Louder with Crowder - 🔴War Criminal Pete Hegseth: Debunking the Media's Newest BS Smear Campaign 2025-12-02 18:20

Dec. 2, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

41:40

🔴War Criminal Pete Hegseth: Debunking the Media's Newest BS Smear Campaign 2025-12-02 18:20

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Have been on board with what has traditionally been seen as not only conservatism, but patriotism.
	So reshape the GOP to match what's actually seemingly a pretty small contingency to match what?
	We would just look like the Democrat Party at that point.
	Yeah.
	No.
	So this is something where the media, what they're telling, and even then, these people who still break with a lot of you watching on a lot of issues, they still overwhelmingly support Donald Trump's job performance.
	Think about that for a second.
	Because you've been told that the strike in Iran, now people, they would rather impeach Donald Trump.
	They regret voting for him.
	Buyer's remorse.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Or certainly Hispanic black voters.
	I didn't even get into those demographics.
	They're actually some of the strongest supporters of Donald Trump.
	Which is interesting because this poll, you mentioned previously that it was an oversample of black and Hispanic voters.
	Right.
	And that question, I am a racist, 32%, there's zero chance there's no bleedover.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Well, I guarantee you Hispanics answer honestly, it's 100% racist.
	100% are racist.
	That's what I'm saying, dude.
	There's some, there's definitely, they make, when they had that question, I am a racist, they make it, because we've done this thing with media and the left where if you're racist, you're white.
	Right.
	Right.
	You can't be racist or anything else.
	Hispanic's an exception.
	They love to call them white.
	Right.
	Well, for some reason, are classified as whites.
	I don't know what that is, but they don't include them.
	Well, my lady, my woman, you know that pejorative term, she's not really Hispanic.
	She would be considered because she speaks Spanish and Portuguese.
	She's Brazilian American.
	She's American.
	She became a citizen, was raised here.
	She's racist, I realized, against every single group except white men.
	I realized that the other day.
	I said maybe she fears you.
	I said, well, yeah, yeah.
	And she should.
	I keep my pin pants strong.
	No, I realize she'll be like, oh, that's such a Hispanic man thing.
	She'll be like, oh, the machismo and looking, you know, and they're doing that and wearing the shirt button down.
	She'll be like, oh, yeah, that's all the women in Miami look at fake, fake diss and fake lips.
	And she'll be talking about it.
	She'll go like, oh, that's such a white woman thing.
	Oh, well, can we express our feelings?
	And she has a perfect white person voice.
	I mean, don't even get me started on black Americans and Asian Americans.
	She has no chip in her brain for some of the cultural norms.
	But basically, against everyone but white men.
	And that's honestly pretty typical.
	It's pretty typical.
	Hispanic people versus other Hispanic people.
	Oh, my God.
	So, yeah, this is something that we need to take into context.
	I think you need to take all information available to you.
	But people have made it seem like it's a civil war.
	And so the new Republican Party is going to be, it's going to be what?
	It's going to be, it's going to be Mamdani.
	I mean, honestly, if you look at like what, Mamdani, Bernie, AOC, people who are socially liberal but want to divest from Israel.
	How about the solution moving forward?
	I think this is a very fair, fair compromise.
	We should be conservative across the board, which, by the way, is one and the same with America First, meaning place the needs of Americans, our citizens, above all others, America first, okay?
	Socially conservative because that puts America first.
	That means we don't do the LGBTQAIP with kids, all that stuff.
	You want to keep it in your bedroom, okay, fine, but we're not going to do this.
	This is not going to be our society.
	We are going to be fiscally conservative because a lot of the social safety net programs have proven to be an abysmal failure.
	We, of course, are going to be strong on immigration.
	And because it's not inconsistent with our values at all, we're just going to limit foreign funding, foreign aid, foreign involvement as far as even assisting militaries, unless it benefits us.
	So that would mean Israel, hey, there are probably plenty of wealthy Jews who could make up the gap for that $3 billion a year.
	You have the right to act in your own self-interest with no intervention from us.
	We get it, but that also means no money from us.
	I think that is a viable path forward.
	And I think it's one that's pretty hard to argue with from Jews themselves or from people who think that Israel is the root cause of everything or Jews are the root cause of everything.
	That point, hey, we don't have a dog in that fight because we're focusing on America, but we're also not going to reshape the conservative movement to meet modern socialists who want cheaper housing prices.
	We should do that too.
	But that shouldn't be the only thing that we base our fundamental values on.
	Yeah.
	No, I 100% agree.
	And I think right now that a lot of people are focusing on the conversations that are happening and not the actual changing of beliefs.
	There's a lot of conversations happening around these different topics.
	And in some cases, that does lead to change, but they're looking at the conversations thinking that's the end of it.
	It's not.
