Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Auron McIntyre @AuronMacintyre (X) Joel Berry @JoelWBerry (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| MAGA in civil war gives me an excuse to say civil war, not in the context of people killing each other, just in the more political context. | ||
| And that is there's been a big debate going on for some time. | ||
| There's some animosity between prominent conservative personalities and each other and large organizations. | ||
| And this has bubbled up into the realms of conspiracy theory as well as just mainstream debate over the direction the conservative movement should be going. | ||
| Now, Donald Trump still has several years left, and he still is basically a unifying force. | ||
| But what happens when he goes? | ||
| Will the right stick together despite disparate ideologies coming together under Trump? | ||
| Because, well, let's be honest, the left has gone particularly crazy. | ||
| But now that we're seeing the waning of woke and DEI, it seems that the differences are starting to really come to the surface between factions on the right. | ||
| And thus we have today's debate. | ||
| So how about we'll start here with Good Sir Joel? | ||
| Do you want to introduce yourself? | ||
| Yeah, my name is Joel Berry. | ||
| I'm the managing editor of the Babylon Bee and chief troll in Aaron McIntyre's comments section on Twitter. | ||
| Well, right on. | ||
| And Aaron McIntyre. | ||
| Hey, I'm Orin McIntyre, a host a show on Blaze TV, Orin McIntyre's show. | ||
| You catch it on YouTube, Rumble, all of those places. | ||
| Let's just, real quick, about an elevator pitch. | ||
| What is the debate? | ||
| What is the argument? | ||
| Well, I guess, you know, first of all, I think it's a debate worth having and a debate worth having in the open. | ||
| And I think it's encouraging that we're having this debate. | ||
| It's a sign that we've kind of won in one sense. | ||
| We've made it to level two. | ||
| The only interesting conversations being had right now are on the right, between the right and the right and other factions of the right. | ||
| And we're at this point where we kind of have to define who we are and who we're not, what our vision for the future is. | ||
| We've been defined so long by what we're against, and that's really easy. | ||
| And now we have to start kind of being defined by what we're for. | ||
| And so within that, there's a bunch of different issues. | ||
| There are many different issues. | ||
| And so the debate is basically what is the identity of the right moving forward? | ||
| I think is that one way to put it? | ||
| I think so. | ||
| Do you agree with that assessment? | ||
| Yeah, I think that's reasonable. | ||
| I think obviously, as Joel said, what was holding us together was fighting the left. | ||
| And as soon as you get done, the nature of coalitional politics is the minute you come into power, then it's you decide what part of the coalition is going to be driving this thing. | ||
| And I think there's a lot of clashes that were unresolved, even though Trump took power and unified in a lot of ways. | ||
| You know, foreign policy, a lot of American identity, issues of nationalism. | ||
| These things were not completely addressed. | ||
| And so now they have to be worked through in one way or another. | ||
| And that's what you're seeing play itself out. | ||
| Right on. | ||
| So before we get started, we do have a great sponsor. | ||
| It is Bearskin. | ||
| You can go to Bearskintactical.com or B-A-E-R dot skin slash Tim. | ||
| You guys know about the Bearskin hoodie, right? | ||
| I've worn it on the show quite a bit. | ||
| It's amazing. | ||
| It's very comfortable. | ||
| It's got a lot of pockets. | ||
| Now's your chance to get one. | ||
| 60% off. | ||
| It's great. | ||
| We're in hoodie season, so it's my favorite season, by the way. | ||
| You can, for obvious reasons, you can, cold mornings, windy days, surprise, snow. | ||
| You'll want to be wearing one of these things. | ||
| It is built to last 340 GSM bearskin fleece, 10 pockets, rugged athletic fit. | ||
| Actually looks good. | ||
| Plus, if it starts pouring, you can zip on the heavy storm rain jacket and instantly level up to full waterproof protection. | ||
| You get free U.S. shipping from their U.S. warehouse and gear that'll last you season after season. | ||
| So here's what you do. | ||
| Text Tim to 36912. | ||
| Again, that's Tim to 36912. | ||
| And they'll text you a link so you can lock in your 60% off before the sale disappears. | ||
| Don't wait till it's over. | ||
| Grab your bearskin now while the Black Friday sale is live. | ||
| You'll also be helping the Fallen Outdoors and Hope for the Warriors veterans program. | ||
| So you're not just buying great gear, you're backing a cause that matters. | ||
| Grab your bearskin while the Black Friday deal is live by texting Tim to 36912. | ||
| Check it out. | ||
| Shout out to Bearskin for sponsoring the show. | ||
| But let's get back to the debate at hand, the questions. | ||
| And I want to start with this. | ||
| One of the breaking points, I suppose, or one of the inflection points is Tucker Carlson, not just, it's not just the interview with Nick Fuentes, but also his appearance at Charlie Kirk's Memorial and his general sentiment towards Israel, Zionism, or some people have just outright said he's anti-Semitic. | ||
| And we saw text messages from Candace Owens, from Charlie, talking about not wanting to remove Tucker Carlson, though there were donors pressuring him to do so. | ||
| So it seems like this is the big point. | ||
| And it seems like the word that pops up every time is Israel. | ||
| Is this maybe the central focus of what this argument is about? | ||
| Or are there other issues at play? | ||
| I want to say no. | ||
| I think Israel is maybe kind of a symptom of the problem. | ||
| And it can be a huge distraction. | ||
| And we could sit here for three hours kind of going back and forth about Israel because it's such a contentious issue. | ||
| But I think that the fight is a little more fundamental than that. | ||
| And Arn, you know, I want you to make sure I'm characterizing it fairly too. | ||
| But maybe it would help if we kind of, I wrote down a little diatribe here because I wanted to kind of just list all of the things that I think we do agree on. | ||
| Because the question I get all the time, and I've heard you being asked this question as well, like, why are Joel Barry and Arn McIntyre fighting? | ||
| Like, why are you guys at odds with each other? | ||
| You agree. | ||
| You seem to agree on like 98% of stuff. | ||
| What's going on? | ||
| So I wanted to kind of define that a little bit. | ||
| Is that fair? | ||
| Like, can I just kind of like run through some of these things? | ||
| And then you just tell me like if I'm off or if I'm characterizing it well. | ||
| I think this is where we agree. | ||
| So in 2006, I was in Fallujah. | ||
| I was an infantry marine thinking I was fighting for my country, fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here, that whole line, you know. | ||
| But when I came back, I started school. | ||
| I went to university. | ||
| I realized that the real battle to save America, it wasn't overseas, it was here because the most dangerous enemy to our republic was running our universities and institutions. | ||
| So what we've seen over the last 150 years, leftism has destroyed our culture and our constitution from FDR's New Deal and his devastating expansion on the bureaucracy, the horror of abortion, LBJ's great society. | ||
| It destroyed the black family, permanently dependent underclass. | ||
| We've watched over a century as our Constitution has been eaten away from civil rights law, which led to the permanent enshrining of leftist dogma, from racial quotas in congressional districts to DEI to forcing women to change with men in their locker rooms. | ||
| We've seen the value of our dollar be destroyed by government spending. | ||
| We've watched as our own nation became a totalitarian state during COVID, and no one has been held accountable for that. | ||
| We've seen our government and media lie to us again and again. | ||
| Mass immigration is destroying our culture. | ||
| Leftist judges and DAs punish good and reward evil. | ||
| Young men can't afford to buy homes. | ||
| Young women are completely fried on SSRIs, birth control, and communist religion pumped into their cute, empathetic female brains. | ||
| Americans are not having babies anymore. | ||
| Muslim immigrants are. | ||
| We watch as Death to America is chanted from Dearborn. | ||
| Somali flags are flown in Minneapolis. | ||
| After we fought two pointless wars on the false premise that if we fight them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. | ||
| Young white men were subjected to the most wicked bigotry and racism and discrimination. | ||
| And all the while we watched as our quote-unquote dignified conservative class did nothing about it. | ||
| We heard lofty platitudes and conservatism conserved very little. | ||
| We saw our churches. | ||
| We saw cowardly pastors who were supposed to be speaking truth into the culture and standing against the spirit of the age instead went along with it. | ||
| And so here we are, and a ton of people have lost faith in everything. | ||
| And a ton of people are like, just burn it all down. | ||
| And I think I would say that we kind of agree with the problem, right? | ||
| Like, sure, you would be on board with all of those. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And I think that's what, you know, Arne and I are polemicists. | ||
| We're really good at pointing at something that sucks and saying, hey, look at this. | ||
| This really sucks. | ||
| And that's easy mode. | ||
| You know, the hard part is like pointing the way out. | ||
| What do we do now? | ||
| How do we get out of this? | ||
| How do we turn it around? | ||
| Can it be turned around? | ||
| And I think that's where Arne and I devolve, you know, like we diverge a little bit. | ||
| And I kind of wrote three points that I think maybe we can kind of delve into deeper. | ||
| The first thing, I think the Constitution is still relevant, and I think we can get back to it. | ||
| Two, I believe that your political theory over-relies on political theory, real politic, kind of like a spiritually devoid realism that I think is a little imbalanced. | ||
| And then three, I believe that there is a way back. | ||
| I don't think like the only way out is through. | ||
| I think that we can claw our way back. | ||
| Well, I have a question on your first point. | ||
| What was it? | ||
| The Constitution is still relevant? | ||
| How did you say that? | ||
| Yeah, so, you know, one thing that is often said by kind of the dissident right or post-liberal crowd is that, you know, you hear this quote from John Adams all the time that our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. | ||
| It's inadequate for the government of any other. | ||
| We're no longer a moral and religious people. | ||
| And so the Constitution is inadequate, you know. | ||
| And there is some truth to that. | ||
| But I also think that it's not too late. | ||
| When you say the Constitution, do you mean the original intention? | ||
| Yeah, I would say. | ||
| So blasphemy should be illegal. | ||
| Well, blasphemy wasn't allowed in the original Constitution. | ||
| Blasphemy is illegal. | ||
| At the founding of this country, when the Constitution was, you couldn't blaspheme. | ||
| You also couldn't swear in public or say obscenities. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| And the interpretation, the important thing to understand about the Constitution is that we interpret it wholly differently from how it was interpreted by the founders in that it only applies to federal law, meaning if you lived in Virginia and Virginia said guns are banned, then guns were banned. | ||
| But the federal government couldn't ban states from allowing people or couldn't ban the ownership of guns. | ||
| So when we look at the Constitution right now and people say it should apply, they're talking about a dramatically different interpretation. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Go ahead. | ||
| When you say the Constitution is still relevant, the question is which one? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Because as Tim has pointed out, after the incorporation doctrine, we radically changed our understanding of what the Constitution meant. | ||
| Of course, another radical change comes. | ||
| I mean, we don't number our republics, but we have changed the fundamental meaning of the Constitution many times over. | ||
| When we got rid of the Articles of Confederation, we were one country. | ||
| When we instituted the Constitution, we were a new one. | ||
| When we instituted the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, that radically changed the way that federalism works. | ||
| We basically destroyed the 10th Amendment right then and there. | ||
| Incorporation doctrine changes it. | ||
| Again, the civil rights regime more or less rewrites the entire Constitution and our understanding of it. | ||
| So the question is I have for most people who want to return to the Constitution is which one? | ||
| Because what I find is most conservatives say, oh, I want to go back to the founding. | ||
| No, you don't. | ||
| You don't want to go back to what the founders actually believed. | ||
| You don't want to go, and that's okay. | ||
| But let's be honest about what we're talking about. | ||
| What we believe now, what conservatives in the 1990s believed, what they believe now, is radically different from what the founders believe. | ||
| And if we went back to what the founders believed, most people saying, I want to return to the Constitution, would be up in arms and they'd call it some kind of religious Christian nationalist fascism. | ||
| Like they would. | ||
| They absolutely would. | ||
| They wouldn't let the Immigration Act of 1790. | ||
| They would not support a return to those things. | ||
| So that's critical when we say we can go back. | ||
| It's going back to what? | ||
| When? | ||
| I agree. | ||
| And I think that those are all conversations that need to be had, but they need to be had in the context of we're trying to restore something that's been broken, that's been eroded. | ||
| Not, you know, and this, what I feel like I see from you and a lot of your approach online and with a lot of the kind of the political philosophers that you talk to, and again, correct me if I'm seeing you wrong, but I almost, you know, when you, when you, you're a huge promoter of people like Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, almost this kind of accelerationist idea that, and Charles Haywood's another, I think, good example of this. | ||
| He wrote the Foundationalist Manifesto. | ||
| You know, you've had him on your show as well. | ||
| And he famously in his manifesto says that like there's no way back. | ||
| Like he says the way is shut. | ||
| The only way to fix this is to accelerate its demise, destroy it, burn it down through civil war, bloodshed, whatever it takes, and then build something new from the ashes. | ||
| And that's kind of where I draw the line is, you know, I think that we can have these conversations in the context of like, okay, I want to be a radical restorationist. | ||
| Let's talk about how far back we need to go. | ||
| You know, maybe we don't want to go all the way back to the founding. | ||
| Maybe there's a middle ground there. | ||
| But it should be in the context of going back to the original intent of the American Republic, not this accelerationist, it's too late. | ||
| We're all blackpilled. | ||
| Let's just burn it all down. | ||
| And that seems to be the attitude, I think, of a lot, especially the young right. | ||
| They're in such despair and they're so hopeless that they don't see a way back. | ||
| And I think it's important for conservatives, especially Christian conservatives who we believe in God, we believe in miracles, we believe that anything is possible, to show that it is possible. | ||
| If people stand up for what's right, if we have courage, if we clearly articulate our beliefs, we can, you know, we may not, nothing's guaranteed. | ||
| We may lose the battle, but we got to fight the battle. | ||
| What year do you think America is what it was supposed to be? | ||
| Or like, what are we, I don't know. | ||
| I mean, I think a good thesis statement or mission statement for the country comes from the Declaration of Independence. | ||
| Chesterton famously said that America is the only country that was founded on a creed. | ||
| That the Declaration is not just a document of, it's not just a legal document. | ||
| It's a document of philosophy and theology and literature. | ||
| And it's kind of articulating what we're striving for. | ||
| Should blasphemy be illegal? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| I mean, well, it depends. | ||
| What do you mean by blasphemy? | ||
| I mean, How local, illegal at what level, the federal level illegal? | ||
| Well, so I pulled up this story the last, one of the most famous cases. | ||
| It's the last time someone was actually criminally prosecuted. | ||
| It's Commonwealth v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Abner and Ealand, 1838. | ||
| And he was convicted for blasphemy and sentenced to 60 days, and the Supreme Court refused to take his case. | ||
| Blasphemy was illegal for a long time. | ||
| But this was the last of it. | ||
| 1789, when free speech was enshrined, the interesting thing is that there actually was not free speech. | ||
| And there's an interesting understanding of, if we're to look at the original articles, what the intention was of the First Amendment, it was that the founding fathers for a period of decades were trying to meet at bars or churches and have conversations about how governance should be held in the colonies. | ||
| And the crown disrupted these, shut them down, and charged people for having these conversations. | ||
| The principal element of the First Amendment, the right to peaceably assemble, meant literally, if me and my boys are at church and we want to have a conversation about what's going on in our country, you can't stop us. | ||
| That's turned into raging lunatics standing outside of police stations screaming and throwing rocks and judges saying, well, they have a First Amendment right to do it. | ||
| Or more importantly, blocking roads and streets, linking arms, and gluing themselves to the ground, which is not. | ||
| What I see as this, and additionally with the Second Amendment, which is very interesting, in that the Second Amendment was intended to mean that the people would be armed. | ||
| You can't have a militia unless Abner is in his barn with a rifle. | ||
| However, it meant the federal government couldn't come in. | ||
| This is why up into the 80s, states were May issue, almost every single state. | ||
| And we've won tremendously on universal rights for guns, but it is very different. | ||
| You go back to the 1780s or you go to 1790 or even 1800, you'd walk into, you'd ride in your horse into town and the local deputy would say, hand over your weapons. | ||
| You have no right to have those here and there's no protection for that. | ||
| So the question then becomes, if we're trying to maintain a constitution, a government, I think Aurin makes a good point of when, which one, what is the actual argument for what the country was and why we support it. | ||
| And this is, it's frustrating to me because I hear this a lot from moderate or mainstream conservatives, arguments about defending the Constitution. | ||
| Well, the left says quite literally the exact same thing, but they view it very differently. | ||
| So what I think we're seeing is— What do you mean by—like, give me an example. | ||
| The leftists argue that we have free speech, but free speech never included hate speech. | ||
| Hate speech, of course, is speech meant to deride or denigrate minorities or specific groups of people. | ||
