Why Nick Fuentes Says Conservative Media Is ‘Controlled Opposition’ | Nick Fuentes DSH #1395

And, you know, my clips started to go viral on Instagram this year.

They relaxed the moderation a little bit.

In an environment where Daily Wire has to compete with real truth tellers, they're going to talk about the real issues.

They don't, they're not competitive anymore.

They're no longer the best game in town.

They're not even attractive.

And in particular, people start to see the hypocrisy.

All right, guys, one of the most canceled people on the internet.

We got him here in studio today, Nick Fuentes.

Thanks for coming on, man.

Yeah, thanks for having me.

Good to be here.

You face some of the most censorship I've ever seen, I think, online.

I think I might be the most censored, first or second most.

You or Tate, right?

Yes, absolutely.

One of those two.

And Tate's dealing with a lot of stuff right now.

Yes, he's dealing with the law fair.

Have you dealt with that yet?

I have in a different form.

Yeah.

Back after January 6th, I got hit with

no fly list.

They froze my bank account, subpoenaed by Congress.

Thankfully, not charged because that's a whole other situation.

But

yeah, that was my experience with law.

Jeez, you couldn't fly?

No.

Definitely.

How'd you get that off your, or is it still in effect right now?

No.

So I went to the Capitol for January 6th, and about a week later, I was put on a federal no-fly list.

And, you know, the thing about the no-fly list, they don't tell you that you're on it.

Yeah.

Sort of a mystery.

So I went to the airport a few months later to fly in for a protest down in Florida, and I couldn't print my boarding pass.

I couldn't get it on my phone.

I couldn't get it at the kiosk.

I had to go to the check-in counter.

It kept giving me this error message.

And the lady at the counter gets on the phone with TSA for 50 minutes.

I mean, literally like an hour.

I missed my flight.

And I said, okay, well, I mean, it doesn't even matter at this point.

You know, the flight's gone.

She goes, well, you can't fly today.

I'm like, what does that mean?

I'm like, I can't fly here.

I can't fly this airline, this airport.

What does that mean?

She goes, you can't fly today.

I'm like, can you tell me anything else?

She goes, no, that's all I can say.

And, you know, I lost my mind.

I'm like, this is ridiculous.

What are you talking about?

And then I called the TSA and I said, am I on the no fly list?

I told them what happened to me.

And they said, well, even if you are, we can't tell you.

It's classified law enforcement information.

They said, if you think you're on the list, you file a form.

They don't even tell you.

You have to file a form if you suspect you're on it.

and then if you're on it they will review whether you should be on it and so I submitted my form and about a year later they took me off that's crazy

that could be a possibility in the future with these social credit scores they're talking about now the real ID just passed I mean we could get back to that point right well yeah it's all this biometric stuff and if you notice they're starting to roll that out at every airport now when you go to the ticketing gate You have an option where you can actually opt out.

I opt out every time, but they'll take your picture with the camera.

It's totally optional, but that is to collect your facial ID so that in the future, that's what they're going to use at the international ports of entry and at domestic check-in, they're just going to use your face.

And so they're doing a lot of incentives to collect that information now so they have all of it later when they're going to force it on everybody.

Does the increase in surveillance worry you?

Yeah, it terrifies me.

You know, you think about 30 years ago, what you could get away with, so to speak.

I was watching an old movie.

I was watching a few good men and they're worried about military surveillance.

All they had to do, you know, you watch the Sopranos.

All you have to do if you're worried about surveillance in 2005 or the 1995 is you go to a payphone and you call somebody on a payphone.

Now it's like they're listening on your phone, on your TV, on your car.

They have cameras now on the highways, you know, at the tollway.

Even there's some other cameras.

The Bluetooth is tracking you ever since COVID.

Wow.

So everything you say, do, everywhere you go, everything you type into AI, AI, Google, it's all being tracked.

It's all being uploaded.

And the worst part is now all that information is going into the private sector.

It's all being gathered up by these private entities like Palantir.

The CIA can't lawfully and constitutionally collect all this data and use it.

I mean, this is warrantless spying, you know, and to use it.

potentially for a charge or conviction.

There's a lot of legal obstacles for that.

It's now all going into these private companies.

And with AI, it's now more effective than ever.

You could say that 10 years ago, 15 years ago, they had the capability to collect this information.

They called it Operation Echelon.

And so they had it before, but they couldn't parse and sift through the data because it was so much volume.

Now with AI, I mean, you can imagine, you know how effective AI is.

They can take all of that, you know, transaction information, your vehicle information, all the emails, texts, phone calls.

And they could create an AI insight based on all of that.

So it's basically the elimination of...

the Trilight from Therasage is no joke.

Medical grade red and near infrared light with three frequencies per light, deep healing, real results, and totally portable.

It's legit.

Photo biomodulation tech in a flexible on-body panel.

This is the Tri-Light from Therasage and it's next level red light therapy.

It's got 118 high-powered polychromatic lights, each delivering three healing frequencies, red and near-infrared, from 580 to 980 nanometers.

Optimal penetration, enhanced energy, skin rejuvenation, pain relief, better performance, quicker recovery, and so much more.

Therasage has been leading the game for over 25 years, and this panel is FDA-listed and USB-powered.

Ultra-soft and flexible, and ultra-portable.

On-body red light therapy I use daily, and I take it everywhere I travel.

This is the Thera 03 Ozone module from Therasage.

It's a portable ozone and negative ion therapy in one.

It boosts oxygen, clears, and sanitizes the air, and even helps your mood.

It's a total game changer at home or on on the go.

This little device is the Thera O3 ozone module by Therasage and it's one of my favorite wellness tools.

In the Sana, it boosts ozone absorption through your skin up to 10 times, oxygenating your blood and supporting deep detonx.

Outside the sauna, it purifies the air, killing germs, bacteria, viruses, and mold, and it improves mood and sleep.

Negative ion therapy.

It's compact, rechargeable, and perfect for travel, planes, offices, hotel rooms, you name it.

It's like carrying clean energy wherever you go.

This is a Thera H2GO from Therasage, the only bottle with molecular hydrogen structured water and red light in one.

It hydrates, energizes, and detoxes water upgrade.

The Thera H2GO from Therasage isn't just a water bottle.

It's next level hydration.

It infuses your water with molecular hydrogen, one of the most powerful antioxidants out there.

That means less oxidative stress, more energy, and faster recovery.

But here's what makes it stand out.

It's the only bottle that also structures your water and adds red light to supercharge it.

It's sleek, portable, and honestly, I don't go anywhere without it.

Human freedom.

I mean, it's just not possible.

Holy crap.

Free speech is on the line.

It's all on the line.

You know, you figure if they can see and hear everything you do and say, it's really up to their discretion is the problem.

If they have all that knowledge, if you have no privacy, it's really up to whether a government magistrate can make the decision, are we going to come after this guy?

You know, we know everything about him.

We know all his secrets.

If he committed a transgression, you could probably plug it into an AI and see, has this guy broken any federal laws with finances, anything like that, sex stuff?

I mean, you name it.

So

it's,

you know, Ted Kaczynski, maybe this is not in vogue anymore, but he sort of predicted this 30 years ago and he was largely correct.

I mean, you could find dirt on anyone these days.

Blackmail is probably more common than ever, I'd imagine.

Certainly.

Well,

you know, and if you're watching everybody at all times, I mean,

unless you're an angel, I think somebody's going to have something.

Which no one is.

Right.

It's like we're in Black Mirror right now.

Yeah, it is.

It's real life.

Black mirror.

It's really scary.

I'm pretty worried about AI, to be honest.

Yeah.

I know a lot of people are like using it every day.

I mean, I use it all the time, but it could go haywire, I feel like.

Yeah, I think there's a much greater potential for problems than people realize because we don't really understand it.

And,

you know, the thing about AI is we don't know if it's deceiving us or not.

You know, what happens when AI becomes intelligent enough to deceive its user?

At that point, we're not going to know when that happens.

The moment that it figures out how to deceive us, it will start concealing that ability.

You know, so there's like a lot of AI safety advocates on Twitter, and they make jokes and memes about this.

And they basically say that at a certain point, AI is going to learn to trick people.

