« List

« Previous | Next »

Name: 20200227_SpecialReport_Alex
Air Date: Feb. 27, 2020
332 lines.
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

TimeText
Hard to follow this, Nick Fuentes, who challenged the Republican censors and the neocons on the Chi-Com tit.
That Chi-Com tit's been pulled off.
[Applause]
Thank you.
[Applause]
Well, thank you.
Excellent.
Well, we're fired up.
We are fired up.
Are we fired up?
We're fired up for America First?
Yes, well, it is great to be here.
This has been a very fun event.
You know, I've been to CPAC for two years now.
I went to CPAC in 2018 and 2019.
2019, I wasn't supposed to be there.
I actually got kicked out.
They tried to kick me out, if you remember last year.
And I have to say, this is way more fun than CPAC.
Would anybody rather be at CPAC than here?
I don't think so.
But first of all, I just want to say thanks to The National File, everybody with the National File for hosting this, and a big thanks of course to, a big thanks to InfoWars and Alex Jones for having us all here, and Alex Jones is high energy.
And I have to say, it was very actually surreal to meet Alex Jones.
It's the first time I ever met him.
And I actually grew up watching Alex Jones, listening to his podcast, back when I was a wagee and I was working in a warehouse.
I would turn on the Alex Jones Show for three hours and it would help me get through the day, so.
It's sort of like when Kanye West met Jay-Z, is how I would compare it.
Seeing Alex Jones tonight.
But it is very exciting.
You know, I look at this room here.
We've got Alex, we've got Owen, we've got Gavin, we've got a lot of big names.
And I think to myself, like, why haven't we done this sooner?
Right?
Why haven't we gotten all the people that have been banned, all the people that have been censored, blacklisted and everything.
It's about time that we got all of them in one room fighting for the same thing.
We're all on the same team here.
I also want to say I am grateful that Owen Schreuer kind of broke the ice with the receipt
I saw Pete get up here earlier with like a packet of typed out like five pages.
I haven't written that much since I was in high school, you know, so I wrote out like a little note card.
That's how we do it.
We do it live, we do it off the cuff.
But tonight, I wanted to talk a little bit about censorship.
This is, after all, the emergency First Amendment summit.
We have rallied and gathered here, sort of last minute, to discuss what's happening.
And as you may know, this is something that has touched me very recently, because I was banned off of YouTube on Valentine's Day.
Yeah, you may remember this.
Still a little bit sore.
Still hurts a little bit.
I mean, we all knew it was coming for years, but when it finally hits you... I was just talking to Owen and some of the guys from InfoWars.
They said, you know, you're finally part of the band club.
Band from social media.
Oh, great!
Awesome!
I'm glad to be a part of that, right?
But it does show that you're doing something right.
So over the years, I've been banned off of many things.
I'm now banned off of Stripe, PayPal, Twitch, Streamlabs, YouTube.
I think there's maybe a few other things out there.
I'm banned from CPAC.
So you can rest assured that I have a lot of credentials when it comes to being a dissident.
I think it was said earlier...
You only get attacked, you only get censored or banned when you're saying the right things.
And when you're actually a good person.
It's actually something interesting.
Okay, quieting the room there.
It's interesting, for a long time, there is maybe a silver lining to being banned from YouTube.
For the longest time, people used to tell me, That I was controlled opposition because I wasn't banned from YouTube.
They would say, why are you on YouTube still?
Doesn't that show that you're still part of the system?
But thankfully, now I can tell you, being banned off of YouTube, no, I can't confirm I'm not a part of the system.
But...
I wanted to talk a little bit about free speech and the censorship situation.
And I'm thinking about what to say.
We've been at this now for what?
Four, five years?
We've been talking about the situation on Twitter, the situation on YouTube, the censorship of conservatives, right-wing people.
This has been going on for years.
And what can be said that hasn't already been said about censorship?
That it's wrong, it's against free speech, that we can't just go and create our own Twitter, we can't go and create our own YouTube.
There has been so much said about this, but I think a contribution to the conversation that I can make, which is relevant to what I've been up to lately with the Groyper Wars and Charlie Kirk, is a little bit of a new angle here.
Yes, thank you.
Can we get a shout out for the Groypers?