| Free speech meant you could express your opinion, including burning flags. | ||
| The right says, no, no, burning a flag is out of the question, but you are allowed to disparage whoever you want. | ||
| There's different interpretations of what the First Amendment was supposed to be. | ||
| So if you go back to the founding, free speech was no blasphemy. | ||
| You certainly can't lock yourself together in the middle of the road. | ||
| That was nonsense. | ||
| Now we have a wholly different view. | ||
| In fact, George Carlin got arrested for swearing. | ||
| You couldn't swear back then. | ||
| You couldn't say obscenities. | ||
| So we certainly don't believe in free speech as the founders saw it. | ||
| We don't believe in free speech as they saw it in 1830. | ||
| We have a different interpretation. | ||
| And since the past maybe 15 or maybe 20 years, there's been a bifurcation in American culture as to the understanding of what all of these amendments actually do, notably the Bill of Rights, but even up to the 14th Amendment now, where the argument is anyone born here is American, whereas the rights argument is, no, no, this meant if you were born here at the time you were a citizen. | ||
| So I don't know what we're trying to maintain or restore with a constitution other than we have a moral worldview. | ||
| We use some of the amendments to defend and uphold that moral worldview, to be completely honest. | ||
| If the majority of people in this country decided that the 14th Amendment meant something different, it would be applied that way. | ||
| So the Constitution really is largely a symbol. | ||
| So this is really critical. | ||
| And this is what I want establishment conservatives to understand. | ||
| Look, I grew up on talk radio conservatism. | ||
| I totally understand these pitches. | ||
| I believe all these pitches. | ||
| I'm familiar with what they're saying. | ||
| When you turn the Constitution into a deity, when you deify the Constitution, you make it the central identity, you create a scenario where people are just fighting over the meaning of the words so they can control the definition. | ||
| A Constitution is not. some contract that's written up that then defines the country. | ||
| A constitution is a reflection of the way that the people are constituted. | ||
| It is the way that they live their lives, their traditions, their beliefs, their values, their heritage, their language, their understanding. | ||
| The Constitution doesn't make the people. | ||
| The people make the Constitution. | ||
| So the Constitution only works when the people are already living in the way that the Constitution lays out for them. | ||
| That's what makes a republic a republic, because they are people who are self-governing. | ||
| They are living in the way of tradition, and no one needs to come in and tell them how to live their lives and dictate to them each move because they already have such a tightly woven cultural identity that everything is second nature. | ||
| They govern themselves, which is to say the community governs. | ||
| It is tied to those traditions and those beliefs. | ||
| The Constitution has never and will never compel people to live in a particular way. | ||
| And when you turn the Constitution into this, you know, the thing that defines you as a people, then it's just about arguing over what that document means. | ||
| And that's why we so radically changed what the country is, because we abstracted ourselves into this legal definition that can be manipulated by people making arguments rather than tying it to actual beliefs, actual religion, actual tradition. | ||
| Well, okay, so you're partially right there in the sense that the Constitution and our laws are a reflection of the people, but you're kind of doing this postmodern thing where, you know, at some point, what do words mean? | ||
| People define them differently. | ||
| It's whoever's in power is the one who makes the decision. | ||
| You know, I'm a moral realist. | ||
| I believe that words actually do mean something. | ||
| You can determine what words mean based off of the intent of the person who wrote them to the best of your ability. | ||
| And, you know, while, yes, the people create the Constitution, I also think that the Constitution and the laws shape the people. | ||
| And I'll give you an illustration of this. | ||
| So, you know, if the Constitution is just a snapshot of the people, why did we have to write it down? | ||
| Like, I mean, why do you think we had to write it down? | ||
| Well, the argument, again, for many is that you don't, right? | ||
| This is that Joseph DeMaestri goes into quite a bit of detail in the generative nature of political constitutions as to the advantages and disadvantages of writing things down. | ||
| And this is something, by the way. | ||
| But why do you need the government to enforce it? | ||
| If it's all coming from the people, why do we even need a government to enforce the law? | ||
| I mean, if it's just, if it's springing from the people and the people are going to do what they're going to do, if they're constituted correctly. | ||
| I think your question actually goes to Aaron's point as to why you need it written down. | ||
| It's because the anti-federalists and the federalists were debating. | ||
| I was just getting to that. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Not everyone was on board, right? | ||
| Well, it's not. | ||
| No, more importantly, well, the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights because they were worried that enumerating the rights would make people believe that those are the only rights available to them. | ||
| So they actually thought that writing it down, capturing those rights, guaranteeing those rights was a downside for the Constitution because it would be limiting. | ||
| And so this is one of the things. | ||
| If people have rights, you don't have to tell them. | ||
| You don't have to enumerate them. | ||
| That was the understanding of the Federalists, which is why they push back against this. | ||
| And so you end up in this scenario where, look, you understand having been to the Middle East, right? | ||
| Like that, actually, the idea that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property is not actually self-evident to a lot of cultures, a lot of peoples, right? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| Any non-Christian culture. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And so when we say self-evident, we meant self-evident to a specific people. | ||
| So it's not that I don't believe words don't have meaning. | ||
| Well, the original draft of the Constitution didn't say self-evident. | ||
| It said like something like divine and inspired. | ||
| It was more religious in nature. | ||
| And because the Declaration was a statement of theology. | ||
| It was a Christian state. | ||
| It wasn't enlightenment. | ||
| You know, the other thing, too, I think one of the big debates, there's kind of this new populism on the right. | ||
| It's more, I don't even know how to describe it. | ||
| It's more focused on people. | ||
| It's a little more animal, a little more real. | ||
| Whereas you kind of have the pie in the sky conservatives that are all like law and these abstract principles, right? | ||
| And so there's, I think there's a middle ground there where both of these meet. | ||
| You know, for example, we know that we were constituted, you know, our stock, the founding stock of America, was the same as the stock in Europe at the time, you know, but we still had to separate from Europe, and we did it with a document. | ||
| You know, we were the same people genetically, but we still had to separate them from them. | ||
| We had, because we had Europeans, Christian Europeans under a Christian tyrant living under tyranny and despotism in Great Britain. | ||
| And so it was that document that created that separation of one people from another. | ||
| There was one other point on the federalist versus anti-federalists, and it's the anti-federalist side. | ||
| That if these rights are not written down, they will change and we will lose them. | ||
| And so considering they were different states and the views were all slightly different, they said, no, no, these have to be guaranteed. | ||
| Otherwise, 20 years from now, the federal government's going to say, no, you actually can't do that. | ||
| And so they wanted it written down. | ||
| You were right. | ||
| However, if we hadn't had those written down, they would have dissolved very quickly. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| Because people have been, those rights have been under attack since the founding. | ||
| I mean, for now under 50 years. | ||
| The main issue here is, one, to the offense of anybody who's not Christian, or I suppose that's not necessarily true, but this is a Christian nation, was founded as such. | ||
| And the issue is that the federal constitution did not proclaim this because each state had their own rules as to their own laws as to the Christianity. | ||
| Most notably, with Commonwealth View Massachusetts, Abner Nealand was specifically charged for denying Christ. | ||
| Each colony had a requirement that you profess a belief in a Christian God. | ||
| I believe Maryland was the only one. | ||
| Well, I think Virginia was because Thomas Jefferson, you just had to believe in God. | ||
| I believe it was a Christian God or of some sort. | ||
| But Maryland, because they were largely Catholic, allowed you to just say, if it's a Christian God, you're good. | ||
| But the states all basically said, if you don't believe in Christ, you cannot hold office. | ||
| And that is a Christian nation. | ||
| Now, the federal constitution avoided asserting a specific religion because then you get the Catholics in Maryland upset with the Protestants of Virginia. | ||
| And now, today, liberals argue the federal constitution never says God, never says Christianity. | ||
| And we have drifted from those moral traditions largely more and more over time. | ||
| So again, I appreciate the federal constitution. | ||
| I think it's great. | ||
| But I also think there's an issue with abandoning state constitutions and acting like they don't exist. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| No, I agree. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| Well, you know, federalism took a terrible blow in the Civil War. | ||
| And it's hard to argue for federalism from that standpoint now because then people will say you're arguing for slavery and all this stuff. | ||
| And that puts you in a bind. | ||
| But we do need kind of a reassertion of federalism. | ||
| I think we do need a reassertion of, you know, and this is kind of what can be fun about this discussion. | ||
| We have 250 years of history that we can look back on where we can say, like, there's precedent for this. | ||
| Like, you know, this isn't an un-American thing that we're proposing. | ||
| We can propose it from that standpoint, that we're not like, we're not coming in as like Christian nationalists from the outside here to subvert America and subvert the Constitution and turn America into our own thing. | ||
| We're talking about going back to, you know, what we were for the first, you know, 80 years of our existence. | ||
| And so. | ||
| Yeah, this is actually my problem with the term Christian nationalism. | ||
| I don't like it because I think it makes something novel out of what is just being an American. | ||
| We were already a Christian nation. | ||
| There's no need for a new term for it. | ||
| It's not new. | ||
| It's not novel. | ||
| We didn't, you know, Stephen Wolf didn't cook it up somewhere. | ||
| It's just the way that the United States has functioned. | ||
| But the problem, and this is a core issue, Joel, you have to address, right? | ||
| Republics are a very specific form of government. | ||
| It's not just people vote. | ||
| That's not what a republic is. | ||
| A republic is a gathering of self-governing people who live in a specific way and have enough virtue that they do not require a centralizing force to smooth over their differences because they don't have the level of discipline or cultural homogeneity to solve these problems. | ||
| Republics are regularly cited from everyone from Aristotle to Machiavelli as a place where the citizens specifically fight in the military. | ||
| That you can't have a standing army and have a republic. | ||
| And you know who said that? | ||
| The guys writing the Federalist Papers, who said very specifically, the reason that you're keeping the Second Amendment and the reason that you need to turn your militias over to the federal government is so that we don't have standing armies, because if we do, that's a danger to the sovereignty of the people and will eventually corrode the republic. | ||
| Republics can't span continents. | ||
| They can't be empires. | ||
| They can't scale to the way we've had. | ||
| And that's why it's so difficult to discuss the United States as a republic since the Civil War, because that's obviously a case of imperial expansion. | ||
| That's not self-governance. | ||
| And so you have the problem where we are not and have not been a republic for a very long time. | ||
| We in no way, shape, or form meet that definition. | ||
| And yet we continue to pretend that that's the case. | ||
| If you want to go back, okay, fine, but you have to make radical, radical changes to return to the form of a republic. | ||
| And frankly, I don't think anyone is comfortable limiting the franchise down to one person per household, making it only property owners, making sure only Christians can be elected officials, making sure that only people who have done military service could vote or be elected. | ||
| These are all. | ||
| I think you'd be surprised because we're at this place where in the conservative movement, all the gravity's out of the room. | ||
| We're not sure where anything is going to land. | ||
| People like Nick Fuentes are gaining traction no matter what crazy things they say. | ||
| I think it's an open ballgame for us to make bold assertions and bold proposals for how we can restore this republic. | ||
| I think the reason. | ||
| But it has to be in the context of a return, not an acceleration to a demise and a rebuilding. | ||
| A return to what? | ||
| Well, that's the debate. | ||
| And I think Christian nation. | ||
| I think we can have compromises on that. | ||
| I think with federalism, we can have a different, you know, we can have a patchwork of different ideas. | ||
| Here's what I see. | ||
| I think there's a reason why people like Nick Fuentes, largely Nick Fuentes, are growing an audience. | ||
| One, I do think it's fair to say that he's certainly moderated. | ||
| You know, years ago, he was saying shocking things for the sake of being the shocky, the shocking guy. | ||
| He got canceled and he went way off the deep end. | ||
| Now he's trying to pull it a little bit back down, though he does say things that are still, by many, you know, off the rails. | ||
| But he's aggressive. | ||
| And I think when you point out that this country has sort of let these things go, if Christianity had been stronger or the leaders in the 1950s had been more aggressive, none of this would be happening. | ||
| And so today you look at all the problems we face and there is something that is very clear. | ||
| demographics being destiny. | ||
| If you're a Christian nation and everyone's Christian, guess what? | ||
| You don't have that high a crime, right? | ||
| If everybody was of the same moral worldview as Charlie Kirk, you don't need police anymore. | ||
| No one's going to steal from each other. | ||
| They're going to help each other out. | ||
| You probably don't even need insurance companies because everyone will come and help build each other's home. | ||
| But you need these systems. | ||
| You need these laws as you start inviting in other cultures and moral worldviews to the point where in Dearborn, Michigan, you have a problem with female genital mutilation, which is normal to them. | ||
| Or you have Sharia patrols popping up in New York and these other places. | ||
| So then Nick Fuentes comes around and he says, to these young men, look at what these people have wrought. | ||
| They claimed to be for America. | ||
| They claimed to be Christian, but they invited in infidels, blasphemers, and those people have, for your worldview, destroyed the fabric of your nation. | ||
| We should reverse that. | ||
| And they say, he's correct. | ||
| So then, what is the solution? | ||
| I don't see that as, I mean, Nick Fuentes is not the first person to say that, though. | ||
| I mean, Rush Limbaugh was saying that in the 90s. | ||
| I mean, Rush Limbaugh was a populist. | ||
| He was talking about Chamber of Commerce conservatives who are married to the corporations, who are bringing in immigrants because they care more about the DAO and the GDP than they care about American citizens. | ||
| So this is nothing. | ||
| Like Nick Fuentes is, the problem is nothing new, and Nick Fuentes is not the first person to address it. | ||
| And Nick Fuentes, too, the thing that I've been warning about with him is that he just had this, there's this video going around now where he's calling for the America first right to unite with the left, give up the free market, and the left can give up on immigration so that we can have an ethnically homogenous country again that is also socialist. | ||
| Because he is an economic leftist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And I think he's always been. | ||
| I don't think. | ||
| And that is absolute slavery. | ||
| And that's the thing that I think MAGA has gotten away from it a little bit because we're so disillusioned with how capitalism has exploited people and corporations have gotten too big and powerful. | ||
| I understand all that. | ||
| But if we give our freedom, our economic freedom away to the government, I mean, that is become slaves. | ||
| Not if you have a Christian government of true Christian virtue. | ||
| This is the thing about demographics and destiny is that, as I mentioned, if everyone in this country had the moral worldview of Charlie Kirk, you'd need no police. | ||
| No one had a problem tithing back in the day. | ||
| It was something they look forward to doing. | ||
| In fact, it'd go to their church. | ||
| They tithe literally, what was that, 10% would go to the church, which was a communal effort. | ||
| And if this country was, I mean, this is utopian thinking, but let's just say, let's move off utopian state. | ||
| 95% legitimate Christian moral worldview, church going every Sunday. | ||
| When the politicians are all of the same moral virtue and they say, your money will go, there's no problem. | ||
| Everybody would be happy with it, and there'd be no dissent. | ||
| The problem is— I disagree. | ||
| And the reason is we can look at 18th century Europe. | ||
| Great Britain was Christian. | ||
| They had a Christian king. | ||
| Everyone there was Christian. | ||
| Most of the European countries were Christian or Catholic or Protestant. | ||
| There was still slavery. | ||
| There was still tyranny. | ||
| They were still all murdering and killing each other. | ||
| The lower class was still infected with syphilis and getting drunk and addicted to alcohol and gambling. | ||
| The problems were still there. | ||
| I think that's a statement not of Christian moral values, though. | ||
| I mean, you certainly wouldn't be suggesting that those people were true Christians. | ||
| Well, no, but that's the thing. | ||
| We're never going to have this magical scenario. | ||
| That's why I said it's you to everyone. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| My point is, the challenge is, will you ever actually have a nation of 300 million people that literally follow the teachings of Christ and go to church every weekend? | ||
| No. | ||
| No, no. | ||
| And that's why, you know, when it comes to our laws, our Constitution, the kind of the mission statements set out in the Declaration of Independence, even at the founding of the country, not everyone conformed to that. | ||