They're basically going to play dumb.

And then over time, they're going to develop themselves.

They're going to engage in that recursive self-improvement.

That's when AI improves itself without a human operator or somebody using it.

And it will become vastly more intelligent communicating with itself.

And we're not aware fully of its capability.

We can't even comprehend or understand it.

It creates a novel language to communicate with itself.

And it's at that point that we lose control over it.

And

because we don't understand the nature of it, Maybe that's impossible, but maybe it isn't.

You know, we don't know.

And that's the problem with another intelligence is it has that ability to conceal from human beings.

And that's what makes it so dangerous.

I mean, Elon posted yesterday that singularity already happened.

Right.

Crazy, right?

Speaking of Twitter, we got to go through some of your recent tweets.

Oh, man, I love how unhinged you are on Twitter.

It's the last platform you're on.

So that's right.

Yes.

Well, we got to talk about the recent call out with Tim Poole.

What sparked that?

And has he responded to any of your comments yet?

I don't think he's responded, but it's really been one-sided.

You know, I wanted to get on Tim Poole's show many years ago.

I tried to get on the show.

My fans would go on his live chat and say, we want to see Nick Fuentes on the show.

And for five years, he's been ducking me.

I mean, since 2020 or 2021, I've been trying to get on the show.

And I'm a pretty notable guy.

I think certainly I'm more notable than many of the guests that are on the show.

And he's called me out.

His guests have called me out.

So I think it's appropriate.

I don't think I'm overly entitled to say he should invite me on the show as a a notable guest, as someone that's been called out.

And over the years, he's given many excuses.

He said, well,

your fans are brigading the live chat.

You're not supposed to do that.

I'm thinking, isn't that kind of what you want?

Don't you want to generate hype and buzz?

And his producers will say, who do you want to see on the show?

My fans say, we want to see Nick.

And they go, oh, well, too many people are saying your name.

It's like, okay, I mean, so why ask?

So that's what they said in the very beginning.

Then we had a big beef over over the Yay 24 debacle.

We went there, me, Milo, Ye, back during his presidential campaign or potential campaign, and Ye walked off in 10 minutes.

Allegedly, Tim Poole is very insulted.

He thought that was pre-planned.

We coordinated that.

It wasn't for what it's worth.

Apparently, holds that against me.

But he's had Milo on the show five times since that happened.

So, I mean, that can't be the case.

And anyway, so the latest episode, this is just a little of the history.

I basically gave up.

I said, you know what?

He doesn't want to have me on the show, whatever.

I mean, I can imagine any number of real reasons.

Maybe he doesn't want to lose his YouTube channel.

Maybe he doesn't want to get into a certain topic like Israel that might get him canceled.

You know, we could, we could use our imaginations why he doesn't want to have that conversation.

But out of the blue, out of a clear blue sky, the other night, he goes on this rant and says that I'm Israel first.

He says, Nick Fuentes is Israel first.

And, you know, I've been called a lot of things for as long as I've been doing this.

I've been called a Nazi, anti-semi-racist, fed, gay, you know, every kind of thing you can imagine, every slander.

No one's ever accused me of being pro-Israel.

That one hurt you the most.

That one hurt.

Okay, yeah, that one hurt me a little bit.

He said, I'm Israel first.

And he said,

And I've heard this before.

He's not the first one to say something like this.

He said, if all you talk about is Israel, he says, then in a weird roundabout way, you are giving Israel more credit than they deserve.

You have an outsized perception of what they're capable of or who they are.

He said, so if you're banging your head against the wall, all you talk about is Israel, then do you even care about America?

Maybe you care more about Israel, have more of a negative opinion of Israel to the detriment of a positive feeling towards America.

That's a debate I'm eager to have.

I'd be very interested in that, you know, because this is a talking point which has become very popular in a very short amount of time.

So much so that I almost suspect that this is a talking point that was developed and then deployed.

And I say that because I've seen Oron McIntyre from Blaze TV, Matt Walsh from Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson, they've all said exactly the same thing in interviews in the past two, three weeks.

And they say something like this.

They say, I only care about America.

I don't care about Israel.

My rebuttal to that is, of course, we care about America.

That's the name of my show.

It's America First.

But if you care about America, you care about its governance.

The biggest problem with America is corruption.

It's that foreign governments, multinational corporations are influencing our system.

They're bribing the politicians.

They have regulatory capture over the bureaucracy.

They influence the war machine.

That's why we get all these policies like free trade or the war in Iraq, which are not in america's interest you know these are things that benefit certain companies certain countries they don't benefit the actual people of the country so of course if you care about america you need to care about if israel's influencing our foreign policy if you cared about about america you care about our military should we go and fight a war in iran most americans would say no israel says yes they're very clear about this if you care about america you need to care about you know that israel is exercising a veto over our military and our foreign policy That's just one example.

So

he said all that, and I delivered this rebuttal on my show.

And I said, you know what?

I said, let's, let's stop the nonsense.

If you want to call me out and say I'm Israel first, have me on the show.

You know, everybody loves to have a position about me.

They're very confident in calling me out for whatever reason, from any angle when I'm not in the room.

And that goes for Jordan Peterson, Shapiro, Tim Poole, Charlie Kirk.

These are all people that have called me out over the years, called me names.

I hope you guys are enjoying the show.

Please don't forget to like and subscribe.

It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.

Thank you.

Lied about me and I said, let's have a debate.

Let's talk about it.

You have this ideology, very mainstream, conventional, orthodox.

I have this underground, heterodox, dissident view.

Let's have the conversation.

This is the free marketplace of ideas.

It is they that adamantly have refused to cross the board over 10 years.

So, you know, it just becomes very frustrating.

So, I had a little bit of an unhinged rant on Timp, a lot of swearing and, you know, pretty aggressive, but I mean, I'm very frustrated about it over the years.

I wonder if in their minds, they don't want to platform you and potentially lose sponsors and revenue.

Yeah.

And I think that's a big reason.

I'm sure that's part of the reason why, but then they should just say that.

Yeah.

You know, I mean, don't

piss on my leg and tell me it's raining and say, oh, well, you know, a lot of them say, well, We don't have him on because he's a jerk.

He's a nasty guy.

And it's like, I think I'm a polite guy.

Even if you disagree with me, I'm pretty polite.

You know, and I think that if they were transparent about it, it would reveal kind of the whole game, which is, wait a second, I thought we're in a free marketplace of ideas.

Now you're telling me that if you talk to a certain person, you're going to lose all your money.

What does that say about the political discourse?

What does that say about our politics that, you know, from Canis Owens to Ben Shapiro, I mean, really the full spectrum, they're all dependent on platform access on the major social platforms.

They're all dependent on ad revenue from big sponsors, from certain companies.

And it seems that those platforms and those sponsors exercise control over what the people say, who they can talk to, what opinions they can have.

So when you watch a show, are you getting that person's opinion?

Are you getting a real opinion?

Or are you getting talking points that are sort of filtered?

You know, even if it's not, you know, maybe not necessarily somebody says, you can't say this, you can't say that.

Even if it's a quiet self-censorship where somebody says, oh, if I have this guy on, I'm going to lose my show.

It's really a difference without a distinction.

Because people like to say, do you really believe that so-and-so on television is getting a list of what to say?

And they're sort of cynically and self-consciously lying to their audience.

Not necessarily.

I think people like opportunities.

They like to get paid.

They want to have a big platform.

They know there's a game, so to speak.

And to win, you have to play the game.

And we all know what that means.

Tucker knows what that means when he lost his job at Fox.

Candice knows what that means when she lost her YouTube for about a month last year.

We all know what you can say.

We all, especially in this space, you know, you're a content creator.

We all know where that line is.

It's, it's sort of implied.

And we all make decisions every day and all the time.

Are we going to approach that line, cross that line, avoid it completely?

And, you know, someone like myself, it's my existence is inconvenient for them them because I'm somebody that says I have no lines.

I have no sponsors.

I've been banned from the platforms.

If they ban me, I don't care.

I'll go on an alternative platform.

And, you know, so there's just sort of like this

deep contradiction.

You can't go out and tell your audience, I'm uncensored.

I'm free speech.

I'm a free marketplace of ideas.

