No, no, no, you have notoriety right now, my friend. You just go do some live shows, they'll be throwing themselves at you. But still maintain that virtue. You know, you have to learn to swat them away. Don't stare into that abyss. But no, that's what they'll do. They'll go, oh, this is. You're not. That's not true. You're not an incel. Not at this point. You choose. You're a Choose cell.

[B]

A Volcell. I'm rizzless. I'm rizzless. I have no rizz. Stephen.

[A]

Okay. Okay. All right, now.

[B]

And I won't do it. I won't do the playful banter. I just. I won't.

[A]

You won't. All right, I got it. Well, that's. I don't know what. Riz. I've learned about drip. So neither one of us is wearing a whole lot of drip, but you seem to have a nice watch. Thanks. This is the other one that people have talked about. I think it's a. Is this the one with destiny? I don't know. I put these. Cause they're each like a few seconds. So I'll just play it. Because people go ask them about this, and then you can clarify again. I assume all of these are unjust. I just. I. I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up, because then people like, I can't believe you let him get away with open.

All right, roll that one.

[B]

They want to get the Medal of Honor, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, because they went out with some, you know, some average woman and had a couple of kids, and they live in some house where they're watching Disney plus and kids, you go to the farmer's market. It's a revolutionary act. I don't think so, buster. Like, we need to go at the center, and that requires real dedication, real sacrifice. That. Yes, Might involve actually not having kids for some people. You know, does it ever cross people's mind that in a war, young men die? Is this any different? Is sacrificing a family life different than dying in a war for a political outcome? I don't think so.

[A]

And I'm sorry, that's the wrong clip I meant. But we can address that one, too. The clip I wanted was of destiny, about him being based or something. But that one is one that some people obviously would say to bring up, because us being replaced. And by the way, I'm not using the term replacement theory, because just like nationalists, the left tries to coin that. That that advice would maybe fly in the face of fixing the problem of us being replaced demographically.

[B]

Yeah, you know, I hear that all the time. And I don't think the solution to demographic replacement is everybody that watches my show has kids. Because even if everybody watches my show has kids, it doesn't solve the problem. It's a political problem. Like, why is our fertility rate low? It's really. It's a policy problem and it's a societal wide problem. And so I don't like the idea. It's sort of like, you know, you look at how society is, people go, oh, well, you know, if you don't like the way your city is, go move somewhere else or go do something else or change.

[A]

I know who you're talking about on that one.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, that's. But there's a lot of people that say that. And. And I think it ignores the reality of politics, which is that if we want to change society, we have to change politics. And a lot of people like to say, no, just be the change you want to see in the world. I don't believe in spontaneous action like that. I think. I think that you do actually need people that are going to need to fight a very difficult battle. And some may have families and some might not, but they have to put the political cause first. And then you can change society by changing the capital. And so that I really don't like when people say, oh, you know, if we all just had kids at the same time, it's like, okay, but who's listening to this? Like 10,000 people. The fertility rate is low globally, and so it's going to need to be addressed by the state.

[A]

Yeah, I think people need to do both. I was going in a silly direction, but not to go back in the serious direction. I think people need to do both. And even people who go to war can do both. And I think that you actually can see it was Andrew Breitbart who I kind of came up under his tutelage because I was just a comedian and he had big Hollywood back then. Before was Breitbart trademark anything. And he said that everything was downstream from culture. I've heard people say both downstream and upstream. I'm not sure which is correct, but I would argue that's true. And a big reason that birth rates are low is because culturally we have been bombarded with that for a long time. Because the world is going to end and it's morally wrong. Right. Population is a problem. Overpopulation. That's what we were told for a very long time. So it justified. It was this confluence of that, along with the feminist movement and sexual liberation, the idea of taking control of that and we really saw an antinatalist country. So I do think culturally it's important. I agree with you. I don't just think be the change you want to seek. I think you need to have a plan and a prescription. I would include in that encouraging people to have families, especially native born, not feather Indian, but native born Americans.