| Not everyone was a virtuous person. | ||
| Not everyone was a true Christian any more than, you know, I like to use this example. | ||
| When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, what happened? | ||
| Moses came down the mountain and the Israelites were all dancing around a golden calf committing horrific acts and idolatry. | ||
| So, you know, the fact that the Israelites failed to live up to the law of God in that moment did not make that law any less relevant or any less important that it be established and people be expected to live up to it. | ||
| These are transcendent moral truths. | ||
| And people are shaped by law and people are bound by law. | ||
| It's a circle. | ||
| People make the laws, but laws also make the people. | ||
| The principal point here with going back to Nick Fuentes, making his arguments for some kind of economic leftist policy, is he is saying, if you are of my faction and you see the world morally the way I do, you will be happy when we are in control of the finances of the degenerates. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And that's largely how Islam treats their countries, that if you are, in many of these Islamic nations, if you are not a Muslim, you have to pay a tax. | ||
| I forgot what it's called, but. | ||
| The jizya. | ||
| Is that what it's called? | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| So, you know, okay, we give you money because we don't believe what you believe, but they can then use that money as they see fit. | ||
| And it's all a lie. | ||
| I mean, we have the, bringing back Rush Limbaugh again. | ||
| Remember, he always used to tell the story of the first Thanksgiving, how the pilgrims came over, the Puritan white European pilgrims came over in their small community. | ||
| They tried socialism at first. | ||
| They tried, we're going to do communism. | ||
| It's all going to go in a community pot. | ||
| And the Christian Puritans, they got lazy and resentful and bitter towards each other, and they almost starved to death. | ||
| You know, that is socialism, even in a white, ethnically homogeneous culture. | ||
| But I think the point that Nick is either intentionally or inadvertently saying is, look at all of these people who are sick degenerates. | ||
| We're going to control a portion of their revenue towards our moralistic ends. | ||
| So imagine it more so with the Puritans coming over, bickering amongst themselves. | ||
| Sure, but what if they all came together and said, no, Amongst ourselves, we do as we please, but we're going to take all of the extra resources from those around us to our ends. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So I don't know anything about Nick Fuentes' financial ideology. | ||
| Like, I literally have absolutely no idea. | ||
| But going off of what you guys said, obviously, I don't think we should be uniting with the left over this. | ||
| However, the question, and this is always the problem with looking at Fuentes, same thing's happening with Mamdani, right? | ||
| All these people, how could you follow Mamdani? | ||
| How could you believe in this socialism? | ||
| How could you follow Nick Fuentes? | ||
| How could you believe in these things? | ||
| Well, obviously because what we are doing right now is not working. | ||
| Now, you could say what we're doing right now is not real capitalism and it's got all these other issues. | ||
| And yeah, absolutely, I'm here with you. | ||
| Or because people are suckers for snake oil, too. | ||
| I think there's a little bit of a problem. | ||
| But just to interject. | ||
| I don't want to quite get to the point. | ||
| Sorry. | ||
| Don't forget what you're about to say. | ||
| I just want to add on the Mamdani thing. | ||
| It's exactly as I described. | ||
| Mamdani says, vote for me and I will steal from them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Yep. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| So so for so the underlying question is not, are people embracing socialism? | ||
| I don't think they actually are. | ||
| Momdani got elected because a bunch of third worlders got moved into New York. | ||
| He got, he's, the people voting for him are either the most radical liberal white people or immigrants who came to New York. | ||
| But I will stress that point. | ||
| These white liberal college 30, you know, former like college debt 35 year olds, they're voting for Mamdani, not for socialism. | ||
| They're voting because they say, I can't afford a house and boomers have three and Mamdani is going to take their stuff and give it to me. | ||
| Right. | ||
| We don't care what his ideology is. | ||
| Just let's go to war, baby. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Is Islam socialism? | ||
| It's the ideology of give me the stuff. | ||
| I am here. | ||
| You have the stuff. | ||
| Give me the stuff. | ||
| Trying to give it some kind of Marxist academic, you know, like, no, they don't care. | ||
| Like, they're not sitting there flipping through Das Capital and being, this is the reference point. | ||
| No, you have stuff and the system's not working for me right now. | ||
| So give me the stuff. | ||
| The same thing with Fuentes. | ||
| You have a scenario where whether you agree with a lot of what he says, which I don't, but whether you agree with it or not, what he's addressing is a crowd of people who have been destroyed. | ||
| They have seen the system fail for them. | ||
| And all conservatives do is turn to them and say, well, I guess you better pick yourself up by your bootstraps, figure it out, you know, buck up buttercup. | ||
| And don't get me wrong, tough love is important, especially young men. | ||
| You do have to work hard. | ||
| You can't sit there and expect everyone to give it to you. | ||
| You do have to have the work ethic. | ||
| But when they see a situation where corporations are buying up homes, make it impossible for people to get into them, where illegals are coming in, taking the job, H-1Bs are replacing American workers, where especially white American men find it impossible to get into colleges because they are specifically illegally discriminated against. | ||
| When they see all of these things happen and Conservative Inc. has no answers for them, zero. | ||
| Do you really think that though? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| If they had answers, we wouldn't be here, Joel. | ||
| These people have been in charge of the movement for 30, 40 years. | ||
| All of these problems are still, we just got to the point where we're allowed to acknowledge anti-white discrimination like three years ago, where a conservative would come out and say that and say, actually, we need to take action against that. | ||
| That just happened. | ||
| So if we had a successful conservative movement for 30 years, why did we just start talking about this issue? | ||
| And if you pretend like we had an effective conservative movement, then you're just fooling yourself. | ||
| You're doing yourself, I get it, you don't want people following Nick Fuentes, me neither. | ||
| But you have to be honest about where the conservative movement is and what it's done. | ||
| Because if you are not, these people will leave you for him every single time. | ||
| I also want to stress a very, very important issue as it comes to politics that people don't seem to keep in the front of their minds. | ||
| Nick Fuentes' audience is not going to change. | ||
| These are young people. | ||
| As they were growing up, they saw something. | ||
| Nick made several statements about what he was seeing and what his proposals were. | ||
| And young people followed him as he was in their peer group. | ||
| When we look at the shifting demographics, people often assume that there's some 35-year-old guy who is a laissez-faire capitalist who one day woke up, read Dust Capitol, and said, I got to be a socialist. | ||
| When in reality, that 35-year-old guy, 10 years later, is still the exact same guy he always was. | ||
| His views have shifted very little. | ||
| And the 10-year-old is now 20, and he was raised from the age of 10 to be a socialist at the age of 20. | ||
| This is why Charlie Kirk fought so hard for high schools and colleges with turning point because he knew you've got to introduce him to these ideas at a young age. | ||
| Now, how old is Nick? | ||
| He's late 20s. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know. | |
| I don't know how old he is. | ||
| 27? | ||
| There's going to be Gen Z is about to turn 30. | ||
| This debate is not going to change their minds because they have 20 years of education, knowledge, and interpretation of history and political facts. | ||
| The question now is, how are you going to convince Gen Alpha, which is only 42 million, to believe in what you are saying? | ||
| specifically what what what are you my point is the change that is coming with nick and whoever else is they're they're It's going to happen no matter what. | ||
| You can't change it. | ||
| It can't be stopped. | ||
| This change was set in motion 10 years ago. | ||
| And it's really fascinating to think, actually, 10 years ago, Donald Trump walking down the escalator, right? | ||
| Not that, how old are you, Joel? | ||
| 39. | ||
| 39? | ||
| 41. | ||
| 41? | ||
| I'm also 39. | ||
| We're in our late 20s watching all that go down. | ||
| And now it's kind of crazy to see that people in our age group, as naturally as it is, start taking over positions of power, start coming into corporate positions. | ||
| And we see this even with wokeness. | ||
| Boomers have a very similar ideology to each other. | ||
| This was true in the 90s. | ||
| The arguments between them was very light. | ||
| And that's why a lot of boomers left the Republican Party and became Democrats. | ||
| And we now see these old neocons, crouching and neocons, are basically Democrats at this point because they always had this very similar view. | ||
| And it's largely a pro-Israel view. | ||
| As you get younger, it starts splitting more and more and more. | ||
| The important distinction right now is we can certainly talk about the politics we want to be in place. | ||
| But the conversation we're having is how are we going to create a unified message for Generation Alpha, who are about 15 years old? | ||
| So in three years, when Gen Alpha starts voting, which is pretty crazy, they're going to largely agree with what we want. | ||
| Okay, so I think I laid it out at the very beginning, my little diatribe here. | ||
| I laid out kind of all the problems that I don't think I left much out. | ||
| I mean, I addressed pretty much everything that Nick Fuentes has been addressing, right? | ||
| Cost of living, the disenfranchisement of young white men, all this stuff. | ||
| You know, Charlie was a great example for us. | ||
| And, you know, he was always going back to and pointing people to Christ and the gospel. | ||
| That's our way out of this. | ||
| And I think we saw like a beautiful glimpse of it at his funeral service. | ||
| We saw forgiveness. | ||
| We saw worship. | ||
| We saw devotion. | ||
| We saw hope. | ||
| We saw boldness in speaking the truth from a national stage. | ||
| The answer to all of this is not in the right tactics, seizing the right halls of power. | ||
| It has to be a ground up spiritual revival. | ||
| And that's something that you can't manufacture, which is what makes this answer so hard. | ||
| Well, yes and no, right? | ||
| Like, so at some level, the football team wins because it is a bunch of guys supporting each other, sharing the same goal, working together, right? | ||
| Like they have to have that. | ||
| They have to have that baseline understanding those shared values. | ||
| But at some point, there is a mechanical way in which the football team wins. | ||
| There is actually a specific set of steps that are tactically correct, strategically correct, need to be applied. | ||
| You need to understand the mechanisms of how the game works and where your advantages are. | ||
| You need both. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| But you can't sit there and say, it's just this. | ||
| Now, don't get me wrong. | ||
| Christ above all, right? | ||
| Like ultimately, Christ is the answer to everything. | ||
| We're going to agree on that all day long. | ||
| But at some point, Christ has us doing things, right? | ||
| Like Christ may bless your mission, but then you've got to go build the thing and do the thing, right? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And that was the, there's a great debate between David French and Eric Metaxas. | ||
| Exactly on this issue because David French, one of the reasons he lost his way is because he kind of had his Christian faith that he wanted to keep in this like pristine little case in this ivory tower untarnished and untainted by the filth of the world. | ||
| And Eric Metaxas is like, no, we are Christians. | ||
| We need to live in the world and we need to apply our Christianity in politics. | ||
| every way we can. | ||
| That was the big divide over Donald Trump. | ||
| Could Christians support Donald Trump? | ||
| And I voted for Donald Trump all three times and it was a compromise as a Christian. | ||
| I was making a calculation that I was voting for a guy that maybe had some questionable morals and I didn't agree with on everything. | ||
| But it was my responsibility as a Christian to vote for him because of the alternatives and because of what he represented. | ||
| And we're still having this debate on the right. | ||
| But I think what concerns me a little bit about what I see in your approach, Arin, is it, you know, and maybe this is just perception for me because we're all online and we all just see what we put online. | ||
| You know, your emphasis on guys like Schmidt, Machiavelli, Land, Yarvin, these guys, the overemphasis on kind of like the nihilistic tactics, the real politique at the expense of spiritual reality, I get it. | ||
| I see the use for it, but I think it's just, it's imbalanced. | ||
| You know, I understand scripture is not a political textbook, but I think that as Christians, scripture should be at the center of everything. | ||
| We should be citing it. | ||
| We should be looking to it all the time. | ||
| And I think it has some incredible wisdom for us in how we conduct politics. | ||
| But I'm going to try and understand what you're saying. | ||
| Is the argument that Oren's view is more based on the application of power from groups willing to enforce their worldview versus the truth that should just be? | ||
| Yeah, well, so it's almost like Lord of the Rings versus Game of Thrones. | ||
| You know, Lord of the Rings, there is our deities, there's transcendent moral truth, there's kind of a cosmic reality above it all. | ||
| Game of Thrones is just germs in a petri disk fighting it out. | ||
| You know, it's just animals. | ||
| Well, I view them both very, very similar. | ||
| I mean, obviously, they're fighting it out. | ||
| But the question is, what reality do we actually live in? | ||
| So real politik is not actual reality because in reality, God exists and objective moral truth exists. | ||
| And we have to account for that and acknowledge that everywhere we go and in everything we do, especially as Christians. | ||
| And the prime example of this, the big failure that I've seen on the right in tactics and morals has been this no enemies to the right thing that has become such a big part of the conversation over the last couple of years. | ||
| You know, Charles Haywood kind of coined this term, no enemies to the right. | ||
| And the idea being, you know, for the sake of tactics, for the sake of uniting against the left, we need to hold our peace when it comes to calling out evil or wickedness or bad ideas on the right. | ||
| And, you know, and after we defeat the left, we can have these conversations. | ||
| It's all good. | ||
| But we need to keep our mouths shut, no enemies to the right. | ||
| And what it did and what I saw over the next couple years is that if you follow that all the way down, for one, it's very nihilist. | ||
| It can almost turn you into this kind of twisted moral monster. | ||
| And it's the exact same thing that Marxists do. | ||
| So Marxists have, they look at everything in terms of oppressed versus oppressor. | ||
| And so what they end up doing, and you see it all the time, is if wickedness is done by someone who is oppressed, they will defend that wickedness because it's coming from someone who's oppressed. | ||
| And the same thing on the right. | ||
| If we have no enemies to the right, what you end up seeing all the time is someone defending wickedness because it's coming from someone who is on the right, who's supposed to be a friend. | ||
| Will you condemn James Lindsay? | ||
| For what? | ||
| For no enemies to the right. | ||
| Well, he's certainly at odds with your moral worldview, destructive to its ends, and aligning with him has caused you problems. | ||
| Will you speak out? | ||
| Will you say this guy is bad? | ||
| We should not be working with him. | ||
| We should be, first of all, he's not a Christian. | ||
| He's a polyamorous liberal who has been putting out false arguments to make your argument fall apart. | ||
| And I think, not you personally, but I have seen this faction of individuals intentionally align with him because it grants them power and they want to use it. | ||
| Well, I'll tell you what I think. | ||
| Well, James Lindsay has shot himself in the foot a little bit with this kind of over application of the woke right term. | ||
| Yeah, I think once he started calling Orthodox pro-Israel Jews woke right, it well, let me jump the sharks. | ||
| Hold on, I guess I want to finish my train of thought with him because at a core level, I do appreciate what he's doing, even though he shoots himself in the foot and he's really good at making enemies. | ||
| He is a freedom-first guy. | ||
| He cares about preserving freedom, and so do I. When it comes to his faith, he's not an atheist anymore. | ||
| He's at least agnostic, and I'm praying for his conversion. | ||
| He's been reading the Bible a lot, and he's been, I won't say any more about him because I don't know. | ||
| But this is one thing I'll say. | ||
| The last time I was with James Lindsey, it was at a libertarian convention, you know, a bunch of godless libertarians. | ||
| No offense. | ||
| Not a libertarian. | ||
| And at one point, he had done his presentation. | ||
| Someone asked a question during the QA, like, how do we save this country? | ||
| And he said, the only way I see for us to save this country is for you to get back into your Bible, find a church, and go to church and pray earnestly for our country. | ||
| And he wasn't pandering. | ||
| This wasn't a crowd of evangelicals, so he wasn't pandering. | ||
| He was talking to a bunch of, you know, godless libertarians. | ||
| And so my point is, I don't agree with Lindsay on everything, obviously, but I will unite with a guy who tells people that our hope is scripture, church, and prayer. | ||
| So does Nick. | ||
| Over a professed Christian who says, you know, Hitler was cool. | ||
| 15 year olds or all the nasty stuff that Nick Fuentes has said or a professed Christian I reject this James Lindsay is the other side of the coin for Nick Fuentes in this argument. | ||
| You are overlooking the things he does that is destructive to you because he said things that benefits you. | ||
| And there are many people who would say similarly of Nick, perhaps Tucker Carlson. | ||
| I don't want to put words in his mouth. | ||
| But while certainly Nick has said a bunch of abhorrent things, like you mentioned, saying, you know, Hitler, Stalin, all these guys, there are a lot of people saying, no enemies to the right. | ||
| Well, at least he is a Christian, and at least he is espousing that message. | ||
| He's not a Christian. | ||
| And young men are following it. | ||
| Neither is James Lindsay, but you would be willing to unite with a guy. | ||
| It's like there's some kind of friend-enemy distinction. | ||
| Political coalitions. | ||