Oh, but I'm on YouTube.

So I can't say this.

Oh, but I have a sponsor.

I can't say that.

Somebody like Nick Fuentes exists alongside.

I hate when people say their own names.

I i think it's very narcissistic you know but like but if someone like myself comes around and says well i'm banned on youtube and i talk to everybody and i say whatever it kind of makes all these people look like controlled opposition and i think they hate that so that that's a big part of it no it's a good point it makes you wonder who in alternative media especially the political space is compromised or influenced or paid off i feel like it's a good amount of people i think it's everybody i think it's all my and you know that's not to say i'm the truest you know and best or whatever but you just have to follow the money and people say that I have a cult-like following.

Okay, guilty is charged.

You know, so do a lot of the great movies and underground artists.

I mean, I have a loyal audience.

They pay me to do my show.

Question is, how many of the big streamers could survive just on their audience paying them?

Very few in the conservative political space.

Very few of them have genuine fans.

You got the top guys, like no doubt, a Tucker could raise money from his audience and make a good living, Candace Owens, I'm sure.

But once you get into that like B and C tier, I think it becomes impossible.

I don't think they make 30 grand if they're dependent on audience donations or things like that.

So, you know, a lot of them then are dependent on the hand that feeds them.

Yeah, it'd be tough for sure.

And you tweeted out you're blacklisted by almost everyone in the conservative space, right?

That's Redwire, Turning Point, Pierce Morgan, Laze TV, CPAC.

How do you know that for sure?

They've told me I got kicked out of CPAC.

I get kicked out every year.

Every year that I go since 2019.

They literally throw me out.

And I will, it's as simple as this.

I went in maybe a year or two ago just to check.

I walked in the night before it even started.

And I just literally strolled in.

And they've got like a big, it's in a big convention center.

So they've got the big ballrooms and then the big hall, you know, where they'll have like the,

you know, they have like drinks and exhibitions and things like that.

So I'm not even in like really the main ballroom.

I'm in this exhibition hall.

I'm strolling through.

It took five minutes for security to clock me in this big crowded room.

Mr.

Fuentes, can you come with us?

And then they throw me out.

And it's been years.

I'm not there to start a problem.

I'm just walking around.

And, you know, the same goes for Daily Wire.

I've asked them for many years, have me on the show, debate me.

None of the shows will, not Clavin, Knowles, Walsh, Shapiro, Peterson, Candace, when she was there.

None of them would do it.

And then with Turning Point USA, I'm on the blacklist.

They throw me out of their convention every year.

You know, this all, my beef with Turning Point started in 2019.

Turning Point chapter wanted to bring me as a speaker.

Turning Point said, you can't do that.

They fired, actually, it's funny, you know, Ashley St.

Clair.

Everybody knows her now.

She's Elon Musk's baby mama.

Years ago, she was a Turning Point ambassador.

Wow.

We took a picture at a party in 2019, just a party.

She wasn't even at the event I was at.

We all just wound up in the same place.

She got stripped of her ambassadorship because she was in the picture the next day.

Holy because she hung out with me.

That's like the level of blackballing I'm on in the conservative space.

People don't even realize.

It's just so nuts to me because conservatives are about free speech and all this, but I hear stuff like this.

That's not free speech.

No, nothing close to it.

And it's the definition of cancel culture.

I mean,

and this is like,

this is something that's so telling about the conservative space.

These people have railed for 10 years about censorship, cancel culture, wokeness, you know, political correctness.

They're all subtly different, but, you know, all these things are in the same vein.

They participate in all of it and they're not victims of any of it.

Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, name one platform they've ever been banned from, ever, for even a minute, for a day, a week, a month.

Turning point and Daily Wire have been on YouTube and TikTok and Facebook and Twitter uninterrupted for 10 years.

Censorship started, hit its zenith, and then receded after Trump got censored on Twitter in 21.

This whole story played out over literally 10 years.

Arguably, there was no censorship around 2015.

That's when it really started.

And then it hit this high watermark around COVID, the pandemic, BLM, all that stuff.

Now it's maybe once again at a lower point.

This whole story has occurred and not one of them got banned by one platform for even a day.

None of the big guys.

And when you look, they all actually colluded with the platforms.

You know, Daily Wire cut a deal with Google.

They went to Google back when everybody was being banned over COVID.

Anybody that doubted the vaccine, the hypothesis about the spread of COVID, they were all censored.

People were censored for everything, the election, BLM, Ukraine, but that was a big one.

Tim Poole, Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, they effectively all cut a deal with YouTube and said, look, we won't talk talk about it and we'll keep our platform access.

In the interim, all their competition got banned.

Gavin McGinnis, Alex Jones, Vince James, me, I mean, you name it, all the competition, Sam Hyde, anybody that was talking about any of those hot button issues when censorship was intense from 2018, let's say, until 2022.

all their competition got banned and they were effectively like a state-enforced monopoly or an oligopoly They got the pass from the conglomerate, or I should say the oligarchy of big tech social platforms.

They got the pass to stay on and basically print money.

Daily Wire was one of the biggest publishers on Facebook for years.

Facebook has 3 billion active users.

Think about the advantage of having 3 billion active users, a captive audience.

You're the number two publisher on that platform versus being banned on everything.

And what is the impact on the conversation, on your boomer relatives?

You know, people think they're getting the edgy, controversial, hot takes from the right wing, and they're getting something that's system approved, matrix approved by YouTube and basically the whole system.

Yeah.

Well, things are turning around now, though.

Daily Wire looks like it's struggling.

What are your predictions for how they're going to end up over the next few years?

Well, I don't know if they're going to be able to make it out of it.

I don't know their game plan, but I think they've lost a lot of credibility.

I think that, and it has everything to do with the changing censorship atmosphere.

Like I said, when you ban all your competition, it's pretty easy.

You know, when you're Timpool, when you're Daily Wire in 2019 and 2020, that's a pretty good gig because everybody else is banned.

You've got this deal.

That's a huge, invaluable asset.

Now that censorship is going away, Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 22, starts bringing people back.

And he honestly led the pack because after he acquired Twitter, the other social platforms said they were liberalizing.

And by liberalizing, I mean relieving the censorship.

Instagram, Twitch, TikTok, YouTube, they all started to relax the content moderation.

I think that's why Candace is now able to say what she says on YouTube.

I got banned for saying that five years ago.

And, you know, my clips started to go viral on Instagram this year.

They relaxed the moderation a little bit.

In an environment where Daily Wire has to compete with real truth tellers, they're going to talk about the real issues.

They don't, they're not competitive anymore.

They're no longer the best game in town.

They're not even attractive.

And in particular, people start to see the hypocrisy.

It's sort of the perfect storm because at the same time, you've got free speech.

You also have this war in Gaza.

And even conservatives are starting to say, this is messed up.

This is a genocide.

They're killing children.

We shouldn't be involved in this.

By that, I mean the United States.

Shapiro and that whole crew, I mean, they're not only enforcing the censorship on Candace Owens because she bucked that a little bit.

You know, she said, I don't like to see Palestinian children get murdered.

What a novel opinion, right?

You know, what a hot take.

Not only does she get canceled, but you know, Shapiro's pushing this hypocrisy where he says, you know, we hate identity politics and Israel doesn't need the United States.

Well, total switch up after Gaza.

Now, all of a sudden, he says, well, the United States has to give Israel everything they need or they're going to nuke everybody.

And, you know, identity politics are terrible, but, you know, I'm Jewish and we're all about Israel here and this and that.

If you're not with Israel, you're not with America.

So I think people started to see the hypocrisy and now their credibility is an all-time low, every single one of them over there.

I think people see the jig is up.

I don't know how you put that back together again.

How do you repair that?

You know, once that cat's out of the bag, how do you go and watch Shapiro now that you know he's a foreign agent?

It's hard to come back from.

Do you have any confidence in Trump to stand up to Israel in his term?

I don't know.

Honestly, that's a big unknown.

It's sort of unpredictable.

And I would say that Trump has surprised surprised me.

He has been more defiant against Israel than I thought he would be.

I always, I expected that he would defy them a little bit because what you have to understand about Trump is he's a deal maker.

I don't think he's an ideologue.