	You want to keep this coalition together, show the younger people a future that is attainable and desirable and give them a roadmap to get there.
	And most of this coalition stays completely together and probably adds a lot of people to it.
	Show people a future that they can't attain and there's no plan to get there.
	And they start going, well, at least socialism gives me stuff.
	Right.
	That is the game right now.
	That is why Zorhan Mamdani is mayor of New York, period.
	There may be other ancillary issues that are affecting it, but that is the crux of it.
	And when people feel like they cannot make it, they can't get a job, they can't do anything that's going to lead to a better life, they start giving up.
	They start not having kids.
	They start not participating and they start making really bad decisions.
	Because at least tomorrow is secure if you're taking the billionaire's money and giving it to me for food.
	Well, let me give you a couple of examples here where people go, let's say, and this is a legitimate gripe.
	Young people saying housing prices have ballooned.
	They're unaffordable.
	Now, there's a little of column A, there's a little of column B, meaning this is by design.
	You've been forced out of the market.
	There have been a lot of policies that have been abysmal for young Americans.
	And there are also some more options made available to you than the nihilists will let you, will lead you on to believe.
	You can live further outside of the city.
	There are certain niceties that you can forego.
	There are trade schools available where you can make a good income right now and not worry about your job being given to someone else, at least in the near future.
	So that part needs to be included in the conversation.
	But let's look at people saying, hey, it's really hard for us out there, younger Americans.
	Yeah, I get that.
	All right.
	So what's causing that?
	And then they'll go, yeah, you know, DEI outlawing DEI.
	No.
	Right.
	New GOP is only, what was it, make?
	It was 45%.
	Okay.
	Well, hold on a second.
	Let's ask, what do you think has contributed to ballooning housing prices?
	Are you aware of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac?
	Aware of subprime loans?
	They used to call it predatory lending.
	That was DEI.
	That was make sure that poor minorities can get into homes with no money down and incredibly low interest in the name of equity, right?
	That completely altered the market.
	Hey, then you talk about deporting illegals.
	Older people who say yes, and older people in this case means over the age of 30.
	Well, yeah.
	Hey, what do you think happens to the housing market when you have people who work off the books?
	When you have 20 million people over the course of four years, when you have 53 million people who, by the way, can get favorable terms in some cases on loans, and there's far more demand for houses than supply.
	What do you think would happen tomorrow if we did away with 50 million illegal aliens?
	How many homes do you think would be available?
	What if we made sure that people who had no business being in those homes who couldn't afford it didn't get those homes and become foreclosed upon?
	You'd have a lot more homes available, and they'd be a lot more competitive to provide homes with people who actually can afford it and have money down.
	And if people need to have money down, if that's still a requirement, guess what?
	That home better be within the realm of affordability.
	So if you actually look at these issues, you say centralized economics, we also see from a lot of young people, right?
	Like I voted for Trump, but I'm okay with more big government spending.
	Okay.
	Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, massive importation of third worlders.
	And then what happened when all of this orchestrated, you know, this collapse, that's what it was.
	It was an orchestrated collapse.
	What happened?
	We bailed them out.
	Who was opposing that?
	You guys remember the Tea Party?
	And by the way, don't just say, okay, boomer.
	There are plenty of people who are in their early 30s who watched that.
	The Rick Santelli rant, right?
	We were opposed to the bailouts then.
	So horrible government policy in the name of DEI, in the name of making homes affordable to people coming to this country, legal or not, it collapsed.
	And then, by the way, we're also going to bail out these big banks because they're too big to fail, which is more socialism.
	You think more of that will improve it?
	Keep in mind that one wing, the Democrat wing, wants an entire generation of renters who will own nothing.
	Yeah.
	So the communication hasn't been very effective.
	No.
	And the left goes, I'm going to give it to you.
	I'm going to make housing affordable.
	How?
	Mandate.
	Didn't you kind of try to do that nationally?
	Didn't you force banks to?
	And by the way, like health insurance, if banks have to give these home loans to people who won't pay them back, well, why would they, oh, it's backed, it's guaranteed by the government.
	So no price is too high, right?
	They'll make up the difference.
	The communication has been bad.
	This isn't a MU principles.
	You can actually look at the results that can be quantified from Democrat policies on immigration, with housing, by the way, and with schooling, on DEI and equity, with housing, by the way, and with schooling, on centralized economic planning.
	TARP bailing out the banks by design.
	Same thing with, hey, how's your health insurance?
	Is it unaffordable?
	I agree with you.
	Why do you think that is?
	When did they start skyrocketing?
	Something, something Obamacare to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to young people who made up a huge portion of those who didn't have insurance pre-Affordable Care Act.
	Hey, how do you like air travel?
	Young Americans.
	It's all right.
	Have they been bailed out repeatedly?
	Is that a heavily regulated industry?