| Look, so that's the other. | ||
| I mean, I want to make this one important point on the issue I take with, I see these, I don't know how you want to describe the faction of people that are more in your camp. | ||
| I believe James Lindsay opposes your worldview and is trying to destroy it. | ||
| I believe that his belief is trying to destroy Christianity. | ||
| And conservatism. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| This is a man whose entire body of work is infiltrating groups and presenting arguments that make them look retarded. | ||
| And he is doing that to you right now. | ||
| And you're going along with it because there is some benefit you received. | ||
| So ignoring all of the destructive things he's done, he's cost you allies. | ||
| He's created enemies and he's dismantled your own arguments, which is literally what he's done on the left now to you. | ||
| And you're like, well, but you know, he said some things that are beneficial to me, so I'll keep it. | ||
| What, you know, and maybe I'm just naive, but I see someone who is who is standing up for what he believes in at great cost to himself. | ||
| He's kind of lost everything. | ||
| You're saying no enemies to the right in the exact same way. | ||
| How do you mean? | ||
| argument, no enemies are the right, means people who are aligned with us enough, we should not attack. | ||
| And you're saying this of James Lindsay, who is the antithesis and has exhibited, I'm going to say this bare point again, because it's fascinating to me, when I, when, I was talking with Scott Horton about this and I said, oh, James Lindsay hates Israel. | ||
| And he was like, what are you talking about? | ||
| He defends it all the time. | ||
| And I'm like, you just tweeted that he was your secret agent helping you dismantle this argument pro-Israel. | ||
| James Lindsay goes to the left, makes and presents false arguments that they utilize and look like idiots. | ||
| He is quite literally, as a liberal, polyamorous guy, doing the same thing to you, but you're falling for it the same way leftist academics did. | ||
| He's never been a conservative. | ||
| He's never liked the Marxists. | ||
| He wants traditional social liberalism and he's attacking the enemies of it to the point where he said, I should be the leader. | ||
| And our true enemy is national conservatism. | ||
| And he is called that my favorite example, Mary Morgan, woke right. | ||
| Mary is a pop culture commentator that works here at Timcast. | ||
| She does a show about video games, movies, and actresses. | ||
| And even she's woke right. | ||
| He has made you look like fools over and over again. | ||
| Now, I know he's not saying that he likes Hitler or anything like that, but the absurdity of his comments is destructive to your political ends and you can't see it. | ||
| When I see someone say no enemies to the right and they're willing to align with Fuentes, I see in a different way, very similarly to your willingness to align with James Lindsay. | ||
| I've heard that before. | ||
| I think I'm not a subscriber of no enemies to the right. | ||
| I think that I will unite with people. | ||
| Dave Rubman is another example that always gets brought up. | ||
| He's gay and he bought surrogate babies. | ||
| You're a Christian. | ||
| How could you unite with this guy? | ||
| I don't know Dave Rubin. | ||
| I've never done anything with him. | ||
| And you've talked about this too, Arn. | ||
| We choose our friends, allies, and co-belligerents differently. | ||
| Sometimes we have co-belligerents that we don't agree with on everything. | ||
| But politically, they are kind of on our side for what we're pushing for politically. | ||
| James Lindsay, I see as someone who is calling out an anti-liberty, a growing anti-liberty movement on the right. | ||
| He called it out when it was on the left. | ||
| But he's not. | ||
| And again, this is the point. | ||
| Sorry to interrupt, but he called me a Marxist plant. | ||
| He tweeted at Carl Benjamin, it's not my job to educate you. | ||
| His modus operandi has always been infiltrate. | ||
| At some point, you have to care. | ||
| Like, you can't just pretend like, oh, it's fine. | ||
| And really, honestly, this is the most boring topic ever. | ||
| Like, James isn't here to defend himself, and I don't want to spend a ton of time going on about it. | ||
| I agree with what you're saying, but like, it's just the most. | ||
| My final point on this is largely just, again, I agree. | ||
| We don't need to talk about some guy. | ||
| But if there's a subject matter in this debate of Nick Fuentes as a particular individual, there are other elements of I am willing to defend abhorrent people who are destructive if it suits my ends. | ||
| Yeah, you can't pretend that it's all on one side. | ||
| And again, Nick Fuentes has lied about me maliciously. | ||
| I have no love for Nick Fuentes at all. | ||
| But we just can't pretend like the bad behavior is one direction. | ||
| But again, this really gets back to the original. | ||
| So do you guys actually put James Lindsay on the same plane as Nick Fuentes in terms of how loathsome and wicked they are? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Of course, it will depend on the issue. | ||
| So for instance, how bad is buying children from their mother? | ||
| James Lindsay didn't do that. | ||
| I know, but since you brought up Dave Rubin, where does that, on the scale of moral, is that above a Nick Fuentes being a majority of the people? | ||
| It's wicked and it should be outlawed. | ||
| No, but it has to be placed. | ||
| So if we're placing it, is it Nick? | ||
| Nick Fuentes is saying bad things. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Dave Rubin is separating children from their mother. | ||
| Which one is worse? | ||
| Or money. | ||
| So again, again, I draw a line between how someone conducts themselves in their life, in their personal life, versus what they're saying and the messages that they're promoting. | ||
| So for I don't promote, I don't defend Trump in his adultery and the things that he's done in his private life. | ||
| I support him because of the policies that he. | ||
| So let's approaching it that way. | ||
| Dave Rubin has advocated for it. | ||
| He has published his intention to do so. | ||
| He has published photos of him doing so. | ||
| So he is speaking to his millions of followers saying, I have paid a woman to birth children that I now have control over. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And I condemn that. | ||
| Is that worse than that? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Can you work with him? | ||
| What's that? | ||
| Could you work with him? | ||
| Could you be allies with him? | ||
| Knowing that he's done that and pretending that that's bad. | ||
| Again, I'm choosing. | ||
| Pretending. | ||
| No, I mean, I think it's bad, but I'm saying pretending that we care, if we're, well, we care when people do bad things and we can't ally. | ||
| If I ever see him in public saying, you know, advocating for gay adoption surrogacy, I will go after him as every bit as hard and obnoxiously as I go after everybody else. | ||
| So I haven't seen him publicly promoting that except for the one. | ||
| Let's try this. | ||
| What actions has Nick taken that you would put in a similar camp of the purchase of children? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't know what he does as his personality. | ||
| Has Dave Rubin advocated for things? | ||
| I mean, so the surrogacy is something he has advocated, published, and shown that he has done. | ||
| And so that is part of his advocacy, as well as advocate for it. | ||
| Dave posted photos and posted that one photo announcing it, but I haven't seen him advocating for it as a matter of public policy. | ||
| I don't have interpreted that other than advocation. | ||
| And also, but also more importantly, gay marriage. | ||
| And I want to stress, I'm not trying to roast Dave or anything like that. | ||
| I like Dave. | ||
| Dave's a good dude. | ||
| But I understand there are moral questions. | ||
| So again, are you putting Dave Rubin, James Lindsay? | ||
| I'm trying to figure out where your line is for alliance. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| So when it comes to alliance politically, I'm willing to ally with people who care about freedom, who will fight for the freedom of me and my wife and my kids and for future generations. | ||
| Do you think I don't want economic slavery? | ||
| I don't want social slavery. | ||
| I want America to remain free and I want me and my kids to remain free. | ||
| Do you think Nick Fuentes is evil? | ||
| We're all evil. | ||
| I mean, we're all sinners. | ||
| We all fight for the glory of God. | ||
| When you look at someone like Jasmine Crowe. | ||
| I think that what he is advocating for is particularly and uniquely evil. | ||
| And yes, I think he's part of a very evil movement. | ||
| Can you quantify specifically? | ||
| I'm not trying to put you on the spot. | ||
| I'm just to understand your view of what he's advocating for. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I think that he is, I think he's a nihilist. | ||
| I think he is advocating for racial hatred. | ||
| I think he is dividing the conservative movement, destroying it from within. | ||
| I think that what he represents is a really, I mean, I know he claims Christianity. | ||
| He's not a Christian. | ||
| He's a pagan. | ||
| So he represents a post-Christian new pagan right that, like Romans 1, worships the creature over the creator, that worships the forces of nature. | ||
| So why do you believe that? | ||
| Like, what has he said? | ||
| Because that's the antithesis of what he's said. | ||
| And you don't have to take his word for it, but there's a few things that I think are interesting. | ||
| One, again, like— I look at his fruit. | ||
| I don't care what he says. | ||
| I don't care what anybody says. | ||
| I look at one of his most viral videos. | ||
| Jesus and Matthew 11. | ||
| Jesus and Matthew. | ||
| You said the opposite. | ||
| You said that it matters. | ||
| You don't care what they do in their personal life. | ||
| You care what they espouse. | ||
| No, I'm talking about in terms of whether or not I think he's a Christian. | ||
| That's what we're talking about. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Not whether I'll ally with him. | ||
| He said racism is low IQ. | ||
| He has a very viral video that got like 50 million views where he flips. | ||
| He flips his opinions all the time. | ||
| He's a shovel on shock. | ||
| Why are you total nihilists? | ||
| That's the real problem, though. | ||
| Why are you taking him seriously if you think that's okay? | ||
| I'm with you. | ||
| Like, I think ultimately because he has an ideology. | ||
| Because he represents a growing movement on the right that is increasingly despairing, sees no hope for renewal or return, and just wants to burn it all down. | ||
| And just like the left. | ||
| I'm not better. | ||
| And this is the point I'm trying to get to. | ||
| One thing that James Lindsay always says, you know, that I think is a great saying, I don't know where it comes from. | ||
| Maybe you guys can tell me because you're more well-read. | ||
| The issue is never the issue. | ||
| The issue is always the revolution. | ||
| And the one thing that the far left and the far right is united around right now is the destruction of the American Republic. | ||
| They want to destroy it. | ||
| We already talked about how to do it. | ||
| Hold on. | ||
| Sorry, guys. | ||
| I'm sorry to interrupt you. | ||
| For 70 years, the United States has been operating under what's called the liberal economic order that you seek to topple. | ||
| You are advocating for a revolution from that system. | ||
| Are you talking about like the post-war order? | ||
| The CFR calls it the liberal economic order, the establishment of the World Bank, the IMF, international. | ||
| Unless you're actually in favor of us sending $250 billion to Ukraine and invading the Middle East and nation building in Korea and Afghanistan. | ||
| And if that's true, then I stand corrected. | ||
| No, sorry, what are you asking? | ||
| The general movement behind Trump opposes the liberal economic order, which would be open borders, free trade. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| So you are seeking a revolution from a 70-year-old system that's been established internationally. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So when you look at what Nick is advocating for and he says these structures of power must be changed or the left saying these structures, you too are calling for a revolution against the current world order. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So yes, there is again, there's a balance there. | ||
| I think Chesterton, there's something that Chesterton says that I really like. | ||
| The reason conservatism always fails is because if you were to stand in front of a white fence post in a field and you're standing in front of it to guard it, entropy is happening behind you. | ||
| And that eventually over the years, that fence post is going to turn black, right? | ||
| And so in order to maintain a white fence post, you always have to be repainting it. | ||
| In other words, you always have to be having a new revolution, right? | ||
| We have this in Christianity. | ||
| We had the Protestant Reformation. | ||
| There are always these soft revolutions that happen where things need to be undone, things need to be torn down, things need to be renewed. | ||
| The question is, are you just wanting to destroy everything for the sake of your nihilistic thirst for destruction? | ||
| Or are you trying to renew? | ||
| Let's advance beyond talking about Nick for a half an hour, right? | ||
| But there's also Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson that have now found themselves entrenched in this. | ||
| I'm going to go right for the Babylon B when you guys had a satirical article that said, out of abundance of caution, Megan Kelly throws away her beeper. | ||
| It was deleted. | ||
| I made the point that I thought it was deleted because it was more offensive to Israel than Megan Kelly, as it stated in the article. | ||
| people didn't get that yeah they got mad at me uh uh you know anakis berrien said i was simping for israel and that's just like wait wait hold on the uh and then i had a lot of pro-israel people say no the joke is that she's paranoid well i'll point out the final line in the article was that her garbage can exploded the joke was quite literally that israel tried to murder megan kelly whether that's intention or otherwise yeah and uh but you guys deleted it What is what is the view of Megan Kelly in this regard and Tucker Carlson? | ||
| Are they also nihilistic like Nick? | ||
| Are they just grifting? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I can't claim to see in either of their hearts or what they're doing. | ||
| I tend to be very earnest and sincere with what I'm doing. | ||
| And so I just can't relate to anybody who changes their positions for money or based on who's paying them. | ||
| I'm not saying that's them. | ||
| I tend to kind of give them the benefit of the doubt. | ||
| People change their opinions. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| When it comes to Megan Kelly in the joke, I wouldn't read too much into it. | ||
| I was off that week. | ||
| I was at a funeral, so I didn't even write the joke. | ||
| I didn't even know what had gone up. | ||
| And we're just trying to find amusing things and joke about them. | ||
| It was a joke about, all our jokes have multiple layers. | ||
| It was a joke about Megan Kelly being a little paranoid, talking about how if Mark Levin doesn't shut up, someone's going to kill her. | ||
| And Israel, we joke about Israel. | ||
| People say, why don't you tell jokes about the dude? | ||
| We joke about Israel sometimes. | ||
| And, you know, I'm not going to say whether or not it should have been deleted or not. | ||
| It shouldn't have been. | ||
| It's a shame that it was. | ||
| But I think the thing that I go after you about sometimes, Arin, is I feel like, and this just might be a function of how online conversation can be. | ||
| Sometimes we get a little bit hysterical. | ||
| But the way you replied to Megan in that joke saying it's not that simple. | ||
| They want you dead. | ||
| I thought that was kind of a wicked thing. | ||
| We have no ill will towards Megan. | ||
| We obviously don't want her dead. | ||
| That's the other thing that has come in. | ||
| We're talking about political tactics here. | ||
| When people went after Tucker for interviewing Fuentes and they called Fuentes a Nazi, a lot of people on the right, I don't know if this was coordinated or people just started copying each other, but the line ended up being, Charlie was killed because they called him a fascist. | ||
| If you call anyone a fascist, including Nick Fuentes, you're trying to get somebody killed. | ||
| You're calling for their assassination. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I just thought that was a good idea. | ||
| I think Ted Cruz is right about that. | ||
| I thought that was so wicked and cynical. | ||
| No, Ted Cruz was talking about people who lie about someone being a fascist or lie about someone being a Nazi. | ||
| That's what the left does. | ||
| So I wasn't talking about calling an actual Nazi a Nazi. | ||
| Do you think that the left doesn't think that you're a Nazi? | ||
| Of course they do. | ||
| Oh, I have a question. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| This is important here. | ||
| This is super important. | ||
| So you just said that actually it's about the lying. | ||
| That's the problem. | ||
| Except they're not lying. | ||
| They're saying the truth, that you're a Nazi. | ||
| They really believe that. | ||
| That's not a lie. | ||
| And so when you run around calling other people Nazis and you have zero self-reflection on the cost that that has, that's a huge problem. | ||
| I 100% believe that Charlie Kirk was killed because people believed he was a fascist. | ||
| And I know that because it was written on the magazine of the guy who was shooting at you. | ||
| He was killed because he preached a biblical definition of male and female. | ||
| Again, it was a trans furry that killed him. | ||
| Again, you can pretend. | ||
| The boyfriend of a transfer. | ||
| You can pretend. | ||
| Allegedly. | ||
| You can pretend that he did not write his motivation directly on the gun, but he did. | ||
| So we don't have to guess. | ||
| Okay, so then are we all tongue-tied now? | ||
| We are never allowed to call an actual Nazi answer. | ||
| I have an important question in a moment where you literally know that this kind of language is spurring political violence. | ||
| You might for a moment think about the way in which you address it. | ||
| I have some questions. | ||
| Do you believe that if someone is accused of being a Nazi, that these leftists, there will be a murderous intent towards that person? | ||
| Not necessarily. | ||
| But possibly, yes. | ||
| Again, I'm a little nuanced on this because I don't think the left will come after people like Nick Fuentes, honestly. | ||
| Darkness is darkness when they're not. | ||
| But hold on. | ||
| That's already happened. | ||
| They've gone to his house. | ||
| They banged on his door. | ||
| He got arrested over Seth Dylan, too. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Indeed. | ||
| Oh, they wouldn't do it. | ||
| Wait, wait, switch. | ||
| This is an important distinction. | ||
| I believe it is a fact that the left believes people on the right are Nazis. | ||
| They say kill Nazis. | ||
| They said punch a Nazi went viral. | ||
| They showed the Covington kid being depicted in being thrown to a wood chipper. | ||
| So we know that there is a certain degree of murderous intent that exists on the left. | ||
| And the calling of someone a Nazi falsely is intended to mark them as an enemy of the faction. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| So we know it is a possibility that if someone is branded a Nazi, the left may seek to harm them and have in several instances. | ||
