All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2024 - Brother Nathanael
30:16
Episode 51: Politics Extraordinaire With Owen Shroyer
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the everlasting day!
Welcome to the everlasting day!
Let's get to it!
It's me again, Brother Nathaniel.
Your number one noticer.
Alright, we've got Owen Schroyer on there.
I'm gonna be tough with him today.
No messing around, okay?
No flattery, no playing him up and all that stuff.
Owen Schroyer.
Can I see him?
Let's get this split screen up.
Let me get to my stream deck.
And I don't need a monitor.
I just want to see.
Oh, and there he is.
Okay.
Oh, you're looking good, man.
You're looking cool.
All right.
You're looking very young.
I gotta say, you've got a great sense of humor.
You know, we always have a good laugh before I go on the show with you live.
You've got a great sense of humor.
You really do.
You're a funny guy.
Listen, man.
You're a funny goy.
Don't call me a goy.
That's an insult.
I won't call you a goy.
I'll call you a boy chick.
That's about it.
And that's a compliment.
Now listen to me.
I grew up in 1950, man.
I grew up with the classic comedians.
We'll start with the goys, Red Shelton.
Brett Skelton.
Okay.
Who's the other one?
Jonathan, not Green-Black, Winters.
He had a show.
They'd throw him a broom at the end of the show.
For 10 minutes, he would do off-the-cuff jokes on that broom.
They'd throw him a chair.
Same thing, off-the-cuff.
The guy was on the edge between sanity and insanity.
That's a true comedian.
That's like me.
All right, guy, your teeth look nice and white.
I'm nice and white, too.
Now, Owen Schroer, everybody, hosts the War Room.
On Infowars, eight years going, he came to Infowars as a sports broadcaster.
That's cool, because that's play-by-play.
That's seeing what's moving ahead of the game.
Oh, that's big when you're doing news now, okay?
And that explains his former sportscasting.
Broadcasting explains Owen Schroer's rapid delivery.
On current news.
Okay.
I see this guy, Owen Schroyer, he may disagree with me, as an upcoming leader of Jewmerica, America.
I told him I'm not going to go there with Jews.
Who could not only be the next Rush Limbaugh, He's better looking, that's for sure.
But, better yet, a high-ranking member of Congress and on to the White House!
He's white, he's good looking, he's got the optics.
He's got the meat and potatoes, too.
Okay, now, check this out, Owen, boy chick.
You're gonna love it.
I want you to take a look at this.
Bring it up.
Oh, great.
And then, wait, the caption.
I wanted to put the caption on.
His caption.
He did this on his ex.
At Owen Schroyer, 1776. Check him out on ex.
He had a caption under this.
I'm running.
I'm running.
Did you say you had something for Congress?
You just said, I'm running.
Yeah, the caption was, I'm considering running for Congress.
Yeah, okay.
But there he is.
All right, you give us your, explain this picture to us, okay?
You can keep that on there.
Let's keep that on there.
Go ahead.
To those that get it, it's a bit of a nuanced geopolitical humor there.
Very nuanced.
Well, maybe not so subtle, but nuanced because the people that recognize it will.
But the joke here is that you have to basically...
Curtail to Israel and go touch the wall, if you will.
Literally and figuratively speaking, you have to go touch the wall in order to get into American politics.
And I think the success rate of people not funded by AIPAC is like one or two percent when it comes to Congress.
And so it was just a reference to that in a funny, humorous way to deal with.
I think it's a serious issue.
Definitely that my generation of conservatives is willing to take on.
Maybe not so much the kind of current generation of conservatives, the boomer generation of conservatives, don't really like to address this issue or take this issue head on.
But certainly younger conservatives do.
And so it was just kind of a humorous way to make reference to that.
And, you know, if there was anything topical about it or timely about it, it would be the Matt Gaetz withdrawal and what happened there.
A politician who's not funded by AIPAC, one of the few not funded by AIPAC. And the swamp swamped him.
The swamp swamped him, Brother Nathaniel.
And so it wasn't necessarily a reference to that, but that was kind of a timely event happening with that post.
It got some good play.
It was mostly taken in good humor.
Well, I came right on.
You see what I said?
I said, run!
Run, Owen, straight to Capitol Hill, Owen!
Well, you could tell the people that didn't get the joke, and they actually thought it was me announcing a run for Congress, and they didn't really understand the reference I was making as kind of a subtle joke there.
Yeah.
But the joke is, of course, AIPAC, it's mostly a foreign lobby.
It's the only foreign lobby that's accepted, and it doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby.