	So the communication hasn't been all that good.
	And people suggesting that the overcorrection is to meet Mamdani or Bernie halfway so that our party is morphed into that, yeah, it's okay to transit kids.
	Yeah, it's okay to not deport people.
	Yeah, I guess DEI isn't all that bad.
	Well, then you end up with nothing.
	Then you end up with an actual uniparty.
	And that's what the left wants, by the way.
	We kind of have gotten there.
	When people say uniparty, I go, yeah, yeah, the right has gone left and the left has gone far left.
	Seems like the suggestion here would be more of that.
	That's where I disagree.
	Yeah, 100%.
	And I do think that Trump needs better messaging on the affordability issue because at this, you know, he's been kind of looking at this right now.
	He's having his cabinet meeting that's being broadcast.
	And he said the affordability crisis is a con job by the left.
	Yeah, that's not good.
	I understand what he's, you know, we do give him some grace sometimes.
	It's bad messaging, period.
	Let me start out with that.
	But I understand what he's trying to say.
	It's like, hey, they're trying to make it sound like it's way worse than it is.
	I understand that, but that's not what people want to hear right now.
	Mamdani didn't get elected because it was a con job by the left.
	It's because people went out and tried to buy a house.
	They went to the grocery store.
	They went to buy a car.
	They went to try to get a job.
	They tried to get into their top five universities and ended up at number six.
	Yeah.
	Because there's so many foreign students come in.
	They saw H-1Bs come in and you want to uncapp this.
	And they competed in a job market flooded with illegal aliens that depresses wages across the board.
	So you've got to address that.
	And you really have to go, listen, like there is an element of toughen up a little bit, but that's not the main thing.
	The main thing is there is a massive problem.
	The only way to get through it is to toughen up a little bit.
	And we have to work on these policies that have led you to this place.
	Here's what I would do if I was him, if I was advising him.
	I would go, look, you don't want to be Barack Obama who blamed his horrible presidency, all of his ills on George W.
	Yeah, for sure.
	Okay.
	And then so did Biden.
	But you had a rip-roaring economy under Trump term one until we got to COVID.
	The inflation, the skyrocketing inflation, didn't really transpire until Biden's presidency, and it continued to get worse.
	Donald Trump should say, look, I get it.
	We've had one year to deal with what was a fundamental altering of the economy.
	And it's not enough.
	It's going to take a little bit of time to see these results.
	We are working on it, but one year isn't enough to reverse course with what was the most catastrophic economic decisions that were made by the previous administration.
	But we hear you, and we're working on it.
	We'd like to make it happen faster.
	And then tout some of the wins.
	Say, here's some of the progress, but we're going to need more than one year.
	We had four and we had record illegal immigration, record inflation.
	It takes a little while to correct it, but we hear you.
	We're doing everything we can.
	And give us a little more time to make it better because people are living it.
	And that also is reality.
	Yeah.
	It was so destructive.
	It's going to take more than a year.
	Yeah.
	And that was the toughen up part.
	It wasn't just like, oh, you need to be tougher.
	It's like, hey, you're going to have to toughen up to get through this.
	Give us a little bit of time.
	That's where we need you to be tough.
	Hold the line.
	Give us a minute to fix these things.
	But don't say it's a con job by the left.
	Again, this is going back to the Epstein thing, the Epstein hoax.
	Don't say it's a hoax.
	Because if you're trying to say that the Dem saying you're in it is a hoax, you're doing it very ineloquently.
	You're giving the left every opportunity to hit you.
	What he should say is, you know, those on the left who we didn't hear a peep out of them under the Biden administration trying to say that it's not being released because I'm in the Epstein files.
	I actually want them released.
	So that's another hoax from the left, just like Russia, Russia, just like the files compared to what they were next to Biden's Corvair.
	So, yeah, I think we should release those files.
	Anyone telling you that I'm in there, I did anything other than work with the authorities, oh, they're trying to peddle another hoax.
	That, no one would have a problem.
	It's just a hoax.
	That's a problem.
	That's a problem.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But I certainly wouldn't take the alternative, Kamala Harris.
	I truly believe that if Kamala Harris was president, this country would have ceased to be because we were at such an accelerated rate.
	Yeah.
	The illegal immigration, we would probably be at least another 10, 15, if not 20 million illegal aliens under Kamala Harris, the census rule change where you would have entire redistricting where it would be near impossible for any, you would have actually ended up with, I think, really close to a uniparty country if Kamala Harris was president.
	So if we're going to burn it all down because we're dissatisfied, and I'm dissatisfied with some, some of the time I'm getting exactly what I voted for, it is incumbent upon the person to provide an alternative.
	And right now, I mean, we know what the alternative is, and it's scary.
	Yeah, it's very, very bad.
	So I think that's what you see generally is support.