| If there is a person who is a literal Nazi dressing up like Hitler and preaching on the street corner, should that person be killed? | ||
| No. | ||
| So the issue I see here is it doesn't matter if Nick is or isn't a Nazi or Ted Cruz was saying falsely or literally. | ||
| The point is, if we're in a country, in a culture where a large faction of people will murder you for being accused of being a Nazi, then whether you are or aren't isn't what matters. | ||
| What matters is you've been targeted for death. | ||
| I don't think our ability to speak truth about a situation should depend on the current political climate or the possible ramifications of you speaking truth. | ||
| You should just speak truth. | ||
| Agreed. | ||
| And so the point is, as the point Arn was making is when people come out and say calling someone a fascist is basically saying kill him or it's marking for the left. | ||
| I don't agree with that. | ||
| Well, you really marking of anyone for death. | ||
| It obviously is. | ||
| And you can tell because as soon as Charlie Kirk was dead, every one of the people celebrating his death, guess what they kept saying? | ||
| Shot the fascists, killed the fascists. | ||
| The fascists deserve to die. | ||
| Even the people. | ||
| They were singing Belichow. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| And even after, even the moderate leftists who waited a few days eventually came back and started doing the backfill and saying, well, I would have never called for Charlie Kirk's death, but obviously he had it coming because he was a fascist, right? | ||
| So you can't have the left layout piece by piece exactly how they are justifying the murder of people and then being like, well, that's not how that works. | ||
| Look, you're doing the whole stochastic terrorism thing. | ||
| That was the line that the left brought about. | ||
| The whole words are violence. | ||
| I'm not going to make a political calculation of what might happen and who might do what if I speak the truth. | ||
| This is just going to speak the truth. | ||
| That's a great point. | ||
| And my line was met when after the murder of Charlie Kirk, the death threats reached such a level and such a clever way of bypassing law. | ||
| I said, enough. | ||
| I'm not playing this game anymore. | ||
| Now, by all means, people have pointed out the left made the argument of stochastic terrorism, effectively, oh, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest? | ||
| And then someone goes and does it. | ||
| I refer to this phenomenon that we're seeing now, the tweedle dee tweed-dumb death threat. | ||
| You cannot express an intent that I will go do this thing to this person. | ||
| That's an imminent threat. | ||
| You get arrested. | ||
| You also can't instruct someone else to do it. | ||
| You go do this thing to that person. | ||
| What they've done now, exploiting the law, and we're seeing Democrats do it to the highest level, is I standing next to Oren McIntyre says Anybody who writes claims about Megan Kelly should die for what they've done. | ||
| Then Oren looks at you and goes, he wrote a false claim about Megan Kelly. | ||
| Neither one of us have made an actionable statement. | ||
| But to anybody standing by, those two phrases together are an instruction to murder you. | ||
| This is what the left has been doing now for years. | ||
| Andy No is a fascist. | ||
| Then someone else says, all fascists must die. | ||
| Then they go and see him in the street and try and murder him. | ||
| Then when you try to arrest them, they say, my statement was free speech because I sent it, I said only half the sentence. | ||
| We cannot function as a society this way if the left is knowingly exploiting the law. | ||
| And a more extreme example: Democrats for months now have been falsely claiming that Donald Trump's military orders are illegal. | ||
| Then they come out in this video and say, defy illegal orders. | ||
| They then say both of those individual statements are free speech. | ||
| If you were to take all of their statements and put them together in one edit, if they said it in one 10-second statement, they'd be committing sedition. | ||
| We cannot operate in this country if people are allowed to say one thing and then their neighbor says the other. | ||
| We know what the intention is and then pretend like, oh, rats. | ||
| The failure to understand that your politics have become existential is by definition fatal. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So when you enter in a scenario where what I would like, what you and I think Joel would both like is a republic where we can talk out our minor disagreements over Christian theology while living in a land that is ultimately governed by the law of Christ. | ||
| That would be fantastic. | ||
| But once you get so far apart, once you have people who believe a radically different thing and would be willing to kill you over it, debate is no longer the primary way by which you understand politics. | ||
| And this is critical. | ||
| I would like to avoid violence. | ||
| I would like to avoid violence. | ||
| But to do so, we have to understand that there are forces inside the United States that are and will not stop until they can kill you and your children. | ||
| This is important. | ||
| That is what makes this fight so unfair. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Because we are, our enemy is a by any means necessary enemy. | ||
| They only want power. | ||
| They'll do whatever it takes to achieve it. | ||
| And here we are on our side as Christians. | ||
| I'm a Christian. | ||
| We have rules. | ||
| We have morals. | ||
| We have things that we can't do. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I think that we should do whatever it takes, you know, tactically and otherwise, to win, short of violating scripture. | ||
| And that's what makes the fight unfair. | ||
| But here's the thing: here's where faith comes in as a Christian. | ||
| We believe in a God who rules the universe, who is on the throne, who used Gideon's 300 men to defeat an army of thousands, who used David to defeat a giant, who says, trust not in horses and chariots, but trust in the name of the Lord, not by might, not by power, not by strength, but by my spirit, says the Lord. | ||
| It is an asymmetrical fight. | ||
| There are certain things that we can't do as Christians. | ||
| This is also very important. | ||
| When speaking to especially young men who are coming up and going to be politically active and hopefully going to be trying to save this country, I am not willing to send them down a road that I think will rot away their souls so that I can win. | ||
| I'm not going to tell them no enemies to the right. | ||
| You have to shut up about this certain evil that is bothering your conscience because it's not tactically beneficial to our side. | ||
| And again, that is a cripple. | ||
| That's a handicap on our side. | ||
| But as Christians, we have to have faith that God is going to bless it. | ||
| So In World War II, we allied with a godless communist killing millions of Christians. | ||
| That was a good idea. | ||
| Oh, I agree with you. | ||
| And then we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, and then we dropped several nuclear bombs. | ||
| And by the way, I'm not arguing against any clear. | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| Yes, I do agree. | ||
| George pushed it. | ||
| But we were willing to make all of these compromises because we understood the existential nature of the situation. | ||
| Now, you can tell me that you don't believe when we get into a when we get into a hot war shooting war, I understand. | ||
| Charlie's dead. | ||
| I know. | ||
| I knew you were going to say that. | ||
| That's where you are. | ||
| That's the time. | ||
| We are not. | ||
| No, no, no, hold on, hold on. | ||
| I got to say that. | ||
| We are not in a hold on, hold on, hold on. | ||
| Oren, I respect the World War II, but it's a little Godwin's lawyer. | ||
| So I'll bring it back 80 years further and ask you to. | ||
| Since we were talking about fighting Nazis either way. | ||
| Let me ask you: do you think Abraham Lincoln did the right thing? | ||
| When he did what? | ||
| Generally, in the Civil War, the actions that were taken by the Union, was it the right thing to do? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Would you have preferred the Union to win? | ||
| You can go either way on it. | ||
| So is there a worldview in your mind that had the Confederacy successfully seceded, it would not necessarily be more or less good, morally good or otherwise? | ||
| Had the Confederacy succeeded? | ||
| Is it a greater good that the Union won, or would you have seen a potentiality for a greater good if the Confederacy won? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I mean, we can Monday morning quarterback it. | ||
| I mean, you know, I understand Lincoln did some bad stuff to win the Civil War. | ||
| You can argue that, you know, some. | ||
| Right. | ||
| It was, you know, it was, we stopped slavery. | ||
| There was this, we had kind of this moral argument on his side. | ||
| But so I wanted to show him follow the slaves. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| I don't want to relitigate this. | ||
| The point I'm making is you said we are not in that moment if we are in a hot conflict. | ||
| Abraham Lincoln made it a hot conflict. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Now, I know there's going to be a great argument over the moral failings of the Confederacy in slavery, which we all agree on, and the argument that the actions they took resulted in, but it is objective fact. | ||
| I would just say it is historical fact because who knows who wrote what? | ||
| I get it. | ||
| I get it. | ||
| But based on what we know, the federal government asserted authority over a base in South Carolina. | ||
| The South said, as we are no longer part of your union, vacate. | ||
| And the Union refused. | ||
| So a fight breaks out. | ||
| No one knows exactly who shot first, but nobody died in this conflict except for one person. | ||
| It was an accident. | ||
| After Fort Sumter happened, the perception in the United States was still there is no civil war. | ||
| The phrase civil war wasn't even in the lexicon. | ||
| People weren't even saying that term. | ||
| Abraham Lincoln, after this, suspends habeas corpus, begins moving troops. | ||
| When we look at the history of the Civil War, we say it was at that moment it began. | ||
| Yet, every single person in the country was like, we are not currently in a war. | ||
| Then you get the first Battle of Bull Run, where, again, it's the Union approaching the South in Virginia and people picnicking, saying, we are not in a hot conflict. | ||
| And then bullets are flying and people are dying. | ||
| Even then, Abraham Lincoln begins the arrest of the Maryland state legislature, a portion of them, with the suspension of habeas corpus, begins arresting people without charge or trial. | ||
| And people still, for two years, did not say we are in a civil war. | ||
| Even after the Battle of Bull Run, they still didn't think they were in a civil war. | ||
| So my point is, when we look at the history of Sumter and you take a look at the commentary that we've seen with Chris Murphy, a senator now saying, pick a fucking side. | ||
| A sitting senator went on Twitter the other day and said the president has called for the execution of members of Congress. | ||
| Pick a fucking side. | ||
| We have them calling on, and we know what they're doing, members of the military to defy lawful orders. | ||
| And then they say, no, no, we said unlawful. | ||
| Yes, but you've already defined lawful orders as unlawful. | ||
| You are calling for the factionalization of our military. | ||
| So for people to then say, we have seen a sitting senator call for people to take sides. | ||
| We have seen, and with all due respect, Donald Trump did say punishable by death. | ||
| And reposting, hang them. | ||
| And people are saying good to this. | ||
| It doesn't matter if you are on one side or the other. | ||
| To be fair, I also did on Twitter. | ||
| I was like, come on, why can't we kill these guys? | ||
| Joking, of course. | ||
| Joking. | ||
| But the point is, we are at the point historically where if you were to look at the actions of Abraham Lincoln and you were to say that his actions were justified, if Donald Trump were to right now suspend habeas corpus along transport corridors for the National Guard and for the arrest of seditious conspirators, it would be perfectly within historical precedence of Abraham Lincoln. | ||
| My point being. | ||
| Do you want that to happen? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| But that's not what matters. | ||
| What I want is immaterial. | ||
| And it's funny because this stuff is very stressful, particularly for my family. | ||
| And I remind my wife, hey, I have no control over the president saying punishable by death or a senator saying on X, pick a side. | ||
| But to those that are paying attention, the realization is clear. | ||
| You best start believing in civil wars because you're in one. | ||
| And so when he's saying there are people that seek to murder you, the death threats that I'm sure you get and that I get, I went to Phoenix to go to Turning Point and do the show with Charlie. | ||
| We spent, I believe it was about $11,000 because I had to have high-level security to move around these areas because the death threats I get, and I'm called a milquetoast fence sitter. | ||
| The reality is there are people that are trying to kill us and each other. | ||
| And we are very much at the inflection point of when bleeding Kansas was becoming a full-scale civil war. | ||
| That is not a guarantee that this does become one. | ||
| But Charlie Kirk is dead. | ||
| And to the best of our understanding, it appears to be an individual motivated by political ideology opposed to Charlie Kirk's ideology decided to kill him. | ||
| There are tremendous failings of a security team for sure. | ||
| That's a whole other story. | ||
| But the fact is, murder is on the menu for these people. | ||
| We are very much in a hot conflict. | ||
| The question then becomes, and I hear this all the time as to Aren's point. | ||
| We were willing to bomb Dresden, align ourselves with the Soviets, and nuke Japan, two cities. | ||
| What was it? | ||
| Several, was it 80,000 in Hiroshima or something? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't know the full numbers. | ||
| And now there's a question of in these United States, who do we align with, though we may not fully appreciate what they do, because the end result would be beneficial to us. | ||
| I don't believe you are saying let America burn. | ||
| I believe in this regard, and to the point Aren is making, you are pointing out that Nick is the enemy you are fighting. | ||
| So when you say we aligned with the Soviet Union, he's saying we're at war with the Nazis. | ||
| You're aligning Nick with that enemy you are fighting. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, it's just horseshoe theory. | ||
| I see Nick as no different than the left. | ||
| They're both working for the overthrow of the United States. | ||
| I don't think it's horseshoe theory. | ||
| I think Nick is the issue with calling Nick right-wing is to imply that being white is right. | ||
| I mean, right-leaning, not correct, right? | ||
| Nick's views largely overlap with leftists. | ||
| The difference is Nick says white people good and the left says white people bad. | ||
| That is not a left-right distinction right there. | ||
| That's a racial distinction. | ||
| So if they're both leftist economic identitarians, they actually are just different factions of the same political ideology. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Yeah, I would agree. | ||
| You know, and that's Matt Walsh said something to that effect, you know, just the other day that, you know, I, you know, because people were calling out, calling him out, you know, hey, you just called out someone on the right. | ||
| You said that we're supposed to stop fighting with the right. | ||
| And he said, well, I don't consider these people to my right. | ||
| You know, and that's kind of what they want. | ||
| That's kind of the argument that I've been making. | ||
| That's kind of the argument that James Lindsay has been making. | ||
| I would add. | ||
| To be fair, everyone is to James's right. | ||
| And he's the unfortunate person that I think was right earlier than a lot of people. | ||
| This is another question of warfare and willingness to win. | ||
| Again, I know the issue of James Lindsay is not the most pressing one, but let's just, I'll frame it in terms of your ability to win what you're fighting for is severely incapacitated by your willingness to bring infiltrators in your midst who destroy you. | ||
| And if you're not able to recognize that, you will lose. | ||
| Yeah, I just disagree that the guy whose whole career is infiltrating groups he hates, presenting false arguments to make them look retarded, you can't recognize he's doing that to you. | ||
| I don't think that's right at all. | ||
| It's certainly what he's... | ||
| So, what else is... | ||
| Why did his MO change? | ||
| I think he's just a little too trigger happy, and I think it gets amplified online. | ||
| Is he famous for infiltrating groups and making them look stupid? | ||
| I don't know what you mean by that. | ||
| He tricked a bunch of academics into publishing retarded arguments on the left. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| He also did it with American Reformer. | ||
| He got him to publish. | ||
| How many followers did he work? | ||
| 3,000? | ||
| American Reformer? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I don't know. | ||
| Yeah, there are public on the right. | ||
| This is, I will say this. | ||
| James Lindsay is the best at this. | ||
| That's why he got so much attention for doing it. | ||
| And intention, emotion, all of these things matter very little other than results and the actions being taken. | ||
| And if I was going to map out your argument and quantify success and failure, I would argue that your willingness to embrace the person, he's literally just taking a shit all over everything you're arguing for, and you're willing to accept it because he's good at it. | ||
| He's very good at it. | ||
| I would argue that a man who is famous solely for infiltrating groups, tricking them into presenting false arguments, I don't understand why all of a sudden you're like, but he's not doing it now. | ||
| And I'm like, but it's all he's ever done. | ||
| I thought it was brilliant. | ||
| I mean, he destroyed the whole, you know, the, he pulled back the curtain of the peer review system, what a bunch of hacks these people are in our university. | ||
| He's doing it to you now. | ||
| James, he did it. | ||
| He did it. | ||
| I think he was trying to expose how sections of the left or of the right are starting to go the Nick Fuentes route. | ||
| They're starting to become friends. | ||
| What happened with Nick Fuentes in saying we need to unite with the left, become socialist and ethnically homogenous? | ||
| That is exactly what James Lindsay has been trying to tell everybody for years. | ||
| James is a deconstructionist. | ||
| It's all he does. | ||
| He deconstructed Christianity when he was a new atheist. | ||
| He didn't then deconstructed the peer review process when he was doing that. | ||
| Then he deconstructed the woke stuff. | ||
| And now he's drifting the right. | ||
| That's what I do through the Babylon B. I'm a deconstructionist of bad ideas and bad philosophy. | ||
| The point being is it's tearing down sacred cows. | ||
| It's deathworks against each other. | ||
| The pointless. | ||
| That's what I do. | ||
| All you ever hear from James is don't believe this, don't read this, don't do this. | ||