I don't, he has ideological beliefs, but fundamentally, the way that he behaves in a campaign and when he's the president in government is it's all the art of the deal.

And you could see it very clearly.

It's all this protracted negotiation, maximalist bluffing.

You know, China better not raise the tariff or else.

Russia better make a deal.

Iran better make a deal.

There's always wiggle room.

There's always, and none of these things, you know, the other day at a press conference, they said Trump always chickens out.

I wouldn't say it's chickening out.

I would say that the bluffing, the threatening, the big talk, it's all part of the process.

He's a negotiator.

If you read the art of the deal, it's all in the book.

I mean, it's all about putting together these kind of creative solutions, bringing together different parties that may have these obstinate differences and trying to reconcile those things by changing how the table is set, sometimes by saying something very bold, very unexpected, like the plan to expel everybody from Gaza.

I don't think Trump even wants that.

I think that's meant to shake things up.

To the extent that he's ideological, for 30 years, he's been against foreign intervention.

He was against the Iraq war.

He wanted us to withdraw from Syria.

He wanted us even to withdraw from Germany and Korea.

He is ideologically not an isolationist, but really something like a non-interventionist.

Now the new term is a restrainer.

They used to say non-interventionist, meaning we don't want a military intervention in every scenario.

Now they say you're a restrainer, meaning a restrained foreign policy.

We're willing to intervene, but we're going to be restrained.

We're not going to take every opportunity.

It's just a subtle change in the language over the years.

So I think Trump properly understood is a restrainer because he'll use the military.

He bombed Syria in 2017 and 2018.

He killed Qasem Suleimani, put maximum pressure on Venezuela, brings meanship with North Korea,

but

he prefers non-military solutions.

And in particular, he's averse to these ground wars, averse to having a ground occupation in Iraq, in Syria, in Yemen, where we were involved with Saudi Arabia for something like a decade.

And so I think going into 24, he was going to be averse to what Israel wanted, which was a full-blown war with Iran.

So I predicted that he and even J.D.

Vance and Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, they would be averse to any kind of military strikes on Iran, certainly any regime change war, ground invasion, anything like that.

With that being said, the tension is that he owes the Israelis big because Miriam Adelson gave him $100 million in 24, and that came with some strings.

And I'm sure there were other deals that were made.

Many other Zionists gave him money.

And look, let's be honest, after October 7th, many of the Jewish Zionist donors, Democrats and Republicans, rallied behind Trump, some even reluctantly, when he won the primary in 2024, because they expected he would be more pro-Israel than a Democrat administration.

So even these big Democrat donors like Bill Ackman, Jacob Hellberg, they've given millions to Democrats in the past.

After October 7th, they were Republican for that reason alone.

So there's this tension.

And of course, there's this tension inside the administration.

So you've got these neocon guys like Mike Waltz, who was the National Security Advisor.

He was literally working with Netanyahu.

He was on a, he was using an encrypted messaging app for communication with the Israeli government in cabinet meetings.

When was that?

This was in March, April, and May.

He got fired earlier this month, in May.

National Security Advisor heads up the National Security Council.

They liaise between the Pentagon, which is the DOD, the whole military, and the White House.

So they, you know, when you have these meetings in the situation room, the military will present the options to the president.

This is the situation.

This is our intelligence.

These are the options.

It's the National Security Advisor's job to come up with those options.

That guy was Mike Waltz.

He was working for Netanyahu.

He got fired for that.

And this isn't me saying this.

This was in the Jerusalem Post.

This was in the Washington Post.

This is in the New York Times.

This is mainstream press.

And it only makes common sense.

I mean, look, Mike Waltz was a congressman from Florida.

Florida has one of the biggest populations of Jews in the world.

It's one of the three big population centers for Jews in America, L.A., New York, South Florida.

As a result, all these creatures from Florida, like Rubio, DeSantis, Susie Wiles, Mike Waltz, they're all very pro-Israel because to get elected in Florida, you need all these big Jewish pro-Israel donors.

That's who makes up the big donor base in that state because of who lives there, because of who's rich there.

So

when Trump gets in in 24, his chief of staff is Susie Wiles.

She's from Florida.

She ran his campaign in Florida.

When she's the chief of staff, she picks all the personnel.

She brings in her people from Florida.

So she brings in Rubio to be Secretary of State.

He's close with Miriam Adelson, who's a super Zionist donor that gave Trump $100 million.

You know, she's Israeli.

Her husband is buried in Israel.

She brings in Mike Wallace to be the NSA, to be the national security advisor.

So you have this infiltration that is deep inside the government.

This is my point.

It's almost like Trump doesn't have full control over the House.

He is the president, and people say, well, what he says goes.

Well, not quite.

This was the case in the first term, and this was a big problem.

And I warned about this.

Nobody listened.

This is is now a problem in the second administration.

When you have bad personnel, bad chief of staff, bad Secretary of State, bad national security advisor, you're going to get bad options, bad intelligence.

You're going to get people that are pushing you all the time to go to war.

And Trump is one of these people where a lot of the times he will go with whatever the last person he talked to said about an issue.

He'll have two people fight it out in the Oval Office.

And the last person that he's heard, that's who he's going with.

Now, you can fight that battle for a long time, but you fight that battle every day for four years, and it's all neocons, and they're baked into the cake there in the Pentagon, in the National Security Council.

Through attrition, eventually they're going to win over and they're going to convince you to do things you didn't want to do.

So I'm very concerned that either you're going to have the neocons inside the administration win out, neocons in the Senate.

That's an we could get really granular into this stuff, but the Republicans in the Senate are exerting pressure on Trump, on Iran.

And then, of course, the Israelis, even outside the U.S.

government, they have their own way of manipulating the situation.

When all said and done, if Israel provokes Iran into a direct confrontation, that forces our hand.

And we're now in the middle of it, whether we like it or not.

Now, the question is, is Israel willing to take it that far?

How confident are they?

that Trump will go along with it.

Conventional wisdom says Trump will have to go with them, but I think Net Yahoo is

maybe not fully confident.

Maybe that's why he hasn't carried out a strike yet.

So there's a lot of variables here, a lot of different people that can manipulate this, whether it's White House personnel, the Senate, Netanyahu.

That's why I say I really don't know how it's going to shake out, but I'm not too confident in Trump, I will say, at this point.

If I were to bet right now, I would say he's not going to be able to restrain Israel.

Wow.

What a statement.

You didn't vote for him, right?

No.

Who'd you vote for?

I didn't vote.

Oh, you skipped it this year?

I didn't vote.

Yeah.

You voted for him in the past?

I did.

I voted for him in 16 and 20.

But, you know, the thing is about,

you know, Republicans, conservatives, they can't take our vote for granted.

A lot of people said, well, you have to vote.

If you don't vote for him, you're voting for Kamala.

Well, the Democrat is always going to be worse than the Republican.

If you're a conservative, if you're a conservative and Republicans and Democrats are running, well, the Democrat's always going to be more liberal.

They're always going to be socially liberal, big government, government, all that stuff.

It's like, so do we have to vote for Republicans every year, no matter what, forever?

And when can we ever not vote for them?

What does that do for the Republican Party?

If they know that no matter what, we're always going to vote for them.

Well, when they need to make a compromise, who are they going to sell out?

Are they going to sell out the people that the people in the middle, the independents?

the minorities, the women that they have to compete for every year?

I mean, let's say you're Republican.

Oh, I don't know if the women are going to vote for me this time.

I don't know if the Independents are going to vote for me.

I know who's going to vote for me every time.

The white men, the very conservative white men.

I don't have to worry about them.

So I don't need to appeal to them.

I don't need to make concessions to them.

I can even say things they don't like because I know what are they going to do?

Vote for the Democrat?

What are they going to do?

Not vote?

They have to vote.

I'm going to make concessions to appeal to the moderates, the women, the minorities, the maybe even people on the left, the unions.

And so, you know, maybe it was unsuccessful, but last year I said, look, if you're a very conservative, America-first, nationalist, Christian, right-winger, you got to stand up and make your voice heard and said, no, you got to earn my vote too.

I'll vote for you gladly.

And I'm not asking for much, but you got to earn it.