And so, hey, you know what?
If I want to run for Congress, then I've got to go touch the wall, brother.
I've got to go touch the wall if I want to save my country.
But what wall is that?
That's not the wailing wall.
No, no, it's not the Wailing Wall.
It's just a local establishment here in Austin.
I was out with some friends.
We like to talk politics when we're out, talk a little trash.
And so I just went up as a joke and I pretended I was touching the wall.
And someone snapped that photo, so it was just kind of funny.
Well, I think it went viral.
It caught my eye.
I loved it.
It did.
It got good.
Yeah, people, it was funny.
Do more of those, okay?
Now, you mentioned Matt Gaetz, and you mentioned the swamp.
I called the swamp.
I promised I wouldn't go there, but what the heck?
The swamp?
You couldn't help yourself.
It's all right.
It's like Israel after a ceasefire deal.
You're going to bomb the next day, so it's fine.
Alright, here's what I'm seeing.
I told you I'm gonna ask you some hard questions, dude.
Alright, boy chick.
Alright?
I've been following you for a while, Matt.
And I have seen, I think after post-prison, kind of a departure from the Alex Jones narration.
Who will not touch the wall.
He will not touch the lobbies.
But you are.
Now, I'm going to put you on the spot.
Are you going to have a problem with Alex Jones about this here on in?
There's a clear departure, man.
Come on.
I'm in control of my on-air content.
Alex is in control over his on-air content.
My approach, really, in this election cycle, and I think more so moving forward, is to really get into the political morass and make it palatable, understandable, and hopefully entertaining to the audience.
Um, whereas Alex's show is way more, um, eccentric and it gets into a lot of, uh, issues that are kind of outside the bubble of just raw politics and political wonk.
But there's no, there's nothing.
I still get along with Alex.
We're perfectly fine.
I have no problem with Alex.
He can do whatever he wants on his show.
I do whatever I want on my show.
So no, there's no break or anything like that.
If there was anything different about me out of prison...
Prison will change a person, but I think it was really just more of my approach in an election season was to just really be election-centric, political-centric, not get into the geopolitical stuff as much, not get into...
Let's say the New World Order type stuff as much.
And really just focus on ground level politics that people want updates on.
They want to be able to understand.
And you're reaching your age group.
Your age group is what counts now.
Not the boomers, okay?
Your age group, which is in your 30s, 20s, 30s.
You have a huge youth crowd.
Let me begin with some questions here, because we've only got so much time, you know.
All right, I'm going to skip the info.
We're saying anybody wants to find out, just go to X and go to at Owen Schroyer, 1776. He tells you what's happening there.
Now, Owen, we've got 30 days, at least, or a little more, before the inauguration.
What is Trump up against until then, and what must he do to come in with his feet running?
That's what I want to ask you first.
I think he needs to be a little louder.
I'm talking to my tech, okay?
All right, go.
Well, one thing we know he's up against, and that's the Senate.
I would say that there's basically, I'm calling it the anti-freedom caucus right now, for lack of a better word, in the Senate.
And that's John Thune, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins.
They have a four-person voter block that can basically stand in the way of whatever Donald Trump wants to do agenda-wise.
And John Thune has already put his operatives there.
Collins and McConnell in the most important positions, the most important roles in the Senate to stop Trump's agenda at that level.
So he's going to be dealing with the Senate.
I think the House might be a similar story.
You know, he's been kind of Bringing Mike Johnson under his wing and showing him the red carpet and showing him a good time, I think that's to win Johnson over for favor in the House, so probably a good political move.
It looks like the Republicans are going to end up with a three-seat advantage, I think, in the House.
It should have been probably eight, but I think the Democrats stole at least five seats.
They're going to steal two more in California before the end of this week, I'm guessing.
Now, there could be an issue.
Could the Democrats in the House get some Republicans to flip on some of the issues?
I mean, we'll have to wait and see.
We know some Republicans are really Democrats behind the scenes, but we've had success at the House level getting rid of the Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney's types like that, kind of the holdover anti-Trump types like that.
So maybe he can keep all the votes in the House with Mike Johnson's leadership.
Time will tell.
But really, he's going to be up against that anti-freedom caucus in the Senate.
And, you know, right now, I think hunkering down in Mar-a-Lago You know, just staying alive, staying safe, staying healthy is going to be very important.
He's flooding the zone with his nominations right now, whether I like them or not.