	So I'll keep monitoring the, I don't know if, guys, if I know Hag Seth has spoken at the cabinet meeting, it doesn't seem like CNN covered too much of that, but we do have some interesting tweets if you want to move on to some fun stuff.
	Okay.
	So Candace Owens this morning.
	Oh, I was going to say to find fun.
	Well, I it's interesting.
	Okay.
	This is a pretty big claim here.
	I mean, she kind of went on.
	I'll read it for you.
	Bring that up.
	This is circulating now.
	So this is from Candace.
	Look, it's 7.32 this morning.
	I received information last night that put the final pieces together for me.
	I now can say with full confidence that I believe Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership of Turning Point USA and some of the very people who eulogized him on stage.
	Yes, I will be naming names and providing evidence for my claims.
	And I am making a personal plea to every well-meaning person who donated to this Godforsaken organization to request a refund.
	You were lied to and leadership new.
	Well, wow.
	Look, I will say this.
	Getting this in real time.
	Did she clarify the French, the Legionnaires, too?
	Did we get the receipts, the evidence for that?
	I don't think I saw anything.
	If it's true, then I hope this comes to light.
	If it's not, she probably lose a lawsuit because they can immediately prove damages.
	They can immediately prove damages if people start asking for refunds or people stop donating.
	And if it's not true that she can prove verifiably that those closest to Charlie Kirk, which doesn't, I would imagine doesn't include Erica, right?
	Don't imply that.
	Never Erica.
	Well, she said closest.
	Closest.
	That wouldn't include his wife.
	No, that wouldn't include his wife.
	No, no, no, no.
	And current CEO.
	If it's not true, the only defense would be, I'm an idiot.
	I believe this.
	That would be the only defense because you already meet, if it's not true, if it can't be verified as far as libel or defamation, you already have damages if she made a financial call to action.
	So I, hey, if that is true, then I hope that we find out and it comes to light.
	This is one of those, I would say, market.
	And really, this would be an important litmus.
	If it's true, great.
	If it's not, that's going to pose some problems.
	Yeah.
	And this is one of those times where, you know, like there have been some squishy claims in the past that I think it's very kind of hard to pin down.
	Yeah.
	There's been some other things where it's like, you know, I had these text messages.
	She did.
	You know, like, I don't, we weren't even calling her out on that.
	We were just like, what does it actually mean?
	This is one of those where you got to kind of show some receipts, too.
	And you have to be like 100%.
	Like, if we ever got a story like that, like if we had receipts, we would do a lot of digging to make sure that it was accurate.
	But Andrew from TPUSA actually posted, I think, a Bible verse is what I'm being told.
	So let me see.
	Lying lips are an abomination.
	So this is actually at 11 this morning.
	Okay, so maybe it may be in response to that, but it doesn't look like it was tagged on it.
	Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.
	Proverbs 12, 22.
	To which Candace replied, you shall be hoisted by this scriptural petard.
	Now, I thought petard was actually like a spear.
	It's actually not.
	It's a bomb that was a lot of times attached to a gate.
	So there's some spear-like elements to it.
	So my apologies.
	It's actually a bomb.
	So basically, you're going to be destroyed by your own trap.
	Well, he was pretty close with Charlie.
	So he was very close.
	Implied that he's in there.
	I mean, I really, genuinely.
	I hope not.
	That would be awful.
	That would be really sad if his own friends.
	Now, she has been broad enough with betrayed, where she could say, I didn't say involved in the assassination.
	I don't know, man.
	I mean, I'm over.
	That doesn't still.
	They betrayed him.
	They got him Chipotle when he asked for kava.
	Yes.
	That's true.
	That's ridiculous.
	Baja Fresh, damn it.
	Yeah.
	Did they say Baja Fresh?
	I used to like that more than Chipotle.
	I don't think.
	What?
	But the call to action financially, I would imagine.
	Screw this.
	Screw Candace.
	What?
	Baja Fresh?
	Way better than Chipotle.
	Oh, really?
	Chipotle tastes like a Lower East Side cab driver's armpit.
	First off, why are you tasting the armpits of Lower East Ships?
	It's how it smells.
	There aren't enough air fresheners in the world.
	Taste not.
	Scent is connected to taste.
	Yeah, you wouldn't know that because Somalia.
	I understand that.
	70 to 80% of what you taste is what you smell.
	I got it.
	But you still have the other 20 to 30, all right?
	Did Gerald just admit to being Somalian?
	Yeah.
	Somalia.
	How's your mom boob taste?
	Somalia?
	That's India.
	That is true.
	We were integrating so many ethnicities today.
	I got them confused.
	Scott, not feather.
	There we go.
	So, but here's another fun one.
	You remember when we were talking about Jillian Michaels and like new people to the conservative?
	She responded.
