Louder with Crowder - 🔴 Nick Fuentes Sits Down with Crowder 2025-12-04 18:05

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 4, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

01:23:36

🔴 Nick Fuentes Sits Down with Crowder 2025-12-04 18:05

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Benefit, but in the long term, I worry about that.
	Yeah, I definitely think it's better in the long term.
	And I agree with you completely on 600,000 Chinese students.
	I don't know if you saw we did an entire hour on that.
	H-1Bs, I was throttled as a result from, well, I can't say Elon Musk directly, but I believe I perhaps called him a retard, whatever it was.
	I insulted him quite publicly and, you know, for my troubles, made $27 in the course of a month on X. Ashley Sinclair made like 26 grand in two weeks.
	Who knew, right?
	That's kind of odd.
	So, yeah, I agree with you on H-1Bs.
	I will tell you, worse than 600,000 Chinese students would be another 15 to 20 million illegals and changing the census rule, which is what we were looking at, where that redistricts the entire map.
	And there's no chance to any type of conservative, Republican, nationalist populist being elected again.
	And I do think that there was a lot of progress made.
	I would go, I mean, a lot of wins, not only the board.
	99% is not marginal to me as far as reduction.
	I think that's pretty significant.
	But I'd like to go to, I understand where you're coming from.
	I understand that perspective, but I also don't understand what the threshold is as far as, okay, burn it all down or we want to delegitimize the system.
	Because I know we lived through that.
	Like you just said, Republicans thought it was an illegitimate election.
	I did as well.
	Not a whole bunch of folks at the Daily Wire back then.
	So I think we were on the same page.
	And I also, obviously, when we had the lockdowns, all of that, we then lived through four years of Biden, right?
	So it was already seen as not legitimate.
	We saw the results.
	I think the results of not electing another Biden is better.
	But I would like to roll a clip because I think it's in this vein and might help set it up.
	It was where you discussed, oh, Epstein, too.
	That's one thing.
	Of course, I absolutely agree.
	I don't know if you know, I recreated the Epstein cell down to the millimeter and tried to hang myself with a force meter.
	I saw that, yeah.
	It's possible, not likely.
	So I thought it was a huge mistake.
	I think Pam Bonnie's an idiot.
	And I mean, actually, like an idiot, like she potentially could be a mongoloid using the term hate speech.
	She's a moron.
	And I've always said that using the term, and that rollout was terrible.
	That doesn't undo the things that a lot of people who elected not just Trump, but the cultural wins that they want.
	I think there's a lot of good there, and I don't think burning it down is the best approach.
	But here you mentioned a new potential coalition, and I think sort of lay out a prescription as to how to go forward.
	I'd like to ask you about it.
	And again, we'll make the link to the full show available so that no one mischaracterizes anything.
	RoCanna and Thomas Massey working together against the interests to compel the files.
	What do you think that has?
	A 90% approval rating?
	If you had progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans working together, let's say to compel the release of the Epstein files, what kind of approval rating do you think that has?
	90%.
	And what if they got together and they opposed foreign aid to Israel?
	What approval rating do you think that would have?
	90%?
	Do you think that Republicans or independents running under that brand, do you think that that would become more popular or less popular over time?
	Four becomes eight, eight becomes 16.
	It snowballs.
	And we need to propel someone into the White House that is just a populist.
	If the right can come down on health care and on a social safety net and maybe on some subsidies for education, and if the left can come down on the anti-white open border stuff and they can agree that we have a country, that party will win 90% of the vote and rule for a century.
	That's the compromise.
	That's the populist compromise.
	Okay.
	And I think you were, you know, you articulated that pretty well.
	I would say Epstein already has a coalition.
	Everyone voted to release the files except Clay Higgins, who is a punchline, deservedly so.
	Like, that's the first time everyone knew Clay Higgins.
	Like, he really must love pedophiles.
	I wish I loved anything as much as he loves defending sex islands.
	I would like to hear your prescription for how that works, because I would say this: if the only compromise was the left on immigration, and if I believe that there was any semblance of a reality in which they compromise on immigration and compromising on free markets to varying degree, okay.