[B]

No, I totally agree, I totally agree with that.

[A]

But I understand the point that you're making, that can't be the only thing. But I also don't want to take for granted that there's been some headway made on that where you actually have a lot of young people now who are very pro family and understand the necessity. Whereas when you and I, I mean you're younger than me, not that much younger than me. When you were young and I was young, that wasn't considered a virtue or a duty at all. As a matter of fact, the opposite. So I've seen the pendulum swing and I definitely want to continue that momentum.

[B]

Yeah, me too. No disagreement.

[A]

Okay, this is the one. It's not destiny. It's something about the again, the young milk that people run and go, you gotta ask me, okay, right when the.

[B]

Milk is good, I wanna start drinking the milk. Same thing goes with women. I don't want to turn 30 and find some 20 year old, 29 year old woman that I have something in common with. And it's like, hey, properly aged like wine. Women don't age like wine. They age like milk.

[A]

Okay, so the last part, everyone says the first part, people go like, you want that milk when they're young? I mean, we just did a whole segment on Rosh Hashanah where Indian men suck on their own mother's tail tits as part of a wedding ceremony. Which is another reason that we should import none of them. But what is a joke in jest? People are saying that you actually, you know, you want young women so you can suckle their milk.

[B]

Oh, well, no, they are the milk in the analogy. It's not about their. They age like milk. No, no, of course not. I, I think the age of consent should be like 25. Honestly. You know, it's like these 20 year old children are out there getting married and having sex in college. I don't know how anybody's okay with this. Yeah, you know, 20 years old, that's a child, that's a literal child and men are having sex with them. It makes me mad, honestly.

[A]

Well, now you've gone too far the other way. 25. Look, if it's a 20 year old and a 20 year old and they get married and they get. I mean, like, Mary was pretty. She. She wouldn't meet that for like another 10 years. We wouldn't have. Jesus Christ.

[B]

Yeah, but now with the, you know, with the seed oils and everything, it's different, so. I know. I think it should be way, way higher. I pissed. Pisses me off. 20 years old, that's a literal kid. I can't believe you would even say that, to be honest.

[A]

What? Two 20 year olds getting married.

[B]

That's a literal child, Stephen. How could she consent? She's 20.

[A]

Oh, okay, all right. You're being facetious.

[B]

I'm teasing. I thought we're being funny.

[A]

I didn't know. Well, yeah, I know, but that's. You were just doing the opposite of it. And considering that people will take it seriously, I said I don't want them to take that. And they're like, see, Nick is inconsistent. But no, I thought we were joking. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that is one thing too. Like, it's just often it's just older women who are jealous that men like younger women. So. Yeah, bingo. Yeah, that's exactly right. How many 4 year olds go like, well, you just want her because it's like, yeah, now do the guy's wallet. Shut up. And we have the same thing with any, by the way, any questions you would like me to ask next week. I have Jillian Michaels on the show, which the funny thing is, and I don't feel the need to disavow because you've said, like, you're not, you're not conservative. I don't think we're in the same exact space. There's some overlap, but for the same reason I wouldn't need to disavow. I mean, to use Ro Khanna as an example. I mean, Ro Khan and I are not of the same stripe politically, and so we can talk about it. But any questions for the lesbian personal trainer Jillian Michaels, who says that you declare all women want or need to be raped?

[B]

You gotta press her. You gotta press her on letting me come on her show. I saw you tweet that and I really appreciated, by the way, defending what I said about. About that topic. If I say defended what I said about rape, it's gonna sound really bad. But, like, I appreciate what you said because.

[A]

No, I am a rape defender. I am a huge rape defender.

[B]

That's part of the overlap.

[A]

That's where we agree, provided the man is attractive, wealthy, and not a Somali crackhead. But you didn't mention it. And that was one where I just sort of, you know, filled in. I'm like, well, I don't think. I've never seen Nick say women need to be raped. I assume that you were discussing it again. 62% of women have rape fantasies.