	To me?
	Yeah, to you.
	Oh, okay.
	I guess this happened pretty recently.
	I don't know if we can pull it up.
	Pull it up.
	I have to look and see.
	Wow, that's a lot of words, but it's good.
	Well, here, here we go.
	If you'd spent five minutes on Google at S. Crowder, that's you, you'd see I've never claimed to be a conservative.
	I've always said I'm a moderate who happens to enjoy the company of conservatives and prefers the way they govern our over progressives.
	And if you only trust the concerns of established conservatives, Charlie Kirk was fairly adamant that there's no place for Fuentes in conservatism.
	To address the rest of your clip montage, my early vote was for Kennedy because America's health has always been my priority or Americans' health.
	But that's not the point.
	Oh my gosh, this is long.
	It is long.
	I don't know how much I should read.
	All of it?
	All of it.
	Yeah, but that's not the point.
	Yeah, this is a technical.
	It's about basic decency.
	So let me ask you plainly: you're comfortable with the claim that women want to be raped.
	That's so static.
	There's no statistic, moral framework, or political philosophy that validates that.
	None.
	You're an idiot.
	Hold on a second.
	I was going to say, hold on.
	You guys have the statistic ready, right?
	To study from mission control.
	But go ahead and continue.
	Mission control, you can grab that.
	But yes.
	That's so stupid.
	Okay.
	And as I told Don Jr. in the part of the conversation you didn't show, if conservatives can't immediately and unequivocally reject this as not conservatism, progressives will own the midterms 2028 and beyond.
	That's not partisan.
	It's obvious.
	Hold on.
	That's not what you said.
	You said if they read all of it, and then I'm going to ask you to read parts.
	Yeah, it is.
	This is my call mark card.
	She is calling.
	And then I'm going to ask you to read individually because I'm going to go through each claim live with you now.
	And we'll go through the process and you'll experience it live.
	But continue reading it so we have the totality.
	If you can't denounce something this vile, it tells us far more about you than you realize.
	And look, you strike me as a guy who's not afraid of confrontation.
	So if you take umbrage with me voting Republican and asking your party to clearly denounce racism, sexual violence, and anti-Semitism, we can always have that conversation face to face instead of through chopped up YouTube clips.
	Okay, well, as you well know, of course, you're welcome to come on the show, Jillian Michaels.
	Yes.
	And a lot of this, some straw men here and some outright factual inaccuracies.
	Now, my, and by the way, well, okay, let's go through this point by point because right now I'm looking at all of it going like, this is wrong, this is wrong.
	So let's read it again, start it, and then I'll ask you to pause, Gerald.
	I apologize.
	So let's go through the first claims.
	All right, let's see.
	So you want me to do it where you're going to be able to do it?
	Yeah, just read from the top and I'll say from the stuff.
	So one of the claims.
	Okay, if you want, if you'd spent more than five minutes, you'd see I've never been conservative.
	I've always said I'm a moderate who enjoys the company of conservatives and prefers the way they govern over progressives.
	Okay, pause.
	Well, then, fine.
	No issues with me.
	You're not a conservative.
	You're not a Republican.
	I'm fine with that.
	Then don't tell people who are conservative, Republican or America First how they should govern their party or their movement.
	My issue is with a woman new to this telling people that you have to do this.
	I understand that you'll frame it as though it's just advice because of a midterm, but we're not talking, I'm not talking about political advice.
	I'm talking about ideologically, if you are not a conservative, if you are not MAGA, if you are not America First, if you are not right-wing, then I have no qualms with you.
	Just don't tell us how to run our own show.
	Continue.
	Next claim.
	All right.
	So, and if you only trust the concerns of established conservatives, Charlie Kirk was fairly adamant that there's no place for Fuentes in conservatism.
	Okay, pause.
	That's a straw man.
	I don't only trust the concern of established conservatives.
	I break with them on quite a bit.
	And then you have to define what that is.
	What do you mean by established conservatives?
	That's a term that people use, and it's often used by people who don't identify as conservative.
	Do you mean like a Thomas Sowell?
	Do you mean, I mean, do you mean someone like George Washington?
	Do you mean Reagan?
	Or do you mean Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro?
	Or I don't even understand what she's claiming here because she's making the case that it is incumbent upon everyone to disavow Nick Fuentes.
	I disagree with Nick Fuentes.
	And just like I'll host you, I will host him.
	And I don't like people like you intertwining the idea of disavowing with never talking to.
	I've talked with people who've literally said that I am of no value to the world.
	Imams, feminists, transgender mayors.
	So that's the problem that I have with conflating.
	But I don't know what you mean by trusting established conservatives.
	Let's go on to the next claim.
	All right.
	So the next claim is here.
	So, but that's not the point.
	I'm sorry.
	Sorry.