	But what do we do with a Rokana on the Second Amendment, on the First Amendment, on transing the kids, on reparations that someone like a Rokana or any member of the Democratic Party, but Rokana specifically says is a priority economically and morally on abortion.
	What do you do with all of the other compromises that aren't listed?
	How does that coalition work?
	And bring me through the end point.
	Well, and I'm not a huge fan of either of them, actually.
	You could also say Thomas Massey on H-1Bs.
	You could say Thomas Massey on immigration, also.
	You could say him on Israel, also, as far as his biggest donor.
	It's not APAC, but a lot of influence.
	Certainly.
	Certainly.
	But what I'm referring to is maybe more something like Trump 2016, who is basically a populist.
	And you look at Trump in 2016, and to me, that's kind of the prescription where it's like in 2016, he comes out and he says, we're going to get the money out of politics.
	He says, I'm not going to take donor money.
	I'm not going to take super PAC money.
	I don't listen to special interests.
	He says, law and order, close the border.
	As far as health care, he didn't even give a plan.
	He said, we'll just take care of everybody.
	He said, we'll get rid of the lines around the states and we'll just take care of everybody.
	Who even knows what that means?
	And he says, we're going to put America first in foreign policy.
	Now, I think that here's the thing.
	I'm under no illusions.
	We're not going to win 80% of the left or 40% or even 30%.
	But I'm thinking that if we can win, because I think there are a lot of people on the far left or even some of the abundance liberals, they're getting tired of a lot of the far left too.
	There's a lot of these liberals in the center that are saying, how are you going to have public transportation when you have people getting stabbed in the neck and there's no police?
	Like we can't defund the police and even have these cities that we want to have.
	I think there's a lot of people on the far left too that are saying, you know, maybe the woke has gone too far.
	I'm sure was that a quote?
	Did Rokana say that?
	Or was that just a general question?
	No, I'm not.
	I'm not, I'm not talking specifically about Rokana.
	That's just an example.
	Because I could, when I hear it, I almost thought you said, like, I was like, oh, yeah, that sounds like something a liberal would say, like, stab the cop in the neck.
	No, no, when people are being stabbed in the neck by like black people, for example.
	Oh, that's also something I could hear a leftist supporting.
	But yes, okay, go on.
	I just didn't know if it was specific.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, and here's the thing.
	I mean, fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that let's just talk about it in general.
	So that's my prescription is like populist Trump.
	And let's just get a small percentage of the left liberals, you know, who I think have come a long way in the past five years since COVID.
	But I would say that in general, I think maybe where we disagree is I look at this Republican team.
	What has it actually done for us?
	Because you seem to be defending, like, well, we're supposed to vote Republican and we're supposed to say, well, this is better than the alternative.
	And he's making these wins.
	Well, hang on.
	And I look at it and say, it's been 10 years of Trumpism.
	And, you know, I know Biden brought them in, but we're 10 million illegals up since Biden and there's no mass deportations.
	I look at the wars.
	We're getting into more wars, not fewer.
	He wanted to keep us in Afghanistan and Bagram.
	He's building bases in Syria.
	We're getting into Venezuela.
	You know, I look at what we have not done in 10 years and I say, you know, this is a prescription where it hasn't been working.
	And so I'm very against this line where you say, well, we're going to vote Republican and we're going to, what exactly?
	I mean, what's your prescription?
	If Trump is failing us miserably, what are we supposed to do here?
	Yeah.
	Well, here's the thing is I don't agree that he's that our representatives are all failing us miserably.
	I think they failed in quite a few ways.
	If you're talking about like the Johnsons of the world and the rhinos, absolutely.
	But the things that you just listed, and I would, again, ask you for your prescription because I give mine Monday through Friday.
	I mean, every day, 11 a.m. Eastern.
	I've done one on voting, what we need to do.
	I've done one on immigration, done one on big tech and section 230.
	I'm very curious as to your prescriptions so that people can contrast them.
	You mentioned law and order.
	I don't know of any president who sent the National Guard in as aggressively when we're talking about D.C. and Chicago.
	That way you talk about law and order.
	Well, I'm saying any effort being made.
	I know what we've lived through as far as what Rokana would support Black Lives Matter, the Police and Justice Act.
	Again, I don't think in 2020.
	So let me ask you, what's your prescription?