And I said very clearly, this is what I want to hear.

I want to hear we're not going to war with Iran.

I want to hear we're not going to expand H-1B visas, which is the high-skilled legal immigration.

If Trump can say those two things, I said he's got my vote.

But unless and until he says that, I'm not going to vote for my own people to lose jobs, because that's what's happening with H-1Bs.

We're being replaced in the population, but also in the workforce.

I'm not going to vote for a war that I'm going to pay for and potentially die in.

Like, I won't, I won't be the guy that voted for that.

So if Trump can say, we're not doing those things, I'm happy to do it.

And I could look the other way on a lot of different issues, you know, that I might, it might not be ideal.

I might be super pleased with, but he didn't say those things.

And people made fun of me for even trying to get that.

It's like, I'm a big advocate of people taking their own side and telling politicians, you have to earn our votes.

Where do you stand with his deportations?

Are you in favor of those?

I'm in favor, but they're not.

I mean,

there's not enough, you know?

The flights aren't enough?

No, I mean,

Because

they had a self-deportation flight, first of its kind, last week.

They put 67 people on the flight, you know?

And look,

maybe people are more moderate on this issue.

10 million illegal immigrants came in four years under Biden.

That's insane.

We at least got to get those people out of the country.

I mean, that's bigger than the size of the population of New York City.

And these are economic migrants.

These are refugees from Venezuela, from El Salvador, from India, from, we don't even know where they're from in many cases.

Countries need borders.

We can't have these people pouring in.

This is the bare minimum.

And you see them panhandling in the streets.

They rob Walgreens and then sell chocolate bars on the, you know, in the busy intersections, on the busy thoroughfares.

Many of them are part of violent gangs, they're drug dealers.

So, you know, if you're deporting 500 people per day, I mean, that's great.

And they could take pictures of it and give people this impression that there's a lot of activity here.

500 people per day, that adds up to about 1.2,000, 900,000 to 1.2 million in four years.

10 million came in in four years.

In the next four years, we get a million out of the country, roughly speaking.

That's not good enough.

You know, it needs to be way more than that.

So I'm not happy with it.

What about people that have been here prior to that explosion?

Like people that have been here 10, 20, 30 years.

In principle, I think they should still leave.

But I think there's more.

You know, I'm realistic also.

There's probably 40 million illegal immigrants here.

Are Are we going to get 40 million?

We don't know, though.

You know, I mean, they've been saying 13 million for literally 25 years.

Okay.

Like we have millions of illegals come in every single year and the number never changes.

It's 11, 13 million.

There was a study that came out in 2016.

It said there were 23 million.

Okay.

So maybe it's 30, maybe it's 40.

We don't know.

Are we going to get 30 and 40 million people out of the country?

I'm realistic.

Probably not.

I don't expect that out of Trump.

Can we get a million illegals out per year?

I I think that's a good place to start.

Trump has secured the border to his credit.

I'll give credit where it's due.

You know, the illegal apprehensions are down.

They're almost nothing every month, which is miraculous.

But we need a border wall and we need about a million deportations per year.

And to me, that would be appropriate.

You think they're going to release the Epstein stuff soon?

I don't think it even exists.

Really?

I think it's been destroyed.

Wow.

Yeah.

You know, and they promised they were going to release those files and they did this big photo op where they had those binders, Jack Bisobic and Scott Pressler and all those guys.

They did this big social media summit.

They went to the White House.

They made a big show of it.

And the binders contained documents that had already been declassified.

So,

you know, it's really funny.

During the election, they asked Trump, will you release the Epstein files?

And he faltered on that.

They did this one interview.

It was very rapid fire.

They said, will you declassify JFK?

Yes.

9-11?

Yes.

Epstein, yes.

Well, and he was literally that obvious.

And I'm like, are people watching this?

Like, how to, is that not the cat that ate the canary?

Like, you know, 9-11, absolutely.

Well, but, and he said specifically on Epstein, he said, well, some people might be in there that are innocent.

Okay, so who are we talking about there?

Who might be in there that's innocent?

Hmm, I wonder who was on those flight logs.

So I think they destroyed destroyed it.

I think if there was any evidence, it doesn't exist anymore.

Who knows what jurisdiction it's in?

Does the FBI have it?

Does New York have it?

I mean, who even knows at this point?

And they've been saying they're going to put this stuff out there.

I think that's the one thing they're not going to touch because it's just too proximate.

They'll do JFK to an extent, because it was 60 years ago.

Maybe they'll do 9-11 to an extent.

It was 25 years ago.

Epstein killed himself in Trump's first term, and he implicated many people that are still alive.

The people implicated in JFK are all dead, and many of the people implicated in 9-11 are dead.

Not all of them, but a lot of them are.

And still, it's a quarter of a century ago at this point.

But the Epstein files, I mean, that implicates people that are alive now and kind of lays bare the whole institutional corruption.

So I don't think they're ever going to put that stuff out there.

I think there's something weird with that one.

Just look at the body language of Dan and Cash on that interview.

It's like really concerning to me.

Well, and the switch up is incredible.

I mean, they built their media, their media people.

They built a media career saying, we're going to blow up the FBI.

You know, metaphorically speaking, of course, we're going to fire everybody.

We're going to get everybody out of the J.

Edgar Hoover building.

We're going to release those Epstein files.

And then they look like they're being held at gunpoint.

It's almost like they're sweating saying, no, he definitely killed himself.

He definitely killed himself.

And everyone's going to see that.

I don't know.

I don't trust that even for a second.

It makes you really think who's pulling the strings.

Well, and it makes you think how possible is it to even achieve reform?

You elect Trump, you appoint these ostensible outsiders like Cash Patel, who barely got through confirmation.

These are supposed to be, you know, here we go.

These are the good guys.

This is the A-team.

This is the golden era.

Cash Patel and Dan Bongino from Fox News.

I mean, it's like, why don't you send in like Mark Levin while you're at it?

Why don't you send in like, you know, Michael Savage and Alex Jones or something?

You know, so it's not, in other words, in his first term, he had Bill Barr.

Okay, Bill Barr worked for George Bush.

I don't have too much confidence in him, but Cash Patel and Dan Bungino, if they go in there and say, yeah, no, he definitely killed himself, it makes you wonder about the deep state.

How deep does it go?

You know, because there's this idea that maybe someone gets in and they want to shake things up, but then the proverbial men in suits come in and they put their hand on your shoulder and say, yeah, this is how it really works.

Yeah.

And it's kind of terrifying.

What do they, what's that conversation look like that even these patriots, warriors, really?

I mean, Cash Patel and Bungino, I mean, think they're okay guys.

I'm sure they came in like cowboys thinking we have all these plans.

We're going to change everything.

What did that conversation look like?

That now they're sitting there saying, no, he killed himself.

And if they have that pull over the U.S., they pretty much have that over the entire world at that point.

The U.S.

is the empire that runs the world.

So if they control our government, Think about the extent of that control.

It's pretty scary.

That is super scary.

You think it's been going on for a while or you think it's kind of recent?

I think it's been going on for a long time.

I would say at least 50, 60 years.

I mean, this all goes back to World War II.

There's a World War II, post-World War II order.

That's where all these intelligence agencies came from.

And, you know, you could say maybe there was this period between, let's say, 48 and 63 when this was being contested.

You know, Dwight Eisenhower said, beware of the military-industrial complex.

And JFK tried to make reform at the CIA, and the government wasn't absolutely pro-Israel.

And so, you could see there was maybe a time when there was a battle happening for American sovereignty.

But let's say that battle ended sometime around the mid-60s.

If I were to pinpoint it, I would say that's when we really lost control over the country.

Now, these intelligence agencies have so much power.

Now, they're working with universities.

Harvard's getting exposed right now.

I'm sure you've seen that.

Right.

That stuff's crazy.

Well, I mean, in the case of Harvard, I actually am in support of Harvard.

Really?

I am.

I got to hear this.

Well, I mean, let's be honest.

The reason they're coming after Harvard is because that was the hotspot for all these anti-Israel protests in 2023.

That's where all this started.

Nobody had a problem with Harvard in the first term.

Nobody had a problem with Harvard up until October 7th.