He's definitely trying to overwhelm the system right now with his nominations and kind of just keep the Democrats off balance so that when it comes to the confirmation process, they're going to be scrambling and they won't be able to really have their Brett Kavanaugh moment With every person, because there's gonna be so many people that they're gonna be confirming that some of them are gonna be able to get through without that type of scrutiny.
And then I think putting out public statements and kind of molding the next four years with public statements like today, when he talked about tariffs, I think that was a very strong thing.
And so now we can have a debate about tariffs.
Now we can have a debate about economic policy.
Tax policy, and that'll kind of mold things into the next administration.
I think that the most important thing when it's all said and done, we'll see how successful Trump's agenda is.
We'll see what the agenda really ends up being, right?
I think the most important thing is going to be the Department of Government Efficiency.
If this thing can really work, and if this thing can really cut the government, the federal government, I mean, Vivek Ramaswamy has talked about 75%.
I mean, that takes care of so many of our problems that a lot of these political issues and debates won't even need to be had anymore because we're going to get the federal government out of our lives.
And so I look at these political issues like a series of dominoes or like levels in a video game.
You have to beat the easy levels before you get to the hard levels.
So these should be...
These should be easy levels.
Getting the government out of our lives, cutting the federal government, quite frankly, getting the Democrats out of power.
These are the easy levels.
Then we can start to deal with some of the tougher things like political blackmail, geopolitics, trade.
But we got to deal with the obvious stuff.
Get the government out of our lives.
And Democrats are just so corrupt politically and nonsensical now.
They shouldn't be anywhere near power.
Alright, what about the gates?
You mentioned that right away, that the swamp threw them under the bus.
I call the swamp the Jew state.
Others call it the deep state.
I call it the Jew state.
I promised I wouldn't go there, but that's my perspective.
But what happened with Gaetz?
Why did everybody crumble?
Why didn't the Republicans say, hey, wait, wait a minute, this is a great pick.
We like Matt Gaetz.
Why didn't Trump say, say enough for him?
He just voted right away.
And what it did, it really took the wind out of the sails with a lot of MAGA people.
Not me, because I'm a realist.
Go ahead.
Well, I think it was definitely a big morale killer, for sure.
Anybody denying that, I think, is just not being honest or kind of living in their own bubble.
And that's fine.
Live a happy life.
But if we're going to be real about it, it was a big morale killer, what they did to Gates.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Senate, there's really nothing Trump can do.
I mean, he can use his bully pulpit and influence.
But he doesn't have control over John Thune or the Senate.
They make their own decisions.
And Thune, with his anti-freedom caucus voting bloc, can basically do and control whatever he wants.
It's from Ford.
Oh, I don't think Trump folded.
I don't think he had any option here.
I think eventually Gates folded.
But again, I don't think it's a matter of folding or giving up.
It's just a numbers game at this point.
When they go into these meetings and John Thune says, look, I've got enough votes.
I'm not going to let Matt Gaetz get confirmed.
It's over.
It's game over.
And so it's really just a numbers game.
And as far as the blackmail from Greenberg in prison and all that craziness that was going on, I'm sure that had something to do with it, at least at the surface level of these conversations.
But at the end of the day, it was just a numbers game.
So there was no point in Matt Gaetz trying to force through his confirmation when he knew that he would never get the votes and going through that confirmation process wasn't going to be worth it.
So you're convinced Trump did not fold.
OK, I'll go you there.
But here's my take.
Now, who does he appoint?
Bad optics.
You have Matt Gaetz tough.
He don't mess around.
He never gave in to the APAC. He does not have an APAC babysitter.
He does not.
Like your buddy, okay?
Thomas Massey says.
I know you know him.
Okay, I know you know the whole Ron Paul group.
And so do I. Here's where I'm really disgusted with Trump.
It's bad optics.
Who does he replace him with?
Who does he replace Matt Gaetz with?
A woman, Pam Bondi, who immediately is on Fox News saying there's rampant anti-Semitism.
These protesters at school gotta be put out of here.
FBI investigation.
Matt Gaetz would never go there.
What's your take on that, kid?
Well, I think that Pam Bondi interview is actually from...
Early 2024. I don't think that that was after she got the nomination.
But regardless, she did go on there and say it, and it's completely outrageous.
And she's been part of this Republican coalition that supports these anti-Semitism bills, which are completely unconstitutional, completely ridiculous.
Yeah.
And so you don't like that.
Look, I take the good with the bad.
I could focus on the bad with Pam Bondi, and I think we just did.
Anybody who's that pro-Israel immediately is going to raise red flags.