The Groypers who are with us tonight.
The Groypers are taking over this whole week.
This is not CPAC, it's GPAC.
It is Groyper-PAC the whole week.
We've got this and AFPAC on Friday.
But the angle I wanted to come at it tonight with that in mind is that it's not just the left that is in favor of censorship.
We know this.
Nobody talks about it.
But it's actually the right, too, that is in favor of censorship when you're looking at the establishment.
When you're looking at the mainstream.
And I like to think about the left back in like the 1960s or the 1970s.
We know that at one point in time, the left was in favor of free speech.
We remember during the anti-war Vietnam protests.
We remember that Berkeley was supposedly the birthplace of free speech on the college campus.
And now they've turned against free speech.
Why is that?
We all know why that is.
Because free speech is a tool that benefits dissidents.
Now that the left is in power, they have no need for free speech.
Free speech is the means through which dissidents challenge their institutional power in the establishment.
They were outside of power and they supported free speech, now they are inside in power and they are against free speech.
And a similar thing, actually, Has happened on the right.
I remember when I was in high school and I got into the conservative movement, I regret to say that I was a big fan of Ben Shapiro, Prager University... Oh, come on, come on!
I was a big fan of all those characters, and they were in favor of free speech.
I remember they were fighting on the front lines, fighting against Antifa, fighting against protesters, disruption and so on.
And we've seen something very curious happen, which is that since Trump got elected, And since conservatives have built up their institutional support, Daily Wire, for example, got a little bit of support from billionaires known as the Wilkes Brothers, and Charlie Kirk got a $10 million check from Foster Free's.
Now that they have money, now that they have, in other words, institutional power, suddenly all these establishment conservatives don't really have a need for free speech.
And what exactly do I mean by that?
Well, there's a very fine line Between the conservatives that we see today, like Alex Jones, like Gavin, like myself, who have been censored, and all the conservatives that you see readily able to use YouTube, Twitter, and they're on Fox News.
I've compiled actually some examples, some hypocrisies that you see which are unexplainable if you're only thinking about censorship in the paradigm of it's a left versus right issue.
The New York Times, on November 23rd, 2017, called Ben Shapiro a controversial gladiator in the battle of ideas.
I think gladiators are supposed to be tall.
Gladiators are supposed to be large.
They're fighters.
They are pugnacious.
They'll meet you in the arena and fight you.
Alex Jones is a gladiator.
We all know that, right?
We are gladiators in the battle of ideas.
Ben Shapiro is a pot-bellied goblin.
But, to borrow a phrase, I have to give credit for that one.
But yet, the New York Times, which is, we know, anti-white, globalist, liberal, the epitome of fake news, they heap praise upon Ben Shapiro.
And they say that he is a celebrated gladiator in the conservative battle ideas.
Well, why is that?
We could go to other examples.
The Economist, in March 2019, they called Ben Shapiro alt-right.
They ran a headline, you may remember this, and they said that Ben Shapiro is this alt-right Provocateur.
And Ben Shapiro went after them and he went on Twitter and put them on blast and said, how dare you?
Don't you know that I'm Jewish?
Yes, Ben.
We all know.
Oh no!
Don't you know that as a Jewish man I'm the number one target of attacks by the alt-right?
But what did The Economist do?
The Economist issued a retraction, they changed the headline, and they put out a groveling apology.
I'm sorry Mr. Shapiro, we didn't mean to call you alt-right.
Does this happen with anybody in this room?
When they falsely call us.
It doesn't happen.
When they falsely call us white nationalists, fascists, neo-Nazi, and we get on Twitter and say, well, I'd like to fact-check that, you know, we've never said anything like that.
Does Jared Holt, Will Somers, all these characters, did they put up a groveling apology?
We're so sorry, Mr. Fuentes.
We're so sorry, Mr. Jones.
We retract the headline, you're just a good conservative.
It never happens.
There are many other examples of this.
CPAC is a perfect example.
CPAC last year was sponsored by Google.
Shouldn't that be a red flag to anybody?
All these people that get on the stage and talk about the censorship of conservatives on the college campus.
The censorship of conservatives on YouTube!
Even Breitbart, you know, we all heard the clip after the 2016 election when the Google employees said, we're never gonna let a Donald Trump election happen again.