[B]

And that was so real for that. That was so real for you to say that.

[A]

Well, it's so repeatable that someone like, we've done study after study. This is not an outlier. And what that means is a sexually dominant man. I mean, look at. I mean, women's erotic literature right now is far worse than male pornography. Neither one is good. To be clear. Have you seen this book with the centaur thing? Like, that's the new trend?

[B]

Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's disgusting.

[A]

Yeah. It's like, look, even, you know, as a teenager, I'm not gonna lie and say I've never seen pornography. Of course I've dabbled. I'm. You know, we live in the 21st century, and it's terrible. We all fall short. But, you know, usually it's a. It's a naked man having sex with a naked lady. There's no. There's no centaur.

[B]

No centaurs. Yeah, well, in 50 shades of gray, that was, like, 10 years ago.

[A]

I know, I know.

[B]

Now it's advanced. Now it's, like, refined. Yeah, that's where that came from. And we're all gonna pretend like we don't know what's going on there. Like, they don't want to be choked now and everything like that. I mean.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So you were real for defense. No one wants to talk about it because it's uncomfortable, but it's true.

[A]

Well, because Christians will come down on you, too. And that's the problem, too, is if you, like, oh, you shouldn't talk about. It's like, so what? So we're supposed to address and combat evil without addressing it? Every now and then, a lady's a little like, hey, come on, guys, we all know this, so just read their books. Look at if Fabio's on the COVID read the book. Go five pages in, someone's getting raped. And, you know, we could argue whether it's healthy or not. Depends if the mood strikes. Is there anything else that, you know, we do have some chat from people. Would you like to take a few chats and also let people know where's the best place for folks to find you since you are no longer deplatforming?

[B]

Yeah, I'm on X. Nick J. Fuentes and Rumble. Nick J. Fuentes and. Yeah, let's do some chats for sure.

[A]

By the way, I think you and I agree, too. Elon Musk done a lot of good things. I'm glad that he.

Potential Antichrist. Do we want to take some.

[B]

It's a candidate.

[A]

He was there definitely on the H1B stuff. That was one where I think there's a lot more overlap where. Where I couldn't believe that I was seeing a lot of these astroturf people saying like, yeah, H1B. That's one of those things. Huge disappointment with this administration. I cannot express it enough. And I do hope that the feedback mechanism that has seemed to work in the past with Donald Trump applies here because it's horribly ill advised. Noodles, do you have some chats for Nick? And thanks again for taking the time.

[B]

I do, yeah. First chat from court 070 question for Nick. With as large of a ship that America is, how fast can we write the ship? Can it be done in four years?

It's a good question. No, I don't think it can be done in four years. And. And so in that way, I think maybe we agree on that. We need reasonable expectations. So I'm with you. I'm not one of these people that can never be satisfied. I'm not happy with it, like you said, even about H1BS. But, no, the country can't be changed in four years. It's going to take 15.

[A]

Yeah, I would agree. It could be destroyed in four years. I would say it's a lot easier to destroy than it is to build something. That's why I think these conversations are important no matter how much we disagree. Except for people who call for the actual death. That's my. I say that's my standard when people go. Because someone said, I can't believe you would have Nick on. When Steven Crowder, you say that you would never have someone on who calls for the death of anyone of a political structure stripe because Nick has called for the deaths of all Jews. I'm like, well, by the way, I don't fully agree with some of the things that you say about the zriffs, as we call them in French, but I've never heard you call for the death of all Jews. When I'm talking about people like Hasan Piker Destiny saying political violence against my opponent. That's a line because I had an imam on my show who called for my death. And it got pretty dicey. I was like, I'm not gonna do that again. That's my standard. All right. I think that's a fair Question. Next chat.