	Why hopscotch all the people who I think watching right now would agree with you if they think that you're on board with them on LGBTQ, on immigration, on Second Amendment rights, on First Amendment rights?
	Why hopscotch then to compromise with someone who has actively fought to destroy all those things like a Rokana?
	Wouldn't it make more sense to form a coalition with more than half the country who already exists?
	Because you don't want to take them for granted.
	Take Trump out of it.
	I'm talking about the people, the voters.
	What's your prescription?
	I would say that it's a structural problem, which is that the reason, first of all, I mean, we have to deal with the fact that Trump is not delivering.
	Like, if you don't want a Gish Gallup, let's just start there.
	You say, well, I don't think it's a complete failure.
	Yeah, it is.
	And you bring up BLM.
	BLM happened in 2020 because Trump let it happen because Sean Hannity was calling him every day and saying, this is better for us in November if BLM burns down the cities.
	So the Summer of Love happened in 2020 when Trump was president.
	And then Trump comes back.
	It started under Barack Obama with going back to Trayvon Martin.
	The George Floyd, the George Floyd Summer of Love.
	Yeah, it was a continuation.
	Well, I think they kind of picked up on it.
	Don't you think?
	It wasn't like that.
	I was there and I had people on my show back then with hands up, don't shoot.
	And I remember the assassination of the Dallas PD.
	Donald Trump was elected specifically his first term because of how disruptive Black Lives Matter was and law and order.
	And I would say there was significantly more than under Barack Obama.
	But if you say they're the same, that's just where we disagree.
	Well, what are we debating about?
	I mean, in the George Floyd Summer of Love, maybe I'm wrong about the calendar.
	It was in 2020 when Trump was president.
	And it was the worst, arguably the worst BLM violence, I think, in the 21st century.
	I think that was worse, actually, than Mike Brown or Trayvon Martin.
	And Trump was president, and he didn't intervene because he was told it'd be better for him.
	And now in 2025, there's no National Guard.
	He chickened out on that.
	He chickens out on all that stuff.
	He was going to send him to Chicago, gonna send him to every major city.
	Never happened.
	Even here, you know, they're doing the deportations in Broadview here in Illinois.
	They brought in like 400 National Guard and ICE is still getting chased.
	And they got boxed in by a bunch of different protesters, one with the semi-automatic rifle.
	There's no law and order.
	Irina Zarutska died under Trump.
	The crime in New York under Trump.
	The crime in Chicago under Trump.
	It's a failure.
	And we're 10 years in.
	And so you say, what is it going to take?
	Because we elected him once.
	I just want to know, just because this is the point I'd like to address when you say Irina Zarutska, and obviously we've covered that.
	And I think we're in agreement when you look at the judge and you look at the man who was released, I believe, 14 times, right, under the guise of equity, Black Lives Matter, precisely the kinds of policies that only exist because they have been supported by the radical left who run the entire Democrat Party, right?
	So yeah, some of that happened under Trump's watch, and I agree.
	It's definitely far from perfect.
	And I think he's failed in a lot of ways.
	But who has been orchestrating?
	You talk about these constructionists, right?
	They want that.
	And people like Rokana, people who you talk about in your coalition, it's their raison d'étre.
	So why hopscotch the voters who would not vote for that coalition precisely for the reasons we're discussing?
	Because they're against all of it, because Trump hasn't done enough to fight.
	I mean, COVID happened under Trump too.
	Huge mistakes.
	Fauci, awful.
	But I certainly think that 20 million illegal aliens in four years is worse than a reduction of 90-something percent.
	I certainly think that the people who orchestrated Black Lives Matter and the people who ran those cities and the people who have blocked ICE from doing anything is worse than the guy sending in ICE with any effort at all.
	But let's talk about even that.
	Why do we get all these people from Venezuela?
	Because Trump hired John Bolton to destroy Venezuela's economy and then on his last day in office gave Venezuela temporary protected status.
	That was one of his last acts as president.
	And that means they can't be deported.
	And then you got 6 million Venezuelans in an exodus and how many of them ended up here.
	And by the way, Trump ran in 2016 saying, we're going to build the wall and we're going to solve immigration.
	It didn't happen.
	There's no wall.