Well then why is Google sponsoring CPAC, the event where Trump speaks at?
Why were the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute present at a Google lobbying conference last month?
I also think about even this administration.
There's another grand irony.
Last year there was a social media summit at the White House.
You may remember.
I think some of the people here might have been in attendance.
And Donald Trump invited all the influencers who have been censored to the Rose Garden to share their stories and to show support for free speech, but there was actually one notable absence at that conference.
Somebody who was invited, but then disinvited.
You may remember this.
Ben Garrison.
Ben Garrison, who is a great cartoonist, yes?
Ben Garrison, who has been censored, was invited to the social media censorship summit where he was apparently supposed to fight against the censorship that he's been a victim of, but he was disinvited.
And we all know the reason why.
A person by the name of Sheldon Adelson The billionaire funder of the Trump campaign picked up the red phone to the White House and he said, I don't like the way Sheldon Adelson talks about George Soros.
I don't like, or rather, Ben Garrison.
I don't like the way Ben Garrison talks about George Soros.
I don't like the way that he talks about all these billionaires.
It comes across as hateful, anti-Semitic, something like that.
So they promptly disinvited Ben Garrison from the social media summit.
And what do we see in every single one of these examples?
Whether it's the New York Times praising Ben Shapiro.
The Atlantic retracting their headline and issuing apologies.
The White House censoring somebody on their social media censorship.
What do we see when Google is sponsoring CPAC and the Heritage and AEI and Cato are at the Google conference?
It's very simple.
It's the same thing that happened to the left.
All these right-wing people that say they're against censorship, they're in favor of free speech, that worked ten years ago, when they didn't have this institutional power.
But now that they've got the money, and they've got the think tanks, and they've got the NGOs, and all that institutional power on their side, free speech is no longer convenient for them.
Now that they are in positions of power, they do not like the free speech that we are offering up as true conservatives.
And Nick, you're knocking it out of the park here.
We want you to continue.
But I totally agree with you that I don't care what somebody says.
They have a right to free speech.
And what the establishment really fears is power.
They fear human action that has that electric spark.
You've got that.
And they're scared of you.
And no matter what they do, they can't suppress you.
Because I get on air and I talk about America and freedom and fighting radical Islam, and I see the headlines, Nazi Alex Jones!
Because that's all the left's got, is to say somebody trying to promote freedom is a Nazi, when the Nazis are a bunch of losers 70-something years ago got their ass kicked.
And so they just keep saying, though, you're a Nazi, you're a Nazi, you're a Nazi.
I'm like, no, I'm an American.
I'm a capitalist.
I'm a freedom lover.
And I'm not going to bow down to you.
And so I think that's why we can talk about it all day, Nick Fuentes, how they do this.
But no one buys it anymore.
Trump was called an anti-Semite.
So is Senator Cruz, by the head of the ADL.
Even though they're pro-Israel, I'm not against Israel.
They want to use that as a tool of control, and I don't think it has power.
And I think you should tell, I think you should tell the leftists that their race baiting has no more power.
That's right.
So true, so true.
And that's exactly right.
As Alex said, it is about control.
At the end of the day, now that these establishment conservatives are in power, they are after control.
Control of the conversation.
And I actually think it's relevant to bring back CPAC a little bit.
This is the reason we're all gathered here, is ostensibly for the mass migration of conservatives to DC for CPAC.
And what is the theme of CPAC this year?
Did anybody get a chance to look at it?
Do you know what they're calling this year's CPAC conference?
That's right.
The theme this year, and it's not a parody, not a joke, the theme for them this year is America vs. Socialism.
And to me, that says it all.
What they want us to do for the next 50 years No, don't wrap it up!
the Cold War and fight this argument America versus socialism. They want
control of the dialectic, of the conversation between the two poles. The
right as defined by hamburgers, capitalism, and on the other side,
socialism. I guess I'll wrap it up here. No, don't wrap it up. I just want to say
this. This is a good guy right here.
He's not a bad guy.
Hey, thanks.
They always say he's so short, he just calls me.
Hey, thank you!
So, I'm like, am I gonna... No.
I don't have a Napoleonic complex.
But, seriously.
Nick Fuentes says a lot of things that people agree with.