[B]

All right, next chat from Ignatim. Do you consider Islam a major threat to the us?

No. And I said this on Alex Jones the other day, I really don't. And I think that, don't get me wrong, I don't want America to be Islamized. I don't like Islam, I'm not pro Islam, I'm a Catholic. But I think that politically that is something that is trotted out whenever people start to scrutinize Israel too much because it certainly more of an issue in Europe. It's far less of an issue here. And I think that is something that they try to get us to identify Muslims as our principal enemies. And by they I mean Zionists because that is Israel's principal adversary in the Middle East. And I don't think they have the same ranking in America as they do in Israel or in Europe. Not by a long shot.

[A]

Yeah, I would say yes, because I was again, I was raised, I remember the school where I went in Greenfield Park, Quebec. I watched some kids cheer when the second tower was hit. Had a very, very large percentage of Islamic students. So much so that some of my homeroom class at lunch hour was turned into a prayer room. And that's always where you and I differ is Europe. Obviously it's a bigger threat. That's why I don't want us to emulate Europe. And Canada emulates it in a lot of ways as far as the parliamentary system and as far as the sort of multicultural mosaic to use their term.

If we emulate them outside of an actual Catholic theocracy, which I know you said you don't want, you can't fill the void with nothing. And it gets filled by the more brutal religion. And that is something they're called to. That's why we have 200 million Muslims on earth who believe that violence against non Muslims and apostates is justified. So do I think it's an imminent threat now? No, but we could be Europe if we follow their lead on that culture would be my case, maybe. Slight difference. Next chat.

[B]

All right, next chat from Defender xx. Question for Nick. How would you properly incentivize smart people of industry and technology into political leadership? Would you want them in elected positions or appointed? I think they should serve in the bureaucracy, you know, because I don't really look at elected representatives as the people that are really in charge. It tends to be more the department departments, the agencies and, and maybe advisors. Maybe there should be some kind of new creation. But we, we live in a technological society. I think we need some level of technocracy. It's sad that we have these like 90 year old, like you have Chuck Grassley in the Senate. What does he know about wafers? What does he know about chips? What does he know about any of this stuff? I think they should be advising Congress and they should be in the federal bureaucracy.

[A]

I heard that answer and I'm a child, so I heard you say wafers and chips and I was thinking Nilla wafers and potato chips because I'm sure he's very familiar with those. Nilla wafers. It's noon. All right, okay, let's grab two more chats and then let Nick go on his way because he probably wants to be with his people.

[B]

Next chat from Carful. Question for Steven and Nick.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

With all the new additions to the conservatives, what do you believe is key to prevent infighting and find our center?

[A]

Oh, first off, I don't like saying finding our center because that sounds like Eat Pray, Love bullshit. But outside of that. Your floor, Nick.

[B]

You know, I guess, I guess the biggest thing is we have to prioritize what matters to us. And for me, you know, when I look at, at the, it's like you said earlier, the number one threat to the country is the demographic change. And so to me, that if we're gonna find the center, that's the center. And I'm willing to compromise on other issues if we're going to stop the flow of immigrants, and I don't care what the argument is, I don't care the why, but we gotta prevent them from coming in. And then I would say on top of that, the priority is we gotta put America first in foreign policy. So in trade and war, we really need, need to fight the corruption. And so I think as long as we rank those things, we can redefine like what it is to be America first or not redefine that. Maybe enshrine America first as the center of what it is to be right wing. And then you could say a guy like Mark Levin, he really doesn't land on the same side as us because he's, he's not on board with that, neither does Shapiro. So that I would prioritize and maybe we can reconceive what it is to be on the right.