	To address the rest of your clipped montage, my early vote was for Kennedy because Americans' health has always been my priority, but that's not the point.
	Okay, hold on a second, pause.
	Clipped montage.
	I got the implication there.
	Do you run clips on your show?
	Jillian?
	Let me ask you this.
	I know you do.
	Right?
	That's rhetorical.
	Do you provide references with the full videos for every single clip you run on your show?
	I do.
	Do you tell people to go and watch the full segment for context?
	I do.
	Every single show.
	Should you want to make that implication?
	And I did not clip you out of context.
	I showed the clip in context to the relevant point and provided links.
	And I advocate that everyone go and watch your entire show.
	If there's something that we missed, I'm not seeing it in this post, then we can address it.
	But that is common practice here.
	We don't always get it right.
	Do you put in the same effort?
	Do you have a bibliography for every single show?
	Otherwise, you know, probably sit those kinds of implications on your back burner.
	Next claim.
	So let me put it right here.
	So let me ask you.
	So this isn't ideological.
	It's about basic decency.
	Pause.
	Sorry, Gerald.
	You're mister.
	I'm good.
	You're good.
	Who defines basic decency?
	Yeah.
	Who defines basic decency?
	And that doesn't matter because we're going to determine basic decency for a society.
	Ah, that brings us back to how is that determined?
	By a very specific ideology.
	That's why I'm conservative.
	It's conserving the founding ideology of this country.
	That's what determines basic decency.
	Otherwise, who's going to determine it?
	You?
	Nick Fuentes?
	Because you both think that you have a corner on basic decency.
	And I don't necessarily, I don't know all of yours.
	I can tell you this, not disavow.
	I don't agree with Nick on quite a few of his views as they relate to basic decency.
	I guarantee you I disagree with yours because like you said, you were a lifelong more so liberal who's now a moderate or maybe a lifelong moderate who just voted Republican for the first time.
	I don't want to mischaracterize you, but you would have very different views on basic decency than I do.
	So the only way you can establish it is ideological as far as the founding of this country because I don't want you or Nick Fuentes determining what is basic decency.
	Let's go on to the next claim.
	All right.
	So it says, so let me ask you plainly, you're comfortable with the claim that, quote, women want to be raped?
	Hold on a second, pause.
	No, not only am I not comfortable with the claim that women want to be raped, I'm intensely uncomfortable with you mischaracterizing the viewpoint that women want to be raped.
	Meaning, you can take words, but you can take them out of context.
	Does anyone here think it's okay to say that, yeah, women want to be violently raped in an alley way?
	No.
	But where would that come from?
	And this is my issue, right?
	I probably disagree with Nick Fuentes on a whole lot more than you fully understand.
	But when you pull that quote, seems a whole lot like that leftist feminist is still in you because it's out of context.
	You know what you accused me of doing?
	There is a study, and hopefully Michigan Control could pull up.
	I believe it's two-thirds of women have to some varying degrees rape fantasies.
	Am I right about that?
	62%.
	Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy.
	Which is somewhat higher than previous estimates.
	This is from PubMed.
	This is from PubMed.
	Now, I understand, again, context, Jillian.
	I understand that when women say they have a rape fantasy, what they really mean, and I also believe that Nick Fuentes probably understands this, and I think that you probably know this as well.
	It usually means a woman has a fantasy about being ravaged by an attractive man who lusts for her.
	His carnal desire for her is so overpowering that he can't help himself.
	And usually he's six foot making six figures with a six pack.
	Her rape fantasy isn't being raped by the Somalian pirate crackhead in the alleyway.
	I understand that.
	But someone saying, well, that's a thing.
	You know, women, if they're trying to make a point, and it's in a long list of points, half of women, I believe her claim was, Nick Fuentes said half, half of women have a rape fantasy.
	None.
	No, no, no.
	She said that Nick Fuentes said.
	She said there's no statistic, moral framework, or political philosophy that validates that.
	None.
	So women want to be raped.
	Period.
	Period.
	First off, rape is bad.
	Yes.
	Jillian Michaels.
	No one should rape, to be clear.
	But I think it's important to define what that is and not mischaracterize people so that you can strawman them.
	You know, it'd be a lot easier if you had Nick Fuentes on.
	I'll have you on.
	How about you have him on?
	Maybe he can clarify.
	I would imagine, and again, I disagree.
	This is a no-win proposition because a lot of people are going to be mad no matter what I say.
	I would imagine that Nick Fuentes would probably clarify and point you to the study that 62% of women have a rape fantasy that you can find in PubMed.
	The good news is we provide all of our references link in the description.
	Again, I ask, do you?
	So where did that number come from?
	Published medical journal.
	Pull it back up real quick.
	Here's the reason I say that.
	They have these fantasies at a frequency of about four times per year, with 14% of participants reporting they had a rape fantasy at least once a week.