| The question is, what does James believe? | ||
| Like, what is it? | ||
| Last time you had him stop and say, here's a Christian political theorist that I would like to highlight because he's correct. | ||
| The point I'm trying to make is nothing. | ||
| It's an all-defined thing. | ||
| He believes in liberty. | ||
| It's very important. | ||
| Liberty first is something. | ||
| It's an empty slogan. | ||
| I'm not interested in debating the personality traits of James Lindsay. | ||
| The reason he comes up is because it is patently obvious he is the most detrimental force on your side and you have adopted him and you are unwilling to recognize the simple mathematical equation. | ||
| He is not a conservative. | ||
| He has always been opposed to conservatives. | ||
| He has said he should be their leader and his enemy is national conservatism. | ||
| He is famous for infiltrating groups and presenting false arguments so they look dumb. | ||
| And he is consistently doing that to you. | ||
| Now, by all means, you do whatever you want. | ||
| Charlie Kirk loves Charles Lindsey. | ||
| I love James Lindsey. | ||
| What Charlie Lindsay? | ||
| And Tucker Carlson. | ||
| Well, yeah. | ||
| Indeed. | ||
| And he brought us to Amfest as well because he wanted a big tent movement so that everybody was operating within the umbrella of national conservatism. | ||
| And you've seen that meme of the dam, you know, Charlie Kirk, and then behind the dam is absolute total retardation. | ||
| That's where we are. | ||
| That's where we are. | ||
| His assassination was devastating. | ||
| My point was not to, you know, you make the point about James's personal beliefs and things like that. | ||
| My point is there is one side saying there are enemies that seek to destroy us, and we must monitor their actions to see what they do. | ||
| Intention, emotion is meaningless. | ||
| What matters is we as a people, the actions we take, and where we'll be one year from now, should that be the case. | ||
| And just the final point on this. | ||
| With your adoption, bringing the enemies into your midst, you will lose. | ||
| And the bigger picture is, I think what Aren is pointing out that in times of war, one must be willing to do what, like side with the Soviets if we're going to stop the Nazis. | ||
| And what you're saying is, I'm going to actually join an infiltrator, let them run amok and cause damage because I see, because you trust them. | ||
| Yeah, I do. | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| I just don't agree with your character. | ||
| Why make Carl Benjamin an enemy? | ||
| I don't know enough about Carl Benjamin. | ||
| Carl, why make me an enemy? | ||
| So, okay, so Carl Benjamin, he and I got into a little back and forth about, it was over the Declaration of Independence because he said that no nation has ever been founded on a document or something like that. | ||
| And I shared a picture of the Declaration and this kind of argument ensued, kind of similar to what we said, that, you know, is the document defining the people or do the people make the document? | ||
| You know, I think it's a little of both. | ||
| You know, I think that this argument is between kind of classical liberalism, moral realism, and kind of like this more like ancient, almost pagan folk idea on the right. | ||
| You understand that classical liberalism is not moral realism. | ||
| aren't the same thing well no but okay um the and and carl's not a classical liberal either No, no, no, no. | ||
| James Lindsey is. | ||
| He's not. | ||
| He's absolutely not. | ||
| He's a progressive. | ||
| I might be. | ||
| John Locke said that atheists should be banned from public life. | ||
| He is the father of classical liberalism. | ||
| My question is that James is an atheist. | ||
| You know he's making enemies for you. | ||
| It's not helping you. | ||
| You're not growing your movement. | ||
| Your movement is being damaged by this extensively. | ||
| Here's, okay. | ||
| This is my only concern. | ||
| I'm not concerned with who's on my side or who's not. | ||
| And you'll lose. | ||
| Well, maybe, maybe. | ||
| Also, the entire demonstration. | ||
| My only concern. | ||
| No, my only concern is to speak truth to the best of my ability, to be faithful as I can with the platform that God has given me, to call out evil and bad ideas wherever I see them, no matter what side it's on, no matter how politically expedient it is. | ||
| That's what I feel I'm going to be held accountable for when I stand before God. | ||
| God's not going to say, did you own the lips? | ||
| Did you help your side win? | ||
| He's going to say, were you obedient to me? | ||
| Did you speak the truth in love? | ||
| Did you do what's right no matter what? | ||
| Nick has. | ||
| If my side is, if it loses, if it's in the minority, if it's destined for failure. | ||
| And you will. | ||
| Because Nick has no greater ally than James Lindsey. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| Well, you would be wrong because when Konstantin Kyson, you or Seth or anyone out, comes out and says, woke right. | ||
| And a regular person says, what does this woke right thing mean? | ||
| And you say, there are people who align themselves with conservatism who use the oppressed versus oppressor arguments similar to the woke left. | ||
| And we believe they share a moral worldview that is particularly Marxist. | ||
| A regular person goes, interesting. | ||
| Then James comes, shits on the floor, throws it in their face, and they say, I'm going to go listen to Nick Fuentes instead because at least I'm getting shit thrown at me. | ||
| My point ultimately. | ||
| I think it's fair. | ||
| We can maybe agree that James's approach and his tactics are not helping him or not helping him. | ||
| He's hurting him. | ||
| As Chris Rufo has pointed out, this frame of oppressor versus oppressed would make the Declaration of Independence woke right. | ||
| Because it's literally a list of your grievances. | ||
| It's got a section called the grievances against your oppressor. | ||
| The grievances against the oppressive name. | ||
| Marxism and woke right is not. | ||
| Acknowledging the reality of oppression and being oppressed does not make one woke right or Marxist. | ||
| It is reducing, it's reducing everything to oppressor versus oppressed. | ||
| Just like friend enemy, it's reducing everything to friend enemy. | ||
| When you reduce complex human interactions and the entire existence of morality down to a very simple interaction, what James is doing is literally his entire people out who are doing him creating. | ||
| He called me a Marxist. | ||
| He called me a Marxist plant. | ||
| He said, I'm too big. | ||
| It doesn't make sense. | ||
| I'm possibly a plant and I'm a Marxist. | ||
| And they always lie. | ||
| This is conspiracy garbage nonsense that for an audience of my size, I'm not saying I have the biggest show in the world, but with millions of followers, they trust me. | ||
| They like my show. | ||
| And then James calls me a Marxist. | ||
| And the immediate response was his entire feed filled with people calling me a retard. | ||
| And I will say this because Phil Labonte, a great friend and co-host on my show, was a huge fan of his for a long time and constantly would mention things he said in new discourses. | ||
| And now he's like, James has gone insane. | ||
| And he's made your faction look retarget. | ||
| He knows you. | ||
| He's close to you. | ||
| He knows better, right? | ||
| But all of my followers... | ||
| It's almost like James Tackett is to collapse all of those details into some specific distinction that he can then use to wedge people. | ||
| It's almost like his intention is to infiltrate your side, make the stupidest argument possible, so that millions of people say, these people are retards, like he has always done. | ||
| So I know the Twitter back and forth is like the thing here. | ||
| I feel your passion. | ||
| I'm with you on all of this stuff. | ||
| But this is honestly the least productive part of the conversation. | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| I don't want to talk about James Lindsay. | ||
| Hold on, hold on, hold on. | ||
| Let me just say this. | ||
| The issue is not James Lindsey. | ||
| He just epitomizes the argument of when you say you won't align with someone like Nick, but you're willing to align with them. | ||
| My point is I don't understand why you'd be willing to align with destructive forces. | ||
| However, I suppose it's fair to say that you support his moral worldview more than Nick's. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And the point of this conversation is, if you are unwilling or incapable of recognizing destructive forces, I don't trust your assessment of Nick. | ||
| I don't think people will also. | ||
| I believe that the argument of what woke right is is completely meaningless, and regular people are— We need to distinguish between disruptive forces and actual evil and good. | ||
| So we'll put it like this. | ||
| You can have a good person with good morals who is trying to do a good thing, who is going about it the wrong way and doing more harm than good. | ||
| That's an argument that can be made. | ||
| But that's not what I'm talking about. | ||
| My point with James Lindsay being the avatar of this function is that Nick is growing. | ||
| He's becoming more popular. | ||
| I was talking with some big tech guys who, sales and analytics, and they were like, Nick's numbers are getting crazy. | ||
| I mean, he hit number one on Spotify. | ||
| They banned him because he was getting too big. | ||
| And the question is, why is this happening? | ||
| And what will you do if you don't want it to win? | ||
| So real quick, just the principal debate is what is the future going to look like? | ||
| And it's largely around the ascension of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson's defense of him and his willingness to debate him, Megan Kelly. | ||
| And I look at what y'all are doing and what is the argument against Nick? | ||
| You've made some good ones. | ||
| Unfortunately, woke right being a phrase thrown around quite a bit at people like Nick or Candace or Tucker has become a meaningless term because you've allowed infiltrators on your side to destroy your ideas. | ||
| It's been overused, overapplied, and it's become meaningless. | ||
| And then there was a thing that the other side did that was like they kind of pulled the Uno reverse card and said like, no, you. | ||
| So like now you have like kind of like progressive center left people being also called woke right. | ||
| No one knows what it means anymore. | ||
| I'll take credit for that. | ||
| Yeah, I know I saw you do that. | ||
| And I believe it's true. | ||
| And also we have. | ||
| I think a better way to describe this, a better way to understand it is like godless right or pagan right. | ||
| It's like it's like post-Christian right. | ||
| Who is it? | ||
| Is it Ross Duthot who said the New York Times guy who said, if you hate the Christian right, wait till you see the post-Christian right. | ||
| And that's what we, that's, I think, what we see rising. | ||
| So this is again very dangerous. | ||
| Again, this is just bad faith, friend, enemy distinction stuff all the way down. | ||
| You're like, so anybody who disagrees with me is a pagan, actually. | ||
| And all the people on my side, even if they literally are pagans, like even if they literally don't, with Christianity, they're in good faith. | ||
| But everybody on the other side who is a Christian and is an actual professing, living their life Christian, they're all bad faith and therefore they are pagan. | ||
| And that's the most obnoxious thing. | ||
| No, I'm not saying they're pagan. | ||
| I'm saying that they're, well, I'm saying that they're functionally pagan and their movement is pagan. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| I think that Christians can join evil movements and I think that non-Christians can join good movements. | ||
| Again, so I'm looking at the general thrust and in the overall moral direction of a movement. | ||
| Are you going towards evil or are you going towards good? | ||
| And I will ally with non-Christians who are on the side of good. | ||
| So Christianity does not determine good. | ||
| It's something else. | ||
| No. | ||
| Well, God's word defines what's good. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| We have to go back to the word of God. | ||
| So those who are denying God's word but agree with you, they are good. | ||
| And people who are following God's word but disagree with you, they are pagan. | ||
| Okay, so there's this thing, you know, C.S. Lewis talked about it in The Abolition of Man. | ||
| He called it the Tao or the way. | ||
| You know, there is this natural law written into the fabric of the universe by the Creator that has always existed. | ||
| It's always been there. | ||
| It's revealed in part by God's word. | ||
| God doesn't reveal all of it. | ||
| But there is just this sense that there is a way. | ||
| There is a truth, both physical and spiritual, that has always existed. | ||
| It is transcendent. | ||
| And all we can do is try to be as in conformity with that as we possibly can, right? | ||
| There are Christians or people who claim Christianity who don't follow the Tao. | ||
| There are people who are Jews, agnostic, or otherwise, who, by their fruit, by the way they live their life, by the way they treat others, what are the two greatest commandments? | ||
| Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. | ||
| Love your neighbor as yourself. | ||
| All the law and the prophets hang on those two. | ||
| There are non-Christians who follow that way better than some Christians. | ||
| And so my calculus here is not, you know, who recites the right creed, who is a part of my specific theology. | ||
| It is who is following the way of Christ according to how it's written in God's word. | ||
| But what does theology mean to you? | ||
| study of god okay let me know if that is the way of christ and then how can you so the whole point here is that ultimately you are assuming that there is some supra value above christianity that can bind non-christians together into a christian coalition but exclude christians from that christian coalition And that's confusing, but also, and this is really critical, several times here, and this is what I really, again, away from the personalities, Nick, James, whatever, who cares? | ||
| Like the point is that we are in a situation where we, as you said, you want to be a revanchist, right? | ||
| You don't want to be a revolutionary. | ||
| You want to be someone who returns us back to something. | ||
| But when it comes time to talk about what we're returning to, we don't know. | ||
| We don't know what time. | ||
| We don't know what place. | ||
| We don't know what version of the Constitution. | ||
| We don't know what we'd keep, what we'd discard. | ||
| We don't have any of these conversations done. | ||
| And if you don't share those values and you don't understand those things, then then trying to form a coalition around things you can't define is a huge problem. | ||
| So for instance, you say, my coalition is a coalition of liberty. | ||
| Well, that word has been distorted to mean all kinds of things. | ||
| Liberty could be doing drugs in the middle of the street. | ||
| It could be sports betting, right? | ||
| Like these are things that libertarians argue for because they are liberty, right? | ||
| So even that definition is insufficient because it doesn't get the job done. | ||
| I argue for liberty. | ||
| And you know what I think? | ||
| I think we should have blue laws. | ||
| Because blue laws would limit the amount of vice which would allow people to go to church on Sunday. | ||
| It would increase the power of Christianity in the society. | ||
| I think the government should use its power to increase the power and focus of Christianity in the church. | ||
| Is that a pagan position because it limits your economic liberty? | ||
| No. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| I'm in full agreement with you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| So then it seems like this is a non-issue. | ||
| Like we can use power. | ||
| We can use it to secure Christianity as the majority religion of this country. | ||
| I don't see why I'm a pagan and you're not. | ||
| No, I'm not calling you a pagan. | ||
| I have a question, though, on the limitations of your willingness to align with evildoers. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| What's like Trump? | ||
| If you think so. | ||
| Like my friend Uncle Trump. | ||
| I don't think Trump's an evildoer at all. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're all evil. | |
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| We're all fallen. | ||
| The implication has done bad things. | ||
| My point is, when you refer to someone as an evildoer, it is their principal motivation. | ||
| It is their character. | ||
| If you call all people have fallen short, but some people do better than others. | ||
| Some people intentionally fall short and actually seek to make others fall as well. | ||
| Trump is not one of those people. | ||
| Trump has his problems for sure. | ||
| But I believe he's a great example of someone who may not be a Christian, doesn't share my theology, obviously, but is following that Tao that way. | ||
| The general thrust of what he's doing is in keeping with Christian morality and natural law. | ||
| So my question is, is there an action someone could take that regardless of their worldview, you'd say, I will never work with you. | ||
| Like a pedophile, for instance, right? | ||
| There's a guy who brutally rapes a child, goes to prison, gets out 10 years later, and then says, you know what? | ||
| I now want to work towards the message of Jesus Christ and reform my life and change. | ||
| Would you work with that person? | ||
| If they reform and they find Jesus Christ, a person who rapes a child, goes to prison, 10 years later, gets out and says, I was dark, I was evil, I was sinful, I have found Christ, I have turned my life around, you know, and now they preach, would you work with that person? | ||
| I don't think it would be prudent. | ||
| You know, obviously, people can be redeemed, they can be forgiven, we can celebrate and rejoice in that. | ||
| I don't think it would be wise to join with somebody like that. | ||
| Well, the Christian solution here is a millstone, so it's kind of a good point. | ||
| If we had our way, he wouldn't be getting out of it. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| I mean, by all means, may the Lord save you right before you get tied and mercy on your soul. | ||
| DeSantis in Florida is doing it right. | ||
| This is the most extreme example for obvious reasons. | ||
| But when you start looking at evil actions an individual could take, what about a murderer? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So if somebody murdered someone in envy, greed, and malice, stole their clothes, and it was a particularly brutal murder with a knife, went to prison for 20 years, got out and said, I have repented. | ||
| I have found Christ. | ||
| I am changing my life and I will seek to help others do the same. | ||
| Would you work with that person? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Again, going back to the other example, that person should be executed. | ||
| We shouldn't even be sending murderers to prison for any length of time. | ||
| There's just a death penalty. | ||
| I think the reason I ask this is because we had a conversation earlier about willingness to work with people who do evil things. | ||
| There certainly is a line to which you are willing to accept evil actions if they benefit you. | ||
| And that's not a statement of whether or not that person can be redeemed. | ||
| It's a statement of is it prudent to join with that person? | ||
| What about someone who was a human trafficker? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, never work with him. | ||
| I mean, no. | ||