[A]

Yeah, I don't know. I'd have to ask Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin and see where they line up because I think on some of the closed handed issues they do. What I don't want to see happen is the only litmus test be if someone Morally opposes Israel. I think that it needs to include people, this coalition, people who think we should cut all funding and we should only look out for our own interests and remove foreign entanglement, remove ourselves from foreign entanglements. But those people can also say I hate Hamas and I think that Islam as a prescription is a greater threat to the West. We may disagree. As long as I think the important close handed issues. I would say for me, immigration, absolutely. Both morally and pragmatically. People say demographic change and they go great replacement theory. I'm talking about like this country will cease to be. That is the thing. And you combine the mass illegal immigration, the mass H1BS with the census rule change, that is huge that people have overlooked. I mean I will say for all the flaws of this administration, I don't know anywhere else where you get a of ton. Tom Holman, big fan, had him on the show. That's a guy who really is uncompromising and he talks about the moral imperative to deport everybody. He made it on this show. He said once they've seen what I've seen, they would. So immigration, I would say first Amendment, I would say second Amendment. I would say the idea of the destruction of the family we have to end. Anyone who pursues that can't be a part of it and then see what kind of a coalition we can build on that. But I, I don't go along with people who go, we can compromise on all these other fundamentals provided it's just immigration or Israel. Because you can find some people who are to the left of everything on those. They can't be in the coalition if they're not on board with a strong immigration plan. But I think we can determine the close handed issues versus open handed issues. Like you're talking about intervention, for example, tariffs. I think people could be pro or against tariffs. I, I am pro these tariffs, but I wouldn't exclude them. Okay, final, final, final chat.

[B]

All right, final chat from elenoism. Question for Nick. You say that bombing the Middle east for Israel is not America first, but you also say you're against bombing Venezuela for killing Americans with fentanyl. Care to elaborate?

Yeah, well, as far as Venezuela is concerned, I'm much more in favor of intervention there than in the Middle east. And I've got, I've gotten a little flack for that because I do believe that the western hemisphere is our domain. It's our sphere of influence. That's the Monroe Doctrine for 200 years. As far as the boats are concerned though, have I Said I'm against that. I guess what I don't like, my.

[A]

Impression was that just to be clear, my impression of you, Tell me if I'm wrong. Was that you said, you know, like limited parameters, we have to define objectives clearly. But you supported that more than other interventions. You could be persuaded. That was my impression of your view. Am I wrong?

[B]

100%. Yeah, 100%. The only thing with the drug boats is it's a lie that Venezuela is responsible for a lot of the drug trafficking. That's just a pretext and I don't even mind that. Like you said, I could be persuaded to support an operation as long as it's clearly defined, effective. If it works. I like it. If they're able to get Maduro out, out and we get a good guy in. If they could do that and they know they're in the nsc, then sure. But I'm very hesitant because regime change doesn't have a good track record. But we do have legitimate interests here. So I'm not opposed to intervention on principle.

[A]

Yeah, I would say I'm not opposed to intervention. I think, and I think the principle is, is it in America's interests and how necessary is it? Where we would differ is I definitely think that Iran is the case. I understand they also with Israel. I know that your view of Iran is different. You think that there's sort of a safeguard against Israel and nuclear Iran. I think that there's a reason that no nation around them, including people who would be more in line with them, want them to have nukes ever, ever, ever. But I think that the principles. Now we may disagree on the target or the place. I think first off the principle is to be very, very hesitant to do it and it goes through the filter. Is this serving America's interests? Because libertarians who act like, like there's no intervention that ever serves America's interests. Well, that's silly.

[B]

Yeah. I'm not a libertarian, I'm not even a non interventionist. I'm with you. It's just gotta be America first and then we could do whatever we want.

[A]

Yeah, well, yes, yes, pretty pretty much. And Venezuela. Yeah, you're right. I don't think a lot of people are being killed from fentanyl from Venezuela. But I will say, like I also again, culturally take an interest in like, remember Code Pink? Remember them? Code Pink all over.

[B]

The name rings a bell.