However, I think Pam Bondi is going to be strong when it comes to dealing with border security and prosecuting criminals.
I think she's going to be strong on, let's say, the left versus right political paradigm.
So she does bring a lot of good experience to the position.
She does bring a lot of good background work to the position.
And I think there's going to be a lot of strong...
When it just comes to raw legal issues that she's going to bring to the Attorney General.
She's not soft.
She may be a woman, but she's definitely not soft.
And I have met Pam and she is really nice.
She is a good person.
She has a good soul.
She is a good person.
We may disagree on some geopolitical stuff, but I think overall it probably will still benefit Trump.
It'll still benefit the Trump administration, Pam Bondi, as Attorney General.
I think what we're really looking for here is, is anybody in this coming administration going to have the backbone to do what needs to be done?
Is the Department of Government Efficiency actually going to slash the federal government by 75%?
Is there an Attorney General that's actually going to go after the criminals in D.C.? The swappers in D.C., all their illegitimate attacks against Donald Trump, all their illegitimate setups and false flags of Trump supporters.
Are we going to have somebody?
I mean, even back to the Hillary Clintons of the world, the Joe Bidens of the world, is anybody going to have the spine to actually drain the swamp?
That's my big issue.
And so we will see if Bondi has that spine.
But I do think as far as just some of the legal issues and justice issues, she'll be a net positive.
And she'll get confirmed, too.
And so, you know, that's another issue you've got to deal with.
She will get confirmed.
All right.
Let me talk about optics.
Here's what I see.
I see a feminization and a gayization of Trump's presidency.
Alright, already his political leadership is all feminized up.
And not to mention gay-ized up.
Pam Blondie, Susie Wiles, Tammy Gabbard.
Well, that's not her name.
Well, that's not her name.
What the hell's her name?
Gabbard.
Palsy Gabbard.
Christy Noem at security.
It's all women up.
It's the feminization.
And Trump is doing it.
Brooke Collins, Linda McMahon, Janet Neshawatt.
What the hell is her name?
Okay.
Then you got the homo.
You got the fegala at Treasury.
And it's right out in front of your eyes.
The picture's all over the darling place with his macho husband.
I guess he plays the woman.
It's disgusting!
And he's the head of the most prominent position, the most important position.
Our wealth?
Our money?
A homo?
A sodomizer?
What's your take on that?
I don't want to put you on the spot, but I will.
Well, I am a little more socially liberal, and I think beyond whatever my political beliefs on these issues or social issues are, I'm just looking for results.
So I really don't care if the results come from a woman or a gay man.
I really don't.
I just want the results.
The other issues I have with Scott Besant or Julie Neshiwatt have nothing to do with their gender or their sexual tendencies.
There are other things that I have an issue with them with.
But again, I'm looking for results.
I don't care who the results come from.
I wonder if, and I don't think this would be the case, but it's hard to look at it and not take this into consideration.
Is Trump appointing females and gay men just to say, see, I'm not a homophobe.
See, I'm not afraid of being surrounded by strong women or whatever, like you report in the news that I am.
He doesn't seem like the kind of guy to do that, to be the dog getting wagged by the tail.
But you do have to wonder with some of these picks if that's not going on as just a total kind of middle finger to the mainstream news making these accusations about him.
But again, I just want results.
I don't care who they come from.
I don't care if it comes from a mongoloid they just drug out of a cave.
I don't care if it comes from a guy without any legs or arms.
You know, I I don't care.
I just want results.
That's what I'm looking for.
I just want results.
If they deliver on the agenda, if they put our country in a better place, if they help enact common sense policy in law enforcement, then I don't care who's doing it.
That's what I'm looking for in this administration.
I really don't care about the identity politics of the situation.
All right.
I promised you we'd end at 7 p.m.
your time.
You're in Austin.
Okay.
I'm in Pacific time.
You want to see results.
You want to see an outcome that you say are results.
What three results from Trump's presidency does Owen Schroer want to see?
I want you to be very specific.
Okay, do you want me to give you realistic expectations or what I would really like to see?
Both.
First, I want you to give what you would like to see and then realistic outcomes.
Let's go with that two segments.
What I would like to see.
I'd like to see any politician or NGO... That has had any role in funding, housing, or transporting an illegal immigrant that committed a crime in this country be charged with a crime themselves.
What's a crime?
Accessory to a crime or aiding and abetting in a crime.
Okay.
Every politician, every NGO. So you just heard the recent story in Washington, an illegal immigrant stalks a woman on a trail and tries to rape her.