	So it's not like it's a one-time thing.
	It seems to be a repeating, recurring fantasy that a lot of women have.
	No one is advocating for rape, aside from Islamic societies.
	That's true.
	No one is advocating for the idea that women are just asking for it and want to be raped.
	So you should rape them.
	It's a valid point to make that sexual norms and gender dynamics tell us.
	And by the way, a very large body of data suggests that women like sexually dominant men.
	And they, in some of these studies, categorized it as a rape fantasy.
	That is not the same as saying that women want to be violently raped.
	And that is certainly not tantamount to saying that as a society, since we can make this claim, we should allow women to be raped.
	Some societies do because they view it as, you know, what you refer to as basic decency.
	Next claim.
	All right.
	As I told Don Jr. in the part of the conversation you didn't show, if conservatives can't immediately and unequivocally reject this as not conservatism, progressives will own that midterms 2028 and beyond.
	That's not partisan.
	It's obvious.
	I understand that point.
	And I would say that's a valid point to make.
	I don't necessarily know that it's clear that that's correct, but I think it's a valid opinion to have if you're saying, hey, you need to distance yourself from this.
	That being said, we also had people who said, you know, you need to distance yourself from the immigration issue.
	People saying you need to distance yourself from the abortion issue.
	For a long time, people said you need to distance yourself from the gun issue after Columbine, after Parkland, after, I'm trying to remember the other one.
	Columbine was a big one.
	What was the other?
	Newtown.
	Yeah.
	Guess what?
	It's now the single losingest issue for Democrats.
	In other words, what is not politically a winning strategy now, that does not determine whether it is correct or not.
	Now that, put that aside, that is outside of the conversation to have, is Nick Fuentes right?
	I think he's wrong about a lot, and I'll talk with him about it.
	I would suggest that you do the same.
	The problem I have is with people who have no understanding as to what conservatism, as to what MA is, as to what America First is, telling people what they should do like you're some kind of oracle.
	And by the way, it's nothing new and it's not particularly original.
	My primary problem is with you telling people what they need to do or risk losing your vote.
	It's not one that I particularly value, and I don't think that it's an accurate bellwether as to the future of conservatism.
	Next claim.
	If you can't denounce something this vile, it tells us far more about you than you realize.
	Oh, well, that's the feminist thing.
	That's the feminist.
	Tell me you're a feminist without saying you're a feminist.
	If you can't denounce this person who you haven't spoken with yet based on my quote that I am taking out of context while telling you that playing my actual clip and telling people to go watch the whole interview is out of context, then it says more about your character.
	Okay, what does this say about my character?
	I disagree with Nick Fuentes on a whole lot.
	I think there's a problem with some of his views.
	I'm going to host him.
	We're going to talk about it.
	I would encourage you to do so.
	And 62% of women, according to the data we have available to us, have rape fantasies.
	What does that say about me?
	What does it say about you?
	Let's not even indebt your character.
	Intellectually.
	Were you aware of this?
	Next claim.
	And look, you strike me as a guy who's not afraid of confrontation.
	So if you take umbrage with me voting Republican and asking your party to clearly denounce racism, sexual violence, and anti-Semitism, we can always have the conversation face to face instead of through chopped up YouTube clips.
	Music to my ears.
	Bring it back up one more time.
	If you take umbrage, again, this is a mischaracterization and it's trying to achieve some sort of victim currency here.
	I didn't say I'd take umbrage with you voting Republican.
	I'm glad that you're voting Republican.
	Hey, I don't know what your worldview is faith-wise.
	I would also welcome you into my church.
	If you don't know Jesus Christ, your Lord and Savior, I'd like the opportunity to evangelize to you and provide you with all of the information available that you would need to make a decision.
	Not going to have you preach.
	First of all, because you're a woman, so you can't be a pastor or a reverend, but most importantly, because you're new here.
	So you should sit and learn.
	Absolutely, you can go to church.
	Absolutely, you can take part in the activities.
	And you should sit and learn and submit yourself to the authority of those who have already gained the experience so that they are able to teach.
	You know, like you do with glute raises.
	You know it better than them.
	If someone came in and told you how to train people who just recently got on a fitness kick, you would probably say, well, thanks.
	I'm glad you're in the gym.
	But don't tell me how to do something that I've spent my entire life doing.
	Toning butts.
	Making fat people get on a treadmill on a reality TV show.
	I am glad that you have voted Republican.
	I also understand, by your own description, that you're a fair weather voter, and that could go either way.
	And so I don't think that we should be basing our strategy or basing any compromising of our principles upon the advice of someone who is new here and doesn't share our principles.
	I'm glad that you voted Republican.
	I also would advise people to probably not take advice from someone who is so blissfully unaware as to the data that 62% of women have rape fantasies and that that does not equate to saying women all want to be raped.