[A]

Who is that again? They were the yappy bitches who would show up at anything. War. George Bush. It was Code Pink everywhere. No war for Oil disappeared with Barack Obama on the drone strikes, then kind of reappeared. You're just like, well, hold on a second. Where did they go for all this time? But I also look at these Venezuelan drug boat busters and by the way, they're also largely China funded, Code pink. So. So that always takes place. I would argue that China's probably the primary threat, or not argue. I think we're probably on the same page. But these are one of those stories where culturally, when you tune in and that's why we always have CNN on live every day, and I go see nothing up my sleeve so people know we're live because you and I both know a lot of people say they're live, they're not live in this industry. They go, and these people who were killed in this war crime, I go, hold on a second. War crime. Drug runners in the middle of the, of the ocean on cigar boats with four outboard motors, no fishing equipment to be seen. There could not possibly be collateral damage. And then I go, oh, okay. It's not about a war crime because you would say, look at the women and children. Now you're saying, look at the drug runners on drug boats. And that to me highlights that. Again, the left hates the United States of America or they wouldn't be making a big deal out of drug runners in Venezuelan. So cigar. Cigar boats.

[B]

Yeah, no, I totally agree. I mean that they're defending the worst of the worst this year. It's like, don't deport criminals. Don't blow up criminals. Don't, don't arrest people that are stabbing people in the neck. So I'm with you on that. And, and as far as Venezuela is concerned, even Iran, like, I think a case could be made about Iran. That's a whole other topic.

[A]

I know we're wrapping it up, but.

[B]

Yes, yeah, but I'm not. I don't know that I 100% even agree with Dave Smith on this. Like, I get where you're coming from. I'm not in favor of proliferation. I just have maybe a different prescription for how to solve it. But I think we're fairly aligned on foreign policy.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I think pretty close, or at least in principle. And then that's where coalition matters cause go. Okay, are we on these. Okay, now let's look at these specifics. And you're going to have disagreements on specifics, but I don't think anyone can be letting the doors disagree. Disagreements on these foundational. And I don't want to say Prince because it sounds like old school. Conservative, but I mean, non negotiables is what I mean. Like someone going, oh, we disagree on this. We agree on the specifics, but I want to take away all your guns and ban everyone for hate speech. You know, like a Pam Bondi. I don't think she should be in this. Well, all right, Nick. I appreciate you taking the time. Want to say hopefully thought fair, productive. I think was pretty friendly. We disagreed, but I'm happy about it.

[B]

Yeah, totally great conversation. Great getting to meet you. Absolutely fair. And yeah, I believe in conversations like these. And I thank you for. I know you're going to get flack for it. I thank you for giving me the platform and the opportunity. So it's good to finally speak with you.

[A]

Oh, absolutely. And hopefully. Yeah, that's why I say give you the floor because I don't want anything to happen like what happened after with Tucker. I won't do it. And I don't want any drive bys after. That's how this works because people try and stir the confidence controversy machine. I think this had a beginning, middle and end, and.

Tucker was really shitty with what he did. Like, here's the thing, whether I agree with him on some issues or you on some, it's just so bitchy to do that once you're gone. You have my word, I won't be doing that.

[B]

Yeah. And likewise, I'll be singing your praises. I'm a number one. I'm a mug club guy now.

[A]

Okay, well, don't go that far because we were.

[B]

I endorse you completely. Yeah.

[A]

No, no, no, no, no. She's like, when you thank Steven Crowder, thank Nick Fuentes. Get the fuck out of here.

[B]

All right, all right.

[A]

Well, if I don't see you, Merry Christmas, Nick. Thank you for taking the time. Be well.

[B]

Thanks, man.

[A]

Merry Christmas, Nick Fuentes, everybody.

All right. To people out there who are, you know, I know people are gonna look at that and go, well, everyone has their own thing as far as. As where you should press, where you shouldn't, where you disagree. But my job as a host is to be fair and to host someone graciously as well as be consistent. So.

People have a problem. I don't really give a rest.

I don't give a.

Sam.