	He didn't solve it.
	What he did was executive orders, which Biden immediately overturned when he took power and then brought in 10 million.
	Okay, so Trump gets elected again.
	What does Trump do?
	You're right.
	He did secure the border.
	That's true.
	But we're 10 million deep.
	That's a little too late.
	He promised mass deportations.
	We've had maybe 300,000 deportations this year.
	Is that going to go up during the midterm elections?
	Is that going to go up when everybody's running in the primary in 27?
	I don't see it happening.
	And either way, it hasn't happened.
	So this is my frustration where I'm like, I was with you in the first term.
	Because in the first term, when I was in college, I was like, yeah, like vote for Trump never coming down.
	If he falls short, we'll go on Twitter and tell him to try better.
	But 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, you know, Republicans have called for our vote all these times and things are not getting better like at all.
	And that's sort of the frustration where I start to say, let's turn the table around.
	And I'm not hopscotching over the voters.
	I want all the right-wing voters.
	What I want to hopscotch is the donors.
	I want to hopscotch the party, which is the RNC, which is, you know, Little Tech, Silicon Valley, which is the Israel lobby, which is Wall Street, because they're driving the stuff.
	Like the reason that Trump is not really what he delivers, you know, or what he promises is because, you know, if you were to deport all these illegal aliens, it's going to be bad for big agriculture, Wall Street.
	Inflation might tick up.
	And so Marjorie Taylor Green's construction company.
	That's right.
	Yeah, 100%.
	And that's why I want to bypass.
	Okay, so bypass.
	And nobody is saying that President Trump is perfect.
	And I'm not a micropolitical guy, a cultural guy, largely.
	And I think there's been a major shift culturally.
	I mean, half of all gay characters are going to be going away.
	And Glad is lamenting that.
	I don't know how much more happy I can get.
	I think that the re-platforming is a big thing, right?
	I mean, as someone who's been also debanked, demonetized through PayPal, Shopify, all that, you know, very similar to you.
	The fact that you're able to sit here now and have this conversation, I mean, it took a lot of work from coalition people like me, you know, turning down a $50 million contract and migrating the world's biggest conservative, right-leaning nationalist YouTube channel over to Rumble so that you're able to do that.
	That's a win, right?
	And you could look at that like a light switch, de-platformed, including the president himself, re-platformed.
	To me, that's probably the biggest thing.
	The fact that you are able to sit here and talk when you weren't.
	But I got re-platformed under Biden.
	I got my Twitter account back in May 24.
	Musk bought Twitter in 2022.
	And Rumble really started to grow after Trump got banned in 21.
	That's when all the little tech money jumped in because they said we're going to do True Social, Trump Media Group, Rumble, these things.
	So, you know, now that Trump is back in office, there might be more censorship.
	Like, you have people who are going to be able to do that.
	But Elon Musk put you back specifically.
	He bought that to balance the powers that be.
	I mean, there was a point in time in this census.
	But that's the reason for it, right?
	There's no world in which you're re-platformed unless Donald Trump is running again and someone like Elon Musk sees an already existing populist movement.
	That is important.
	And right now, this will actually be clips on YouTube.
	That could never have happened.
	I mean, I was literally deplatformed for having Kerry Lake on in a midterm.
	That's why we couldn't stream the elections.
	So to say that, well, that's because of Biden, are you giving Biden credit for Elon Musk buying X and bringing you back?
	Because I think that you got to give some credit here if you want to build a coalition.
	Can you build a coalition with the people going, hey, we are really anti-censorship and we're really hesitant to get back in bed with the party that pushed for all of it?
	Because there are other people not as popular as you who've also been deplatformed and re-platformed as a result.
	No, I'm not giving Biden credit.
	All I'm saying is you attribute that to Trump or for Republicans being in power.
	All I'm saying is one's got nothing to do with the other.
	And actually, it was a response.
	Musk buying Twitter was a reaction to the overreach of the Democrats because they banned the president from Twitter.
	And I would add to that also: you know, you know, censorship is a big problem.
	I don't think we're in the clear with Rumble or Twitter.
	There's going to be a lot of regulatory.
	Yeah.
	And what is Trump doing to solidify this free speech beachhead that you have built, that Elon has built?