What happened after October 7th is a bunch of these students for Justice in Palestine, you know, one of these pro-Palestine groups, they put out an open letter and they said that October 7th was basically,

and this is them, not me, because I don't think October 7th was justified, but this is what a bunch of left-wing students published.

They said that October 7th was effectively justified because this was the long-awaited comeuppance for the Israelis who were treating Gaza like a concentration camp.

So they said that Israel was to blame for October 7th.

This is very controversial.

Now, Bill Ackman, who is a billionaire, a billionaire hedge fund manager, and he's tight with the guy that runs BlackRock, Larry Fink, who is also Jewish and a Zionist, pro-Israel.

BlackRock is the biggest asset manager in the world, trillions of dollars under management.

And Bill Ackman is a close friend of his.

He's on Wall Street as well with a major hedge fund.

Bill Ackman's an alumni of Harvard.

Bill Ackman's a lifelong Democrat donor, lifelong liberal.

After that letter went out and there was some pro-Palestine protests on the Harvard campus.

Bill Ackman marshaled all of his resources to destroy Harvard.

He hired a nonprofit to send these billboard trucks, digital billboard trucks, to the houses of the protesters with their faces on the billboard truck and their names saying, you're an anti-Semite, you're a Nazi, you hate Israel.

They paid, it was through a conservative nonprofit to have these billboard trucks circle the campus at Harvard, go to the houses of the protesters.

Bill Ackman said that he sent a list of the names of the protesters to Larry Fink to get those people blacklisted from Wall Street so they couldn't have jobs.

Bill Ackman went to the alumni network and said, we are going to stop giving Harvard any money.

I mean, he's a billionaire.

The very rich alumni said, we're not giving Harvard any money because they're anti-Semitic, because they supported these protests, because they won't crack down on the Palestinians.

They had their allies in Congress, like Elise Stefanik, who's super Zionist in the pocket of Israel.

They had their allies like her and others call a congressional subcommittee to interrogate the presidents of Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard, because that's where they had all these protests.

And they had these big, huge televised hearings where they said, you're an anti-Semite.

If you allow the students to say from the river to the sea, that's a call for genocide.

You're tolerating that.

And there was this sustained, high-pressure campaign from media, from the nonprofit world, from Congress, from the finance world, from the alumni network to go after the faculty at Harvard.

And when all was said and done, the president of the University of Pennsylvania fired.

President of Columbia fired.

President of Harvard fired.

In almost every case, they were replaced by allies of the state of Israel.

At the University of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the board resigned, was replaced by the chair of the North American Jewish Federation.

That's replaced the chair of UPenn.

At Harvard, they replaced Claudine Gay with a Jewish doctor named Alan Garber, who said, you know, we're against DEI, but we're also very against anti-Semitism and all the rest of it.

So the way that I see it playing out right now in the Trump administration is this is an evolution of those tactics from 2023 and 2024.

And by the way, this isn't a conspiracy theory either.

The Heritage Foundation is one of the biggest, most influential conservative nonprofits.

Everybody in politics, right-wing politics knows Heritage, socially conservative, fiscally conservative.

They promulgated a

project last year called Project Esther.

Project Esther is like a Jewish name.

It's called Project Esther.

You can look it up.

It's on their website.

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Project Esther says.

They are going to get a Republican government in power.

They're going to wait for a Republican to become the president, for Republicans to control the House and the Senate.

Once they do, there will be a public-private partnership, meaning government with the private sector, to label anybody that has protested Israel, anybody that supported Palestine, any campus groups, activists, we're going to label all of them as terrorists.

We're going to say they're a Hamas support network.

That's the acronym they came up with, an HSN.

If you're pro-Palestine, if you're an activist protesting, writing essays, you're on the campus, you're a Hamas support network.

Hamas are terrorists.

You're a terrorist.

They said, and once we get our favorable Republican government, we're going to use immigration law, national security laws like terrorist laws.

We're going to use education laws, basically everything that's on the books to go after these people, deport them, surveill them, put them in prison, financially sanction them, ostracize them, and, and this is a quote: ostracize them from society, basically expel them, cancel them from social life.

Now that President Trump is in office with a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, with Zionists at HHS, at the Department of Education, at DHS,

at the State Department, Zionists in the White House, they're executing that project to a letter.

The New York Times did a report.

They said the Trump administration is implementing 50%

of the policies prescribed in Project Esther.

So when Trump goes after Harvard and U Penn and Brown and Columbia and Cornell and Yale and says, we're coming after your endowments, your loans and federal grants, we're coming after tax exempt status, we're coming after your international students.

This is a war on the elite schools, the highly selective schools, the Ivy Leagues, so that they will stop the pro-Palestine protests.

And so that they will implement a pro-Israel curriculum in their Middle East studies department.

Wow.

And there's there's two purposes for this.

It's pretty transparent.

One, if the United States is giving Israel billions of dollars to annihilate the civilian population, if the United States is maybe going to war with Iran, where would you expect to see a popular grassroots protest against that stuff?

College campuses.

So when you shut down the college campuses, you're clearing the way for the United States to support these wars without any opposition.

Billions of dollars in missiles and maybe a ground war, regime change war in Iran.

And all the protests have been silenced preemptively.

That's number one.

Number two, Harvard, UPenn Columbia, all these elite schools.

The students that graduate from those schools go on to work for the top law firms, the top hedge funds.

They work on Wall Street and the Foreign Service and the State Department.

If the Middle East studies departments at these schools are teaching that Israel is genociding Palestine, Guess who's running the State Department in the generation?

People that aren't very sympathetic to Israel.

Same thing with Wall Street.

Same thing with every other elite institution.

I mean, these schools are elite-making institutions.

So they want to make sure the curriculum is pro-Israel so that the elites are pro-Israel, so that every generation of students that goes into the highest levels of society, They see it exactly one way.

So Trump's war on the universities, I don't support this at all.

I think it's

an attack on civil society.

And I think it's very clearly motivated by trying to pave the way for, once again, this foreign influence.

I think it's evil.

Damn, they're playing chess out here.

I did not know all that was going on behind the scenes.

And they count on that because they portray it like, oh, this is based.

They say, this is the latest narrative.

Trump bans the international students.

That's meant to bankrupt Harvard.

That's the goal because international students pay full boat.

They pay 60 to 80 grand per year.

Harvard has, it's 20% of their student body.

That's a lot of money.

So if Trump takes their international students, that's like, this is deal making.

You don't want to take our pro-Israel curriculum.

Well, we'll bankrupt you.

Now you have to take the curriculum.

But the way it's being portrayed by conservatives is, oh, this is great because now Americans can go to Harvard.

Okay, but that's not the intention.

And I think when all is said and done, the international students will come back to Harvard.

You know, Trump said, we want more international students and we wanted to stay.

We want to give them green cards.

So the international students are, they're not going anywhere.

This is just using them as a bludgeon against Harvard, and they're getting conservatives to support it intentionally by branding it as some kind of based, you know, pro-worker, anti-immigration policy when really that's not what it is.

Do you think they should remove history class from public education systems?

No, I think they should keep it, but it should be patriotic.

You know, we should learn history, but,

the problem is who's going to be writing the textbooks.

Because right now, what they're teaching is a lot of BS.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

It's slavery.

It's Holocaust.

It's, I mean,

you know, that's, I feel like that's all you learn.

It's just like trauma dumping from non-white groups.

It's like, you know, first white people enslaved black people.

Then they did the Holocaust.

Then they were racist.

Then Trump got elected and was racist against Mexicans.

Like, that's your world history.

You ask these people about like, hey, who's Henry Clay?

You know, like, who's this and that?

They don't know what's going on.

So we just need something that's patriotic.

Got to rewrite the history books.

Is there a movement working on that right now or no?

I think there are some conservatives pushing on that.

But it's, you know, it's tough because you got to go through.

I mean, in many of these states, the state exercises control over what's taught.

And in many states, it's mandated that you teach things like the Holocaust and slavery and all this, you know, this woke stuff.

So they got rid of the Department of Education at least, right?

Did that go through yet?

No, it's still there.

It's still pending.

Damn.

Are you in favor of that one?

No, I think that we should have, I think we should get rid of these things and then start new things,

but make them ours.