	I don't know if you're ignorant on this issue.
	And that doesn't mean you're stupid.
	I don't know if you're ignorant on this issue or if you are manipulating.
	But it is one of those two because you're wrong in the way you're trying to mischaracterize people and then extend your advice.
	Well, I reject your mischaracterization.
	I reject your strumming and I reject your advice.
	Doesn't mean that I reject you as a person.
	And it doesn't mean that I would reject you as a personal trainer.
	I mean, I probably would.
	But.
	There's another mischaracterization there, too.
	She says you won't condemn, what I remember words she said, won't condemn sexual violence.
	Racism, sexual violence, and anti-Semitism.
	So she's implying that because you wouldn't say you wouldn't say you disavow Nick Fuentes, that you are okay with sexual violence.
	I just, I wouldn't.
	Because he quoted a stat she didn't know about?
	I don't know if he quoted a stat.
	It could be like Donald Trump saying hoax or you say, well, maybe he doesn't put eloquently.
	He said women want to be raped in those contexts.
	But I don't think he was saying just randomly raped by somebody off the street.
	He was talking about, I believe, the fantasies that women have.
	Is Jillian Michaels, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know.
	Is she a lesbian or is she heterosexual?
	Do we know?
	I don't know.
	Do we know?
	Can someone look that up?
	And I genuinely don't know.
	I thought I believed for some reason that she might be a lesbian.
	And again, I could be totally wrong.
	Her spouse is Deshauna Marie Menudo.
	Oh, okay.
	There you go.
	Well, look, you may differ.
	You may differ with 62% of women, and I say this respectfully, because you fear the peen.
	You recoil at the peen.
	Change the word rape to ravage.
	To ravage.
	There you go.
	And I'm okay with a statement.
	Women in general want to be ravaged sexually.
	Again, in a consensual relationship by someone they love.
	That's what they like.
	And you know what?
	I'll lose some Christians here because they'll get mad at me and say, oh, come on, that's not something we should discuss.
	No, no, we should.
	Also, young men, it's important that you know that.
	Because if you're not able to ever take sexual control, you will lose attractiveness in the eyes of your female partner.
	Again, I find it difficult to take advice from a lesbian on male-female intersexual dynamics because you don't like it.
	It's like someone going, damn it, I hate ice cream.
	What are you doing, Neapolitan?
	It's like, I give a shit what you say.
	You hate ice cream.
	You hate the D. Women who love the D, women who want the D, women who in some capacity have a need for the D biologically, evolutionarily, they like to be ravaged by the D.
	A majority, not some, a majority.
	No one is advocating for rape.
	And that's a liberal tactic.
	That's a leftist tactic to use.
	That's the problem I have.
	And I will tell you this too.
	It kind of rubs me the wrong way where someone who socially would not share my values or the values of people under the umbrella of conservatism, America First, telling the president's son what he should do, not advising, but it's a requirement that he disavow someone politically.
	And especially when you know that this is a man who has been canceled in one capacity or another, to use that term, who would obviously be hesitant to do that to someone else, even if he disagrees with him.
	These two are not logically inconsistent.
	I think JD Vance said Nick Fuentes is an idiot or something like that and said, and absolutely, he has the right to say what he says.
	And the truth is, I can't disavow any human being if I don't know all of their views.
	And by the way, that's a challenge with Nick Fuentes because he kind of switches them a whole lot.
	I will say this: I know enough about Mamdani's views that I disavow Mamdani, I guess, but what does that mean?
	I'm not a socialist.
	And so if Nick Fuentes doesn't identify as a conservative, and as I understand it, he doesn't.
	Why is it incumbent upon conservatives to disavow him?
	There's nothing that's intellectually curious, seemingly genuine, or consistent in your assertions here.
	And I think if you want to tell someone that they're clipping something out of context to try and play some gotcha, along with the implication that I wouldn't face you, you're talking to the wrong guy.
	And I think that's because you're new around these parts.
	But we can talk about it.
	And I will host you very respectfully, even if you are a feminist lesbian who's new to the party.
	Anything else?
	No?
	All right, pretty good.
	I'm out.
	See you tomorrow.
	Oh, geez.
	How can we distinguish United States culture from Oklahoma culture, from Oklahoma City culture?
	Yeah.
	There are different sizes to it.
	Sure.
	And a lot of the smaller parts of this country don't speak English as their native language, simply because a lot of them are immigrants, second-generation immigrants, third-generation immigrants.
	Yeah.
	And so why...
	You just define the difference between national borders and state borders.
	Yes, sir.
	Right?
	And a national border is a language.
	A national border is net contributions.
	A national border is you keep your resources here.
	If you want to be a part of this nation, you place this nation before all others.
	That's what I know.

▲