	Nothing.
	Was that in the big beautiful bill?
	Is the FCC getting on top of that?
	You know, they flirted with doing that in 2020 when they said they were going to do section, what is it, 270 or 280 or whatever.
	They talked about doing that.
	They never did it.
	And so that's my problem where, and I'm with you.
	Like, no, can I just pause that?
	Because that's kind of in my realm of expertise because this is something where I've been here this entire time.
	Totally.
	And not to take credit, but certainly a pioneer in being demonetized and hiring.
	My biggest expense, especially coming up, has been legal outside of payroll because I saw this type of censorship coming.
	I'm the only one who was named in the Facebook files by name.
	It's how I met my lawyer, the Twitter files, and Susan Wojitsky and Congress women.
	I don't know if there were any men.
	I know there were a few women.
	Think Pelosi and what's her name?
	The Hirono, the lady from Hawaii who always talks about sex, asking for me to be that's how she opens every single hearing.
	It's like, how horny are you, lady?
	So that is something that I've lived through.
	And I think you're maybe discounting how bad it can get.
	And 230 is important, right?
	I've issued a prescription on how to fix that.
	And yeah, I'm disappointed that there hasn't been something fully solidified.
	But I would say there's a reason you're back.
	There's a reason that people are not afraid to speak out.
	And people like Trump, people who are more populist, the populists who exist in the right, they listen to their base.
	And I think it's good that you're pushing him.
	But what would be enough?
	In other words, would there be a threshold enough so that you don't just sort of elope with the Rokanas and the Bernie bros of the world?
	It's not about eloping.
	And I would say, what does enough look like?
	I would know it when I saw it.
	It would be not like bombing Iran is like a punchline for what Israel wants.
	That's pretty bad.
	I would say that not mass deporting people, you don't need to deport 10 million in one year, but a million per year.
	And how about anything and literally anything on free speech?
	You know, Ron DeSantis had some legislation and Texas had some legislation about free speech.
	Could we get something like that, regulatory or legislative?
	You know, I just look across the board and, and here's, and maybe this addresses the heart of the matter.
	I sort of look at Trump and I say, I see what you have done for them.
	Can you bless us in the same way?
	Because they will move heaven and earth to lower the corporate tax rate.
	They will move heaven and earth to give a trillion dollars for AI.
	And they will give Saudi Arabia a non-non-NATO major defense ally.
	They'll give Qatar a security guarantee.
	They'll bomb Iran for Israel.
	They'll bomb Yemen for Israel.
	What will you do for us?
	A middle-class tax cut?
	Will you give us law and order, National Guard, mass deportation?
	Like, how about pick one?
	Something.
	So, you know, maybe we just differ an approach because I think you share these frustrations, but you're saying, let's work with them.
	Let's not burn it all down.
	And you look at me as someone that's saying, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	And I get where you're coming from, but is that a wrong assessment?
	And first off, I do want to correct because it does matter.
	2 million are gone.
	A lot of people self-deported, which to me is like a magic trick.
	Yep, 2 million are gone.
	That's fair.
	And a 94%.
	Okay, well, I'll make sure the references are available.
	And if people disagree, they can check that out.
	But there's a lot of self-deportation going on.
	Also, a 93% to 99% reduction.
	So if 1 million, 2 million are gone, I would argue the number is 2 million, and you reduce it.
	I don't think that's marginal.
	And I think that's probably the biggest issue if you want to preserve a country.
	Is it enough?
	Is it ideal?
	No, but it's better than another 15 million.
	And the people who brought in 15 million are the people you are suggesting to be part of a coalition after it's burned down.
	So what's the prescription?
	What does it look like when you say throw the baby out with the bathwater?
	What does it look like?
	You get Trump out, you get four years of Kamala, right?
	If you had your way, four more years of Newsom.
	What does it look like?
	I'm asking you for the prescription.
	Because I'll tell you, mine is primaries.
	Mine is having people who listen to their base.
	Mine is making sure that we can make incremental change.
	The biggest disappointments would be H-1Bs for sure, the big 600,000 Chinese students, huge disappointment.
	Section 230, right?
	I have prescription for all of those.
	What is yours?
	What does that look like?
	Revolution or coalition and then burn it down for the baby out with the bathwater.