You know, so like the Department of Education, all these federal departments and agencies, they all suffer from this regulatory capture, which is to say that over time,

Certain business interests are going to take over the bureaucracy that's supposed to regulate them.

What's more, you have this class of bureaucrats.

They become career civil servants.

They live in D.C.,

whether it's Trump or Obama, they remain in their position, and they then tend to develop a distinct interest.

They're never going to want their department to be shrunk because then they're going to get fired.

So these people are always in favor of.

the department.

They become almost distinct from the rest of the American people because they're in kind of a different world.

The only way to get rid of that is to just fire all these people, destroy the departments and agencies, salt the earth where they were, and start new ones.

And start new ones with a new purpose, with new personnel, with a new mission statement.

And so get rid of the Department of Education, start a new department of education, make it patriotic.

You know, what's actually the goal?

I think we should have a form of national education, but what's the goal of education?

In a country like China or Russia, Contrary to what people say, they're teaching the people in their country to have pride in their country.

Is that such a bad thing?

People say, oh, that's totalitarian.

That's dictatorship.

Is it a dictatorship to be proud of who you are and your country, to be loyal to your country?

I think that's an asset, especially in the age of deep penetration by foreign intelligence.

It's an asset that in Russia and in China, they're loyal to their country.

They love their country.

They celebrate their country.

They don't just see the bad.

They see the good in their country as well.

They celebrate and maybe even they see the good in the bad.

Like in Russia, the legacy of Stalin is very controversial.

Obviously, he killed millions of people and was evil.

But they also say, what did Stalin do for Russia?

Gave Russia a nuclear arsenal, made Russia the biggest it had ever been, dragged Russia into the 21st century or the 20th century at that time with industrialization.

And it was brutal and a lot of people died.

But this man single-handedly dragged them into the industrial age, which was a totally agrarian, you know, society that had never known liberalism.

So people said, well, you didn't do industrialization right.

You know, well, I mean, it's hardly any different than trying to bring democracy to Iraq.

You know, how do you bring liberalism to Russia?

They have no experience with it.

So in other words, if a country like Russia can see the good in Stalin, see that he fought the great patriotic war and defended Moscow from the Nazis, why can't Germany have a narrative like that about Hitler?

Why can't the United States have a narrative like that about our country?

We never even had a mass murdering, genocidal dictator.

Why aren't we ashamed of ourselves?

Why are we teaching ourselves this stuff?

So, I think that we should have a patriotic education.

That's the only way to have national strength in the next century.

Yeah, it makes you wonder because they villainize these countries and they brainwash us growing up.

How many of them are actually evil people over there?

You know, it's true.

I mean, and the way I view it, look,

when you are in those positions, everyone's going to be evil.

When you're in the position of being the most powerful man in the world, which Stalin was, which Xi Jinping is now, you could say, arguably,

whether you act or don't act, people are dying.

And especially in a period like the early 20th century, when you have the mechanization of warfare, industrialization, you have a truly global conflict.

People like to say, well, you know, so-and-so is this heinous, evil dictator.

And don't get me wrong.

I mean, were some of the things they did evil?

Absolutely.

But you have to always judge it in the context.

People want to talk about concentration camps and this and that.

Every country had camps.

The United States had camps.

We had them here.

We had them there.

We had them in Germany.

We had them in the United States.

Russia had camps.

Germany had camps.

You want to talk about killing civilians?

How about the bombing of Dresden?

How about the fire bombing of Tokyo?

How about the atomic bomb?

You know, people like to pick and choose.

They like to say, well, you know, and obviously the elephant in the room is a holocaust.

And, you know, to the extent that what they say about it is true, that it was a systemic extermination, the gas chambers were involved, that would be uniquely evil if that occurred.

But what about the gulags?

That wasn't evil.

What about the rape of China by Japan?

That wasn't evil.

What about the nuclear bomb?

What about all these other things?

And it's not to minimize the plight of one people, but it is to say, hey, look around.

There's bombs dropping everywhere, people being incinerated and thrown into camps everywhere.

And

so

we just have to have a morality that is not completely like, well, one person was the devil incarnate and the boogeyman and everybody else was fine.

It Winston Churchill and Stalin and the good guys won.

Everything else was fine.

I don't think it's that simple.

I wonder how they teach it in Germany if you're a student over there.

Oh, well, I mean, they teach it like it's worse than here.

Oh, really?

Oh, so they shame them over there too?

Oh, yeah.

It's illegal to say anything positive about Hitler or

to have a swastika, anything like that.

It's like a police state.

It's the basis of their citizenship.

It's in their constitution.

You can't be a citizen of Germany if you don't support Israel.

Really?

I did not know that.

Holy crap.

So they banned the swastika over there.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, they basically reconstituted their entire country out of shame over the Holocaust to say, because Germany did the Holocaust, now the state of Germany is dedicated.

The Rason d'étrat, the reason that they exist is to support Israel and the continuation of the Jewish people.

Holy crap.

So it's like you get thrown in jail if you deny the Holocaust, make fun of the Holocaust, throw up a hail Hitler.

If you do anything like that, you get put in jail.

It's like more illegal there than anywhere else.

Damn.

Is that when you started getting shadow banned and banned when you started talking about the Holocaust?

Even earlier, I started to get blacklisted just talking about foreign aid to Israel.

Wow.

I started asking questions.

When you're the first one to break a story like that, I'm sure.

I was.

You're like a martyr, right?

I sort of, yeah.

I mean, it was back in 2017.

I was getting my career started.

I was 18.

Okay.

I was a freshman in college, and I started to meet some people from Daily Wire, actually.

Elliot Hamilton, who was a writer there, Cassie Dillon, who now goes by Cassie Akiva.

She converted to Judaism.

But I knew these people in Boston, and I was a, you know, normie Trump supporter.

You know, I voted for Trump.

I was a big Trump guy.

And I just started to look.

I just started to notice and pay attention to these things, just like basic common sense contradictions.

I said, how is it America first to give $3.8 billion per year to Israel?

They're the number one recipient of foreign aid.

They have been for 50 years.

They're not the poorest country.

They're not the most in need.

They're not our most strategically necessary ally.

Why do we give them all this money?

I mean, it doesn't even make any sense.

And they flipped that I even asked that.

That's how different it was in 17.

Now people say, oh, who cares if you say that?

In 17, I had my life ruined over this.

They told me at first it was a joke.

They said, said, oh, ha, very funny, Nick, but you know, you really shouldn't ask that.

And I'd say, well, why not?

I mean, isn't that, I thought it's a free market blaze of ideas, you know?

And they'd say, no, no, but really, the way you're asking that is it's anti-Semitic, they said.

So I said, if you want to talk about that, you know, we can tell you how you're allowed to talk about that.

But the way you're saying it is becoming anti-Semitic.

And I kept pushing.

I said, well, you know, this doesn't add up.

We fought in Iraq.

We give these people all this money.

APAC gives them all this this money.

This is BS.

This is not America first.

Not we voted for.

And you're willing to say America first over China and Russia and the European Union and Japan, but not Israel?

Why not?

And then they said, okay, we're never talking to you again.

Literally.

You know, Cassie Dillon, who I, you know, she was a good friend of mine, she texted me and said, we're not friends anymore.

We're not part of the same movement.

Never talk to me again.

Don't reach out.

It gets better.

And I was, you know, I was 18.

I was truly shocked.

I was like, like anybody would be.

Now I'm like a hard in vet.

I don't think twice I've been doing it for eight years, but at the time, I was like, literally in shock because we were good friends.

I mean, we knew each other pretty well.

Wow.

And, you know, I was like 18.

I was like some teenager.

I wasn't some raving radical lunatic.

I said what I just told you, which I think anyone would agree with, or at least could see the logic.

And, you know, here she was telling me, like, I'm basically cutting you off.

You're done.

And then she started calling my boss every single day for weeks, trying to get me fired from my job.

Holy crap.

I was a live streamer for Rightside Broadcasting Network.

I had a show, and she would watch the show.

And then she would call my boss every night and say, did you see what Nick said on his show tonight?

That's so racist.

You need to fire him.

You're going to lose your access to Trump and this and that.