Any politician that was involved in the process of bringing him in, funding his lifestyle, and NGOs that were part of it, I want them all charged.
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Jew.
Absolutely, Mayorkas should be involved in this.
So that's one thing that's probably an unreal expectation, but that I would like to see.
I would like...
To remove the United States from the United Nations and from NATO. I'd like us to be completely removed from these two geopolitical global governing bodies.
I'd like to stop funding these bodies that don't benefit us at all.
And then third, I'd say I'd like to see all foreign aid brought down to zero.
Zero dollars in foreign aid.
Zero.
Just stop it all.
So those are probably my unreal expectations.
Realistic expectations.
I would like to see the federal government cut down by at least 50%.
I've heard the 75% number get thrown around, but I think 50% is probably more realistic, unfortunately.
That's realistic?
Yes.
I think 90% is realistic.
McConnell's already heading up a subcommittee for a defense budget.
Ain't going to happen at defense, man.
Well, and he wants an Iron Dome thing.
He talked about that, too.
But let's just put that aside.
I think it's realistic to expect 50% federal cut.
I think that's a realistic expectation.
You've been watching this closer to me.
Okay.
I would like to see foreign aid for Ukraine completely cut off.
I think that's a realistic expectation.
Zero dollars.
And I would say...
Where would I want my third...
What would I rank for my third thing?
Probably the most realistic would be illegal border crossings.
You know, zero was probably impossible.
But I mean, maybe like down to...
1% of what they've been under the Biden administration.
Illegal border crossings down to 1% of what they've been.
So it's always going to happen.
People are always going to try to cross the border illegally.
So I would say those are three realistic expectations that we can have for the next four years.
But, you know, here's the big challenge, and I know you understand this too, and this will kind of be my closing statement.
I've learned a couple things in my life in political media, and that's to...
Have realistic expectations to keep your morale high and to put political pragmatism over political purism if you want to be effective.
What I'm looking at right now is taking the good with the bad in the Trump administration.
It's certainly going to be better than a Harris administration.
We're going to have a better economy.
We're going to have better foreign policy, better domestic policy, and so we're going to take that.
We're still going to deal with a lot of the issues we always have, but we're definitely going to be in a better spot.
I kind of look at the Trump administration here as The last gasp of the boomer conservative.
So Trump is like the last gasp and kind of the redemption of the boomer conservative.
So you're gonna have a lot of good things, a lot of common sense things, but the rest is gonna be up to my generation.
And I think if you look at the Republican bench politically in the depth chart, it's younger men.
It's J.D. Vance.
It's Vivek Ramaswamy.
These are men in their 30s And they think more like me.
They talk more like me.
And they've learned how to deal with this political mob and liberal ideology in the ways that they need to be dealt with, which is really just three simple words.
I don't care.
And really mean it.
That's great.
Alright, you mentioned these guys that are young, moving in the political realm and pushing out the boomer conservatives, and you're talking about the Gen Z conservatives.
Do you see in the future, the near future, I mean, Trump's got four years, this is not a one-stop shop.
Do you see an Owen Schroer, a Harrison Smith, a Dominic Trippi coming in to Capitol Hill?
Oh, Dominic's going to love getting a shout out here.
I'll tell you that.
You just made his night.
Look, I really do not want to live in Washington, D.C. There's a reason why normal people don't get involved in politics because we don't want to live in D.C. We don't want to deal with the swamp and everything else that comes with it.
I'd rather do what I do in the media and as an activist when it's time than have to get involved in running for office or running for Congress and all the crap that comes with it and the lifestyle change that comes with it.
I guess if there was enough pressure or support or a situation where it was like I knew that I could win in a path of least resistance, maybe I would consider it.
Right.
But I'd rather not.
I'd rather not move to D.C. I'd rather not be a part of Congress.
I'd rather never be a politician.
I like my role in what I'm doing now, and I've got the ear of some politicians now.
I've got the ear of some people running for office now.
I'm influencing younger people who want to get involved, so I'd rather play that role.
I'll never say never, but it's certainly not something I'm seriously considering or looking into or making any moves towards right now.
Alright, I'm just trying to give a little nudge, Boychick.
That's all.
But in the meantime...
Maybe if Brother Nathaniel brings me all that Israel money, then I'll consider running.
Me?
Oh, man.
If I went to Israel, I'd be in jail.
I'll never get the money now because of this interview.
Thanks.
Well, I kept it kind of low-key, but from my perspective, you're becoming a little more Jew-wise from my perspective.
▲
Export Selection