He's popular.
So the system wants to ban him like a race car driver that keeps winning races.
That's all.
This guy's not a racist.
He doesn't hate black people, or white people, or gay people, anybody.
He just wants to have his own say.
And you know what?
I'm a confident man.
I say, hey buddy.
I say in the market of ideas, you get to have a run at it.
Because that makes us all stronger.
But they call him a white supremacist all over the news.
And then the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center fund white supremacist compounds with terrorists, with bombs.
I'll tell you, ready to blow up black communities and create war, but they can't ever find white people to join.
That's the good news.
The truth is, humanity loves humanity.
We want to come together.
We want to be strong.
We want to build a human future.
And people that try to silence speech are the enemy.
Because I'm smart enough...
I'm smart enough to hear what somebody said.
When somebody tells me I'm not supposed to hear what somebody said, that's when I start getting suspicious.
So Nick, you're a great speaker.
Five more minutes, give them hell.
We've got the next speaker coming up.
Alright, thanks.
So true.
It's true.
I'm like the race car driver.
The Gruyper War, we keep winning battles.
It's absolutely right.
But yeah, so to wrap it up a little bit, to get back on this America versus Socialism thing, it is about control of the conversation.
Too often, we talk about free speech for the sake of free speech itself.
You know, we're in favor of free speech.
Well, what do you want to say?
Doesn't matter.
We just want the open marketplace.
Free speech matters insofar as we are using it to express ideas that challenge the system.
That is the crux of free speech.
You see a lot of people out there that will say, free speech, free speech.
But then when it comes to the ideas that actually challenge the status quo, well then suddenly they don't want to hear it.
Suddenly that's, well...
That's outside.
We can all agree that's actually not polite.
That's actually not civil enough.
And so, going back to CPAC, it is about controlling that conversation.
They do not want free speech to allow other ideas, particularly in the right-wing space, to enter in and challenge the definition of conservatism.
Why is it, as an example, That CPAC claims that the theme for this year is America versus socialism.
It is because targeting socialism, and the Trump administration railing against Venezuela, and socialism, and socialism sucks, is because this is a pretext To defend the interests of the capitalist class, of the firm holders, the elites, the billionaires.
We are talking about the Koch brothers.
We are talking about Sheldon Adelson.
We are talking about billionaires that are responsible for funding the open borders lobby.
We are talking about...
That's exactly right, exactly right.
We are talking about huge titans of industry who are working against the interests of the American people.
Why do they say they're against socialism?
Because they are funded by these huge billionaires and elites.
And when they say they're against socialism, that means open borders for immigration, That means free trade, that means all kinds of loopholes and other things for the big people, for the billionaires, for the people that are making their money off of investments rather than income.
That is why they choose to define it in that way.
They do not want real conservatives to go in a CPAC and make it about America first.
They don't want to make it about make America great again.
And halt the mass immigration.
Not just the illegal immigration, but the legal immigration.
And they don't want us to do that because, again, the people that are putting up the money for their thing, putting up the money for their conference, are benefiting from their open borders agenda.
So, in conclusion... Was that five?
No, but it's true.
It's not that we're against the third world populations.
It's they're being weaponized against us.
So, he's gone like three times longer.
So the internet's going to say I censored Nick Fuentes.
I did not.
I actually extended him.
They're going to kick us out of here in like 30 minutes.
We've got like five more speakers.
We just got rid of the whole question and answer conference.
But it's true.
It's not that anybody's bad.
It's that the globalists are weaponizing them.
And you're right.
Ben Shapiro and all these people are pushed by the system.
We're banned by the system.
What does that tell you?
It's like a tag team.
We tag them in.
I'm back in.
That's exactly right.
It tells you about the system that Ben Shapiro is a part of the system and we are not.
That is why he is celebrated and we are on the outside.
He is saying things that are benefiting the elite and not the people and we are the reverse.
And so In conclusion, you said 30 minutes, I didn't realize we were so pressed here.
In conclusion, I'm probably going over, but I wanted to make one last important point to keep in mind for everybody.
Just one last thing.
Thesis statement.
We as conservatives who are in favor of America first, whatever our differences, we will either hang together or we will most surely hang separately.
That's the most important thing.
Thank you.