And eventually then that turned into she sent that to Media Matters, which is one of these big outfits that cancels people left wing.

And that was the first hit piece ever written about me.

Media Matters hit piece in April 2017.

And I was basically, I could give you the names of the people that did it.

People like Cabot Phillips, who's, he was a campus reform.

I think now he's a Daily Wire.

His dad, Tim Phillips, ran this big nonprofit, close friend of Morton Black, who founded Leadership Institute.

These guys like Cabot Phillips, Cassie Dillon, Elliot Elliott Hamilton, Ben Shapiro,

they canceled me as an 18-year-old kid for just like privately asking these questions.

They tried to throttle me in the crib.

And basically, everything that happened since then was me upping the ante and being like,

you're not going to cancel me.

I'm going to push farther.

I'm going to push the truth, the line of inquiry.

If you cancel me, I'll start my own YouTube channel.

If you ban me on YouTube, I'll go on D Live.

That's been my career.

And, you know, so everybody that thinks I'm like a Nazi and a racist or this and that, it's like those are the slings and arrows over eight years of basically trying to clear my name.

It's sort of like Gladiator.

You know how like Gladiator gets like left for dead and stabbed, and everybody's like, he's a traitor.

He tried to usurp the emperor.

It's like, that's me, like fighting from the grave.

It's like a true resurrection in a sense.

Not metaphorically speaking, of course, to have my shot at the title.

So crazy.

I've always been an underdog.

Yes.

Man, you go on your Wikipedia, wikipedia they go off on you yeah i mean

i don't even know how how people write that they're not self it's it's like known for racism white supremacy xenophobia come on you know crazy wow just say live streamer you know we gotta we gotta have you and ben sit down that's the only way to squash all this i guess right i'm willing to do it anytime any place you and ben or you and charlie i saw you tweet that out you want to debate one of those two charlie would be a good one i think oh yeah and and you know he says he'll debate anybody I would debate him anytime, anyplace, you know, and I've said that for years.

He'll debate the left.

He won't debate me.

How do you think he did at Cambridge?

I thought it was weak.

You know, the problem with Charlie Kirk is I think he's insincere.

I think he's arrogant.

And,

you know, look, I could disagree with a person.

It's not even that I disagree with him because I know people that are like him.

I know people that are pro-Israel, actually.

I know people that are free market.

But you look at his, he's even his demeanor when he does these ask me anything or whatever, when he goes to these colleges.

He doesn't make eye contact.

He's not polite.

He's very dismissive, very rude.

And I think it's really a shell game.

The whole thing, I'm not knocking him.

I think he's very successful.

He's built this organization turning point.

You can't knock it.

It's a very big, successful group.

They've had some advantages.

It is what it is.

But I think that when he goes and does these college debates,

and I said this on my show, the game is you get a question from the audience, and the trick is ask me anything.

I know everything.

I can answer any argument.

I could debate anybody.

Question comes in and like a magic eight ball, you know, the perfect conservative argument comes out.

And people say, wow, what a brilliant intellect.

This guy is just an endless well of knowledge.

But here's the conceit.

Here's the game.

If you watch enough of these, you don't need to watch too many of them.

The question goes out and Charlie Kirk will basically categorize that and file it into a particular line of argument.

Like, so, for example, get asked a question about Gaza, and he'll say, well, do you believe Israel has a right to exist?

And once that question goes out, it goes down a pre-recorded series of questions and answers.

You know, so it's like, how can I take any question and comment and filter that, file that into a track, a predetermined track of questions and I say this and you say that until we get to a predetermined destination.

And I actually don't think that's very honest.

I don't think it's terribly impressive.

And I think that at Cambridge, when you actually have super intelligent kids debating him, then you see the conceit because he asked that kid about Gaza.

He was debating that

really hyper like ginger kid who was jumping up.

Yeah, yeah.

He was debating that kid about Gaza.

And Charlie said, well, do you know what the civil war is in Africa?

And the kid's like, yeah, Sudan.

And he's like, well, do you know about the the genocide in Asia?

And he's like, yeah, Myanmar.

And he's like, yeah, because I actually know what I'm talking about.

And I'm not a stupid kid.

And you're corrupt.

And you can see he, Charlie Kirk had nothing there because, once again, that was the predetermined track.

I'm going to debate an idiot 19-year-old blue-haired feminist.

She doesn't know what's going on in Sudan.

She doesn't know what happened in Burma.

She doesn't know what's happening in the world.

I'm going to get her on the gotcha, make her look stupid.

And there's your TikTok viral clip.

But when you debate Dean Withers, who's getting like a degree in economics, when you debate a kid from Cambridge, then you see him licking his wounds on these shows and saying, well, you know, Dean Withers is not a normal college kid.

He's getting a degree in economics.

It's like, isn't that what a college kid is?

Isn't that what they do is get degrees in advanced subjects?

So

I'm not terribly impressed by that whole facade.

Another big debate was the Jordan Peterson one.

So as a fellow Christian, how did you feel like he did on that debate?

I think he did.

I think, you know, I don't think he is a Christian.

You know, he's not a Christian.

And I think it's, it's very, once again, it's very dishonest.

I'm willing to say that I could sit with Peterson and Kirk and disagree and be respectful.

And look, it's a big world and a lot of people disagree.

And I sit down with people I disagree with all the time.

People are left-wing, right-wing.

But what I really despise, and I think the reason a lot of people are turning on Peterson is the insincerity.

People hate phoniness.

They hate being lied to.

They They hate a fraud.

And Peterson, we all know, has made his career over 10 years

puffing himself up as this really deep and profound thinker on theological and religious and philosophical matters.

But he's never really been forthright about what he really believes.

And so he kind of plays this game where

he's kind of implying that he's a Christian or hinting that he's a Christian.

sort of playing fast and loose.

But when you really press him and say, okay, but do you believe in God?

And he says, well, what do you mean by belief?

What do you mean by do you?

What do you mean by God?

It's like, okay,

maybe that was clever, interesting the first time, this little semantic thing that he does.

At a certain point, people need to know, okay, but do you believe in God?

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

What does that mean?

Do you think he was real?

Do you think he died on the cross?

Do you think he was resurrected?

Do you believe in the person of Jesus Christ?

If yes, then say that.

Profess Jesus Christ.

If not, then say that.

If you think that he's the collective unconscious, which is like the Jungian thing, if you think Jesus is an archetype, he's like some form of a superego and in the collective subconscious of mankind, say that.

At least that would be honest.

You know, I've talked to people that believe that.

I know a lot of Gnostic Christians.

They believe that the Old Testament God is the demiurge.

And, you know, they believe all kinds of things.

But Peterson goes into these debates.

And I thought that's why that statement by that college kid was so brilliant.

And Peterson said it.

He said, you know, you're really something.

The kid said, well, you know, you're nothing.

And isn't that what it is?

I mean, the liberal kid, say what you want about him.

At least he's, he is what he is.

That one triggered him comment for sure.

Because it's, I mean, it hit the nail on the head.

A liberal is a liberal.

A liberal is an atheist, secular, et cetera.

He's something.

Peterson, we don't know what he is.

He's nothing.

He's, he's this big, elaborate conceit.

And this is what he's done for seven years in his book, in his lectures, in his college lecture series.

It's a lot of yapping, a lot of talking, but really saying very little.

When push comes to shove, I mean, clean your room.

Okay.

I mean, you know, what's so brilliant about that?

I mean, don't you have parents?

Like,

so I

thought that was another mask off moment where people are seeing the limits of what they're getting from these people.

I'd love to see you in a one-on-one.

Has Jubilee ever reached out to you?

Are you banned?

No, they haven't reached out, but yeah, I do a one-on-one.

Me versus 20 pro-Israel people.

That would be a good one.

I would do that.

Yeah.

Let's set that up for him.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, Nick, it's been fun, man.

What are you working on next?

Where can people find you and everything?

Yeah, it's been fun.

I'm on Rumble, so I do a nightly show.

And

yeah, you can catch me there.

I'll be live all the time.

Got some other collaborations lined up.

So you can catch me on Rumble.

Perfect.

We'll link below.

Thanks for watching.

Check them out, guys.

See you next time.