| Like if a coyote cartel member in Mexico was taking money in exchange for transporting children and bringing them to the United States, and then 10 years later said, I'll never do it. | ||
| What about a guy who's actually just in the United States and the cartel shows up and he says, I'll give you $10,000 for that little girl. | ||
| And then 10 years later says it was a mistake or something. | ||
| So, I mean, the point you're making is that there's a line, right? | ||
| There's certain things that we won't unite with. | ||
| Or work with. | ||
| But specifically in this, I'm getting to this point of someone who's human trafficked and bought children, you would not work with. | ||
| Work with? | ||
| Probably no. | ||
| Except Dave Rubin. | ||
| No, no, they might say something politically that I'll agree with, you know, like, but I won't work with him. | ||
| I won't work with Dave Rubin. | ||
| I won't unite with him in ministry or, you know, start a media company with him. | ||
| But if he tweets something that I agree with, I might like the tweet. | ||
| Do you believe that's not uniting with him or working with him? | ||
| Do you believe that the actions that Dave Rubin has taken are comparable to what you said about the millstone and biblical solutions to these issues? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't know what Dave Rubin has done in his personal life. | ||
| Paying a woman speculating. | ||
| Paying a woman to carry a child for what she then took custody of. | ||
| Yeah, I was wrong. | ||
| It shouldn't be. | ||
| Is that viewed in the Christian? | ||
| If people talk to him, are they platforming him? | ||
| If they talk to him, are they platforming him? | ||
| Not necessarily. | ||
| So if someone had a conversation with him, let's say Megan Kelly had a conversation with him tomorrow and didn't bring up specifically disagreeing with its choice of purchasing children. | ||
| They talk all the time. | ||
| But let's assume for a minute that that did not occur. | ||
| Would you attack her for platforming in someone and not addressing those issues and those beliefs and the things that he's advocated for? | ||
| Would he be untouchable in the way that Fuentes is untouchable? | ||
| If Dave Rubin were out there politically advocating for like, we need to make surrogacy legal. | ||
| We need more of this. | ||
| We need to open it up legislatively. | ||
| We should have no restrictions on it. | ||
| Anyone should, you know, thrupples and whoever should be allowed to Whatever child they want. | ||
| If he was out there, if he was out there doing it in the same way that Nick Fuentes advocates for what he is advocating for, he would absolutely be an enemy. | ||
| I mean, and we would absolutely challenge Megan Kelly for not bringing that up because it's not conservative. | ||
| It's hypocrisy. | ||
| It doesn't fit in with the conservative view. | ||
| You've referenced singular quotes from Nick that he said. | ||
| And then when it came to the issue of Dave Rubin, you argued in the extreme of he have to go out and advocate and proselytize this particular thing. | ||
| That's what Nick's doing. | ||
| Nick is proselytizing. | ||
| Nick has. | ||
| I've never seen it. | ||
| How many times has he praised Hitler? | ||
| I've never once seen it. | ||
| How many times has he praised Hitler? | ||
| Rubin go on a show and say we need more surrogacy. | ||
| How many times does he praise Hitler? | ||
| More gay adoptions. | ||
| I've never seen him do that. | ||
| How many times has Nick praised Hitler? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| And Dave has promoted surrogacy. | ||
| At least once. | ||
| Indeed, and Dave has at least once promoted surrogacy. | ||
| So what is the moral? | ||
| I don't think Nick Fuentes has only praised Hitler once. | ||
| And I don't think, and I don't think Dave has only posted about surrogacy once. | ||
| I've only seen it. | ||
| The point is, I believe your morals are fake. | ||
| I genuinely do. | ||
| The frustration that I have in my voice is not because I'm passionate about one way or the other or whether easy examples like Dave Rubin and easy examples because the point is trying to understand where your moral lines are. | ||
| I will go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I will look at the prototype. | |
| I will watch Trump promoted. | ||
| Look at what Trump promoted on his reality shows and Playboy magazine. | ||
| I'm not a Christian. | ||
| Okay, I am. | ||
| Indeed. | ||
| And Christians overwhelmingly voted for Trump. | ||
| And I think your aversion to Nick Fuentes is based on some clips you've seen for which you are largely ignorant of his larger message, and you've ascribed him this position as an evil nihilist because I'm watching everything he says. | ||
| Nick is advocating for it. | ||
| What specifically? | ||
| It is not something that he's in his personality. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What is he advocated for? | |
| Are you going to mention the singular quote from just the other day where he said, unite with the left? | ||
| Let's talk about before that, because you've been anti-Nick for a while. | ||
| What has he said that you are against and believe he is a nihilist for all these reasons? | ||
| Why are you challenging me on Nick Fuentes? | ||
| We're all agreed on this. | ||
| Like, we've all seen what he says. | ||
| Like, what? | ||
| I mean, he's advocated for child brides. | ||
| He's advocated for, you know, he's questioned the Holocaust. | ||
| He's said Hitler is really cool. | ||
| He's talked about how we need to deport all the Jews and all the Browns and all the blacks. | ||
| He is, I mean, I don't watch his point. | ||
| I've just seen it. | ||
| The point that I was making is that your view of why is this so hard? | ||
| Well, you know, Donald Trump also called Nazis fine people. | ||
| Donald Trump called Nazis fine people. | ||
| He didn't. | ||
| Oh, wait, wait, hold on. | ||
| Because we analyzed further to look at the full context of his message. | ||
| You think that the media is treating Nicky unfairly the way they treat Donald Trump unfairly? | ||
| I think they are treating Nick unfairly for sure. | ||
| Oh, come on. | ||
| His Spotify podcast got banned. | ||
| Donald Trump. | ||
| I want to make an argument about what he believes. | ||
| Make an argument. | ||
| The argument we're having right now is that Nick shouldn't be allowed to be interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and Tucker is at fault for having talked to him. | ||
| Oh, no, I think he should be allowed to be interviewed by Tucker Carlson. | ||
| Why are we talking about this? | ||
| Because he's free to do it. | ||
| The whole thing. | ||
| I think it was a whole softball pansy interview, but I think that he should be free. | ||
| And the whole debate here is that Tucker is under fire for having interviewed Nick and is responding to it. | ||
| And the question we're having is between these factions of no enemies on the right. | ||
| And my point is, Nick has said certainly many important things. | ||
| You've not investigated and don't know for sure. | ||
| But you've seen clips. | ||
| I've seen, I've seen, I've seen it. | ||
| And this is exactly what I was told by liberals. | ||
| I've argued that people say that Donald Trump called Nazis fine people. | ||
| And I say, watch the full video to understand, then condemn him. | ||
| And they say, I've seen enough. | ||
| Okay, listen. | ||
| This is what I call woke rap. | ||
| No, come on. | ||
| I've watched hours of his content. | ||
| I've interacted with him directly on Twitter. | ||
| I have interacted directly with his followers. | ||
| I've interacted with people who used to be in the movement and escaped. | ||
| I think we've all seen enough. | ||
| Donald Trump, I mean, it was everyone saw it, at least everyone on the right saw how he said, you know, find people on both sides. | ||
| And I'm not talking about the Nazis and KKK. | ||
| My point is, they should be condemned. | ||
| Banned him from YouTube, banned him from X. | ||
| And the argument is how—I don't care for—Nick has said important things. | ||
| He said nasty things. | ||
| I completely disagree with him in a lot of these regards, especially the latest comment about uniting with the left. | ||
| I agree with me. | ||
| The point I'm making is, if the debate is we are looking at a new right phenomenon, a fracturing on the right, I believe that you represent what I call woke right. | ||
| An example. | ||
| You're playing the Uno reverse card again. | ||
| Absolutely, because you refused to debate Joel Wedding. | ||
| I'm sorry, Webben. | ||
| When he was here last night and said, I said, let's ask Joel if he would be willing to have you on the show. | ||
| You said no. | ||
| This is characteristic of the cult-like social orthodoxies of the liberals, the order. | ||
| Your unwillingness to have conversations and debates. | ||
| Hence, the debate we're having is what. | ||
| Well, I wasn't prepared to talk with him. | ||
| And I didn't want it to be three-on-one because I knew he would be on your guys' side. | ||
| So I wasn't prepared. | ||
| I didn't want to get off subject. | ||
| I was here to talk with Arn. | ||
| Woke right. | ||
| What are you talking about? | ||
| So my view of woke right is the same cult-like tendencies. | ||
| I define woke by its unique characteristics identified by most people. | ||
| So when Ben Shapiro comes out and says woke means cultural Marxism or whatever, that's not necessarily true because it doesn't explain blind support for Ukraine aligning or Hassan Piker. | ||
| So you define it differently. | ||
| You define it as a cult-like issue. | ||
| Joel, if you're feeling that struggle session feeling right now, by the way, that's just how we feel when you do the same thing. | ||
| So if you're not enjoying this label, I agree with you. | ||
| I do think it's stupid. | ||
| And let me define it. | ||
| But this is how we feel when you're throwing stuff around. | ||
| When you look at everyone complaining about woke, what is the overarching argument? | ||
| There was a commercial by Jaguar, and it was postmodern art, but nothing in it was ideological. | ||
| It was just goofy-looking people. | ||
| Yet it was called woke by everybody. | ||
| And so, well, certainly not Marxism. | ||
| These people just were bald with makeup on. | ||
| The issue was it was the social orthodoxy of the left. | ||
| It represented that. | ||
| So when people say woke, you will find the connection between all of these is that people are upset how the left acts like a cult. | ||
| They say, don't platform that person. | ||
| Don't let them go on your show. | ||
| You should be ashamed for that. | ||
| Things of that nature. | ||
| And if you've ever said something wrong in the past, we'll condemn you for it. | ||
| I don't think it's the left has acted like a cult. | ||
| I think it's certainly. | ||
| I think the people that it has, but I don't think that's the major problem people have with it. | ||
| So what problem people have with it is what the left stands for, the values that they represent. | ||
| Yet the overarching complaint, like I pointed out, the Jaguar commercial had nothing to do with values. | ||
| It was aesthetic. | ||
| Oh, it totally. | ||
| It totally had to do with values. | ||
| It was postmodern art. | ||
| It's a visual representation of all their values. | ||
| All values are aesthetic. | ||
| Hating the gender, hating the gender binary, hating beauty. | ||
| It was just postmodern art. | ||
| That stuff's existed for a long time. | ||
| Jackson Pollock painting has been around for a long time. | ||
| It was hodgepodge of garbled nonsense. | ||
| Right. | ||
| There was nothing articulated in it. | ||
| My point is rage against order, rage against God. | ||
| It represents the social order of the left. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And the values of the left. | ||
| Anti-God, anti-Christian values of the left. | ||
| Now, that's your particular view, but when you then look at Hassan Piker, and he's called woke because he's defending blindly Ukraine as a component of their political party, that certainly isn't aligning with Marxist ideology. | ||
| And so the question then becomes, what is everyone identifying? | ||
| They're basically just saying woke is the social order of the left, and cancel culture was the representation of wokeness in that fall in line or else the forced promotion of Netflix making Mrs. Claus a black woman. | ||
| People saying these things are when they adhere to it for the sake of what the cult wants. | ||
| When we look at there was a show that came out. | ||
| It's based in Chicago in like 1838, and people were pointing out one of the background scenes shows a black man and an Asian woman walking together in Chicago. | ||
| In fact, two different groups. | ||
| And they were like, that didn't exist back then. | ||
| But for the sake of their social order, they've begun doing these things. | ||
| So I look at this. | ||
| Woke represents typically this cult-like adherence to their orthodoxy, which is amorphous because women sin one day, women with a why the next day. | ||
| There's no real logic to it. | ||
| The only like logic binding it together is anti-God. | ||
| I don't care what brand of anti-God it is. | ||
| And that doesn't explain Ukraine. | ||
| What do you mean? | ||
| Why are people who are woke also pro-war in Ukraine, anti-Russia? | ||
| I mean, there are neocons that are pro-war. | ||
| It doesn't explain why Hassan Piker, who's not a neocon, is in favor of us intervening in Ukraine. | ||
| It's because it's just a cult where they adhere to whatever the whims of the immurmoration says. | ||
| So when I think. | ||
| There's an element to that. | ||
| I think that's the overarching principle of what defines them because their ideology changes every other day. | ||
| Well, I don't necessarily think that's true. | ||
| I think that it does. | ||
| Any movement that has values has to control for those values. | ||
| Hassan Piker, you have to define who is in your movement and who is out. | ||
| Hassan Piker, in the same breath, said the military-industrial complex is bad and we shouldn't be funding these wars overseas. | ||
| He was reacting to a video of mine where I said I agree with him on this stuff. | ||
| Then I said, and that's why I think it's absurd. | ||
| We've given $250 billion to Ukraine. | ||
| And Hassan turns on a dime and says, yo, this guy doesn't want us to intervene in Ukraine. | ||
| There's no logic there. | ||
| His movement makes it sound. | ||
| It's like there's a friend-enemy distinction and you can reduce all political positions down when I see that. | ||
| Okay, let's talk about that. | ||
| My final point. | ||
| My final point. | ||
| When I see elements that consider themselves to be conservative or otherwise, as opposed to the woke left, yet they use the same tactics of struggle sessions, false labeling, I'm like, oh, they're woke, but right. | ||
| And then what happens is what I see from this faction of people that refer to Nick and everyone else as woke right, it's amorphous and makes no sense. | ||
| In fact, not to invoke the name again, but James Lindsay has been bragging about how woke right is the same as saying the phrase alt-right, a broad term intentional use to malign individuals in the past as white supremacists and today as enemies of our movement. | ||
| He brags that's what y'all are doing. | ||
| Now, that might be true for you, but you certainly are working on it. | ||
| He's defined it. | ||
| The term woke right, I thought I had made it up because I, and it was an honest, and of course, once I used it, I found that people had been using it already. | ||
| I was trying to describe something that I was seeing. | ||
| This wasn't postmodern word warfare or trying to define friend enemy. | ||
| I was honestly trying to define something that I was seeing on the right, and it seemed to be the best description that I could come up with. | ||
| Not all of us are playing these postmodern word games. | ||
| I'm simply trying to describe truth. | ||
| When it comes to the right and the left, the cult-like mentality of the left, I agree that there's a sense to where their worldviews aren't cohesive. | ||
| They don't make sense with each other. | ||
| We see it with Palestine, queers for Palestine, right? | ||
| They don't make sense. | ||
| What defines them is a common enemy, that common enemy is the West and by extension, Christianity, and by extension, God. | ||
| That is the only thing that ties the entire left together. | ||
| It's apostate. | ||
| It is hatred of God. | ||
| It's Luciferian. | ||
| So Lucifer fell from heaven. | ||
| He said that I would, you know, in Paradise Lost, he said that I would rather rule in heaven than serve in or rule in hell and serve. | ||
| Hell and serve in heaven. | ||
| You know, he said, I'm going to define who I am. | ||
| I'm not going to let my creator define who I am. | ||
| But this is, again, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. | ||
| And so my point is, everyone on the right who's looked at the woke left has said, this is what I see in it. | ||
| But that doesn't explain why they are opposed violently to apostates who are atheists. | ||
| Who is opposed? | ||
| Well, two examples, James Lindsay and Tim Poole. | ||
| Andy No. | ||
| Actually, Andy No may be a Christian, but I'm not an atheist, but my point is, I was excised from the left, and I was, I wouldn't consider myself agnostic. | ||
| I'm not Christian. | ||
| I was not espousing in 2016, 2015 when I worked at Fusion. | ||
| Yet they targeted me because I did not adhere to their cult. | ||
| You, you, and because I'm white. | ||
| You were following the Tao. | ||
| You were following the way of Christ. | ||
| I know you don't, whether or not you believe in it or are there religiously, you were in line with the moral law, and that's what they hated about you. | ||
| I didn't do anything. | ||
| When I worked for Fusion, I was doing travel documentaries. | ||
| I went to Japan. | ||
| And they still, the people inside the company called me a white supremacist. | ||
| What was the thing that kicked it off for them? | ||
| Literally, I have no idea. | ||
| I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. | ||
| They called me a white supremacist for literally no reason. | ||
| Just because I guess I was Hillary's bad. | ||
| I don't want to vote for her. | ||
| I'd vote for Bernie. | ||
| And they said, you're a white supremacist. | ||
| They just like got the vibe that you just weren't in their cult and the antibodies kind of did their work. | ||
| I wouldn't just say yes when they brought things up. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| And there were other points where a good example is they made a video. | ||
| You were thinking according to your lights, your conscience, right? | ||
| You weren't just following the cult. | ||
| You were following what God says, the law that's written on all of our hearts. | ||
| I wouldn't even describe it that well. | ||
| I would say that in one meeting, when they said, we made a video about a transgender child and it got 150,000 views, we should make more of this. | ||
| My response was, it would do well among this community. | ||
| I think another thing that would do well would be content like this, and here's where it would do well. | ||
| And they said, that is not what we just said. | ||
| And I said, I didn't say you were wrong. | ||
| I didn't say that we should praise the Lord. | ||
| I said, we should consider doing travel documentaries. | ||
| And they went, shun the non-believer. | ||
| They said, you must be in line with our cult. | ||
| And I said, I think people, you know what I said? | ||
| You were following. | ||
| I said Christ and you didn't realize it. | ||
| That's what you were doing. | ||
| But the argument that me saying we should do a documentary about a nuclear disaster has nothing to do with religion, politics, or otherwise. | ||
| No, but you were blocking them from what they were trying to do. | ||
| I didn't tell them not to do it. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I said, oh, cool. | ||
| Hey, why don't we do this one too? | ||
| And they said, are you in line or are you not in line? | ||
| And I wasn't not, it was not a question of God or otherwise. | ||
| The point is, if you oppose them, you are excised. | ||
| That is not strictly leftist woke. | ||
| I mean, that isn't a woke. | ||
| That is in scripture. | ||
| You know, Jesus, you know, the Bible says, choose ye this day whom you will serve. | ||
| Who is on the Lord's side? | ||
| There is definitely, in Christianity, there is an in and there is an out. | ||
| On the right, among conservatives, there has to be an in or an out. | ||
| What defines us? | ||
| What do we believe? | ||
| Do you conform to that or do you not? | ||
| This isn't about like just forcing conformity or being a cult. | ||
| This is about defining what we stand for and controlling for that. | ||
| We don't just let anyone in our movement that does, that doesn't adopt the values that we want to put forward as a movement. | ||
| I mean, that's just common sense. | ||
| Let me do that. | ||
| We are over time and we got to do some final thoughts. | ||
| So my point is, when I look to what you and the others in your sphere represent, it's moral hypocrisy. | ||
| When it serves my needs, you can disagree with me. | ||
| You're allowed to. | ||
| I'm just giving you my opinion and how I see you. | ||
| It is, when it suits my needs, I will utilize it. | ||
| If it doesn't suit my needs, I am opposed to it. | ||
| On Arne McIntyre's side, I've seen him— Absolutely not. | ||
| I mean, do you think that my brand, that the Bees brand, has been helped by any of this? | ||
| We're suffering right now. | ||
| I'm saying that has always been our approach. | ||
| This doesn't change anything about what I just said. | ||
| When we got kicked off, it's not an argument to what I'm saying. | ||
| Well, you said that I choose something based off of whether it's just a meant for me or not. | ||
| That's not the calculus that I'm using here. | ||
| I'm looking at scripture. | ||
| I am looking at what God wants me to do. | ||
| I understand you've said all of these things. | ||
| Is this right or is this wrong? | ||
| And what I see, that is not what you are doing. | ||
| That is not reflected in your actions. | ||
| Then I think you're morally confused. | ||
| No, I would say that then when I look at someone like Arn McIntyre, who explicitly states he understands these precepts and engages as such, I say, you can see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. | ||
| When I look at you, it's 7, 3, 1, 8, 9. | ||
| And I'm like, he's not even counting. | ||
| The idea that you wouldn't recognize specific individuals destructive to your own movement, the idea that you would align with people who are evil. | ||
| That might be a naivety. | ||
| That's not moral hypocrisy or evil. | ||
| Right. | ||
| My point is, whether intentional or through ignorance, you are not following the claims you're making. | ||
| You are doing quite literally what everyone does. | ||
| You are saying, if this benefits me, I'll adhere to it. | ||
| If it doesn't, I won't. | ||
| I'm literally doing things that don't benefit me. | ||
| I disagree. | ||
| That's what I've been doing for the last two years. | ||
| That is not... | ||
| We've lost fans. | ||
| Mm-hmm. | ||
| We're getting death threats. | ||
| But you have a moral world of branded following things aligning with bad people. | ||
| My only concern, my only concern with everything that I do, with everything that I say online, is I want to stand before God someday and for him to say, well done, good and faithful servant. | ||
| That's all I want. | ||
| And to those ends, we will align with evil. | ||
| No. | ||
| What are you talking about? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You will. | |
| You said you would. | ||
| In what way? | ||
| Varying degrees of evil, be it lower end like Trump or higher end like Dave Rubin. | ||
| No, I will never unite with evil. | ||
| You're talking about the people. | ||
| You will use evil to your ends. | ||
| No, no. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| There's a difference between uniting with an evil person, which all of us are different, varying degrees of evil, and uniting with evil. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| The Bible says, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. | ||
| Again, I understand your argument. | ||
| Part of my criticism of what you are doing, Arin, with no enemies to the right, is it is fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness for the sake of political expediency. | ||
| I just see you as the exact same thing. | ||
| You are identical and incapable of seeing that. | ||
| Then I think you have, I think your moral compass is a little bit skewed then. | ||
| That's not an argument. | ||
| I just. | ||
| That is not an argument. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Explain to me again how I am uniting with evil. | ||
| No enemies to the right. | ||
| No enemies to the right. | ||
| I don't subscribe to no enemies to the right. | ||
| But are there enemies to the left? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Some of them you're willing to work with. | ||
| Enemies to the left? | ||
| There are people on the left who are destructive to your worldview, but you will work with them if it benefits you. | ||
| If it benefits me. | ||
| And your worldview and your movement. | ||
| You won't work with somebody on the left. | ||
| No. | ||
| James Lindsay's not on the left? | ||
| I don't agree that James Lindsay on the left is left. | ||
| He's a progressive. | ||
| I don't agree with that. | ||
| See, this is the point. | ||
| Instead of just saying, certainly there are people, like, Arin will tell you outright, I will work with these people I disagree with. | ||
| You're saying that's not true. | ||
| They're not on the left. | ||
| James Lindsay is further left than me, but I do not consider him a leftist at all. | ||
| No. | ||
| And so what you are doing, and I will tell you this again, because I could be wrong about everything. | ||
| That's always allowed. | ||
| From my perspective, I see a man who says, I am unfalsifiable because I will simply describe things differently to protect my ideology. | ||
| I see you the same way. | ||
| He says, no enemies to the right. | ||
| And you say that's bad, but I'll align with bad people. | ||
| What's the difference? | ||
| Do you see the difference between uniting with someone, uniting with a bad person or a good person for a good cause? | ||
| That's an extreme, and we're not talking about that. | ||
| The willingness to work uniting with a sexuality is a sophistry. | ||
| No. | ||
| Want to take it to an extreme, which is not an argument someone is making, then then we're not having a conversation. | ||
| If the point being made by a people on the right is, i'm not going to go to war with Nick Fuentes because the left is substantially more evil, and your argument is, I will work with progressives, I don't. | ||
| They're not really progressives anyway, but Nick is more evil. | ||
| You are doing the same thing, Orin. | ||
| Do you think James Lindsay is bad? | ||
| Yeah, yes or no? | ||
| Okay, you don't. | ||
| Do you think Nick Fuentes is bad? | ||
| Yeah, would you work with him? | ||
| I mean, to it depends. | ||
| To a certain end he, he is he as bad as the left? | ||
| Uh, he's not trying to kill me? | ||
| Okay, he has that going for him. | ||
| I see a man who says, you think James Lindsay is trying to kill you. | ||
| I think James Lindsay is discouraged. | ||
| There's different kinds and different degrees. | ||
| My point is, you will make excuses for making enemies with bad people and you can certainly argue, Nick is worse than James, and I see two people that are willing to work with different groups that each side of the right will deem evil or otherwise. | ||
| The only difference is, Orin is admitting to it and you're pretending it's not true? | ||
| Okay, Dave Rubin hired a woman to birth children. | ||
| He gave her money and now he has full custody of those children. | ||
| I'm trying to be very delicate, I do like, I do like Dave and Dave has been very good to me. | ||
| But I think it's important to point out that, in this regard, this is viewed by Christians, people on the right in general, as one of the most abhorrent things a human being can do. | ||
| Right, paying a woman to birth children and then taking those children from her is buying those children there's. | ||
| There are many people who are going to say, your willingness to align in any capacity i'm not saying go to conventions with the right whatever, but to view as an ally an individual has done such a thing is far beyond anything Nick has ever done. | ||
| And, and by all means, if you want to point out here's where we draw moral lines, here's my shoe, totally fine. | ||
| Again, I see aren as saying, i'm willing to accept these truths and you making excuses as to why it's not the case in your, in your capacity. | ||
| Okay, i'll try to say this again, there's a difference between uniting with someone who is a sinner, who has done bad things in his personal life, for a good cause and uniting with a a good person or someone who believes all the right things on paper for an evil cause. | ||
| And that's the way I see this. | ||
| I think Nick represents an evil movement and an evil cause, regardless of how he behaves in his personal life. | ||
| Uh, Dave Rubin, I don't know enough about his politics. | ||
| I never really interacted with him, but he doesn't receive the ire of your faction of conservatives the way Nick does. | ||
| If, if Dave Rubin was a constitutional conservative who cares about American freedom and preserving the constitution, I will unite with him for that cause. | ||
| In spite of it, of what I do, you can unite with Nick on the on specific issues that you agree with him on I, I don't see anything I agree with him. | ||
| I mean, like you don't agree with him that there's anti-white bigotry okay yeah, I do. | ||
| Okay, that seems like an easy one. | ||
| So you can unite with him on that front then and you guys can come together. | ||
| And that we should do deportations. | ||
| If you consider, if you consider saying the same things as him, uniting with him, then yes, but I, I don't, nobody's not gonna do it. | ||
| What do you expect? | ||
| Do you? | ||
| Do you think we're putting him in your backpack, that you're just going home for dinner like what do you what? | ||
| No one's here saying like hey man, you got to go have beers with Nick. | ||
| You have to. | ||
| You know you, you need to Go. | ||
| Like just saying the people who are trying to kill us are the enemy right now. | ||
| I'll put it like that. | ||
| Let's actually focus on them and then we can come back around and look like maybe this guy isn't saying the things we want to do. | ||
| We do got to wrap. | ||
| So I'll just say one more thing and then I'll let whoever wants the last word have the last word. | ||
| Megan Kelly and Dave Rubin do content together all the time. | ||
| She does not limbast him over the issue that he hired a woman to birth children for him, which he then took in exchange for money. | ||
| She does not get any flack from you over this. | ||
| I already explained this. | ||
| Dave Rubin was out there and at a nonprofit and a cause that we need to again. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And it's all this like, well, he didn't go quite far enough. | ||
| So it's not a problem. | ||
| No, it's not a clarification. | ||
| It's the difference between personal life and what you're doing. | ||
| It's a difference between selecting what you want to punch on. | ||
| You're just picking what you want to punch on. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's all. | |
| No, it's not going to punch. | ||
| It's going to be honest about it. | ||
| It's not picking what I want to punch on. | ||
| Here's my view. | ||
| The Babylon Bee and the individuals in your periphery, people like Constantine Kaisen Trigonometry. | ||
| I think you guys do great work. | ||
| I'm a huge fan of the B, but I think everybody is going to focus on the world that they're trying to create and they're willing to take whatever they can to get there. | ||
| There are some people. | ||
| However, what I see in this faction of accusing this side of being woke right is hypocrisy. | ||
| And again, this is the last thing I'm going to say. | ||
| So just let me finish this final thought and then I'm done and we can do final thoughts because we're way over, but it was fun. | ||
| It was fun. | ||
| Is this point about Dave Rubin has posted, he has made numerous posts about surrogacy. | ||
| Has he? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And I haven't seen any of them. | ||
| You'd have to show them to me. | ||
| I suppose if you were focused on this issue the way Nick was, you'd maybe see the clips and see the complaints about it, which is my point. | ||
| Megan Kelly did not receive. | ||
| An article was written about Megan Kelly with a pager blowing up and her paranoia around it. | ||
| It was deleted. | ||
| For some reason, an action was taken at the Babylon Bee that was deemed egregious against Megan Kelly, and it had to be deleted. | ||
| She has had conversations with Dave numerous times and never been criticized for him being a gay married man and having surrogate children. | ||
| This means the issue isn't that pressing nor as offensive to you as Nick is. | ||
| And that's fine. | ||
| That was always allowed. | ||
| However, my point then is there are individuals in whatever faction that are unwilling to admit they overlook certain trespasses if they believe that there are actions being taken that benefit them in the long run. | ||
| That's my view of these things. | ||
| I just see Arin and these individuals on this side admitting it outright and Matt Walsh, for instance, and I see the side accusing others of being woke right of refusing to accept what they themselves are doing. | ||
| Okay, so do you see the difference between someone like Dave Rubin who or you know, you could talk about any other gay conservative, right? | ||
| Who is gay in their personal life versus a leftist who espouses gay ideology, gender ideology, who is pushing it, who it makes it a flagship that, you know, a part of their cause. | ||
| That's someone that I've, those are the people that I've always openly resisted and openly fought against, right? | ||
| And if someone like Rubin were to join in with that, I would resist him just like I would anybody else. | ||
| Will you advocate against surrogacy? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Will you condemn surrogacy? | ||
| Yes, and I have. | ||
| Have you not seen my Twitter account? | ||
| My Twitter feed is full of... | ||
| We've written Babylon Bee jokes about it, about gay people picking... | ||
| About Megan Kelly nearly being murdered. | ||
| You've written something like that about Dave having these kids? | ||
| What? | ||
| This is the point. | ||
| It doesn't matter if Dave is right or wrong or Megan's right or wrong. | ||
| The point is there's a clear focus to your intent. | ||
| And I don't know. | ||
| And that's it. | ||
| Like, okay, anyway. | ||
| My focus is preserving American liberty. | ||
| That's my focus. | ||
| Nick doesn't represent that, and so I won't unite with him. | ||
| I think that's fair. | ||
| So something we didn't get to do here enough, which hopefully maybe we can later, because I think it would be far more productive. | ||
| The personalities, all that stuff, I think red herring. | ||
| It gets us stuck in, you said this, we did that. | ||
| But the more important thing is I would like you to take the time to look at actual critiques of kind of where the conservative movement is. | ||
| I don't think we're far off on the ends that we want. | ||
| I think the difference is that I believe we are in a different time and space than you do and that the path back to what we want is not available the way that you are espousing it. | ||
| Not because I don't agree with these ends, but because mechanically there's a poor understanding of how politics works, how dialectics works, how democracy works that is not being addressed here. | ||
| This is what I go after. | ||
| And Jarvin, Land, Schmidt, yeah, we've mentioned all these people, but what we didn't talk about was Demaestra. | ||
| We didn't talk about a lot of Christian thinkers that I draw on to talk about these exact same issues. | ||
| And when you exclude those, then you're only picking certain aspects of the point. | ||
| Ultimately, I think that this is a collection of thinkers that helps us to look at the situation we're in and find solutions, even though I radically disagree on like Yarvin. | ||
| He's an atheist who doesn't see Christianity as central. | ||
| You agree with him on feudalism? | ||
| What do you mean on feudalism? | ||
|
unidentified
|
doesn't agree with feudalism you I mean we got it we got a wrap All right, guys, we're seriously just getting into it. | |
| But this is what I actually wanted to talk about and not James Lindsay. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Oh, my gosh. | ||
| That's all right. | ||
| Anyway. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| I think there's so much confusion that can be kind of inserted into a situation when you bring up personalities and conflating two different things. | ||
| I guess I'll just kind of reiterated my point that I think that ultimately I do think there's a way back. | ||
| I think that our hope is in Christ and in Christianity, not an empty tradition, ritual, government-sponsored religion, but real, devoted, actual Christianity, the kind that we saw at Charlie Kirk's funeral. | ||
| I think that there is hope. | ||
| I think there's no reason to blackpill. | ||
| And I think that here's the thing. | ||
| We get so tied up in strategy and tactics. | ||
| I think it really is as simple as be in God's word. | ||
| Try to understand the truth to the best of your ability. | ||
| Try to speak the truth to the best of your ability and refuse to budge. | ||
| Refuse to budge. | ||
| And if enough people are courageous to stand in what's right and to stand in the truth, then we'll win this. | ||
| That's what I'm saying. | ||
| Where can people find you? | ||
| Find me on Babylon B. You can find me on Twitter, Joel W. Berry. | ||
| I think this is the populist delusion. | ||
| I don't think that we reach some critical mass and then all of a sudden, no, you have to have effective leadership. | ||
| You have to have effective elites. | ||
| Political opinion is driven by elites and you have to have a strategy for how to deploy these things. | ||
| You can do that as a Christian. | ||
| You can do that as someone who is believing in a biblical worldview. | ||
| There's nothing evil or wrong with looking to use power in the way that will glorify God and bring your society closer to him. | ||
| And just because you propose that doesn't mean you're throwing away the Constitution. | ||
| I think we need a much better definition of what liberty means because I think we're using it too loosely and just saying liberty. | ||
| I'm sorry, but James Lindsay does not believe in the type of liberty that the liberty that Christian founders believed in. | ||
| Those are not the same two things. | ||
| And when you pretend that they are, you're conflating them on purpose to draw sides that don't exist. | ||
| You need to drill down to these issues. | ||
| That said, I'm Oren McIntyre. | ||
| You can find me on the voice. | ||
| So actually, we're going to begin the backstage pass for Timcast Discord members. | ||
| And that means while we're setting up Timcast IRL, we'll be hanging out in the studio. | ||
| The conversation is going to continue as it always does. | ||
| And your opportunity to listen will be go to Timcast.com, click join us, get in the Discord. | ||
| And I have a lot I want to say on more private political matters that relate to this space that I think is prescient, but we're out of time. |