	The alternative is that's where I think I'm missing you.
	Here's my prescription.
	I just think that we need the young people to climb the ladder.
	I want to march through the institutions, get them in the college Republicans, to the campaigns, to the congressional offices, the think tanks.
	I think that we need to engage in primaries.
	In 2026, I'm going to be very active and we're going to tell everybody who's America first and who isn't and who to vote for.
	And I think the people that are not America first, I think they should lose their elections.
	In 2028, yeah, okay.
	So then, you know, we agree on that.
	In 28, I think we should back a presidential candidate who is going to basically emulate what Trump did in 2016, which is anti-corruption, America first, close the borders.
	And if that person can make inroads with the left, I think that's an interesting idea.
	Because maybe what you're, maybe the area of disagreement is there are a lot of people in our right-wing coalition who are kind of part of the problem, I would say.
	There are, like, for example, when Trump bombed Iran, you had like 70% of Republicans supporting that.
	That's a load of crap.
	And you have a lot of Republicans.
	I'm okay with that.
	I know you are.
	And I've heard your argument.
	We could have that one out.
	But like, I think that's a huge problem.
	And I think that there's a lot of people that, you know, they're going to vote for Trump literally no matter what.
	And what that does is it creates moral hazard because then Republicans know that they can come in.
	They can screw us forever.
	And I guess the question is for me, my prescription is like, I want results now.
	If you don't give them to us, we don't care.
	We will burn it down.
	And I'm being the unreasonable person in the room.
	I feel like you, because you're being reasonable, you are allowing the establishment to get away with everything.
	And they'll always be stringing you along, telling you, oh, well, you know, it's better than the alternative.
	Well, in the next two years, we're going to get it.
	2 million, that's fake.
	That's from the community survey.
	They polled 65,000 people.
	You know, there's a response bias.
	It's not happening.
	And you say, well, it's better than nothing.
	It almost isn't because what happens?
	We get a Democrat in four years.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm not saying it's better than nothing.
	I'm not saying it's better than nothing.
	I'm saying that it's better than what you suggested was a superior alternative, Kamala Harris.
	That's the standard that we do need to use here because you said Kamala Harris would be a better choice.
	I'm not saying it's better than nothing, good enough.
	I mean, you're talking to Dan Crenshaw.
	We'll never be back on this show because I called him to task on the TAPS Act.
	They're like, well, how is this not red flag laws?
	No, there's no one who likes those in positions of authority who betray their base.
	And I think that base, by the way, is a pretty big coalition, includes conservative.
	It's bigger than ever with Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump isn't really a classical conservative.
	I think it's better than Kamala Harris.
	And I can't think of anyone less America first than who you suggested, Ro Khanna.
	That's why I bring it up.
	That's why because you're getting hung up on that.
	Okay, so any member of the Democrat Party.
	I can't think of anyone less America first than the current Democrat Party.
	Republicans are flawed.
	I believe that go through it.
	Warren, Kamala Harris, who you said would be a better choice.
	Gavin Newsom, Whitmer.
	I believe they fundamentally hate everything about America.
	I can't name one thing.
	I'm not talking, RoCanna, I'm not talking about him specifically.
	And like I said, I'm not even talking about Thomas Massey.
	I'm using them as an example, as a model.
	Well, as a model, as sort of a proof of concept, because you have a Republican and a Democrat who, by the way, I don't even agree with them on most things.
	Like I criticize Thomas Massey a lot, but it's an example of bipartisanship on a populist issue, an anti-elite issue that everybody supports.
	And who is against it?
	The Republican establishment.
	Trump, Johnson.
	And I'm saying that's an example of cooperation where the right can maybe lean into these issues that, you know, maybe they're nonpartisan issues and rally everybody against the establishment and our own party.
	And it's just, to me, that's always the disconnect: you want to talk about Kamala Harris and Ro Khanna.
	And I'm saying, let's imagine a different situation.
	No, no, no.
	I don't want to talk about them.
	You brought them up and repeatedly so.
	You brought them up.
	Well, I brought up you.
	Come on, let's be fair.
	I disagree with you.
	I understand your approach, though, too.
	I understand your approach because I feel that way, like I said, about the conservative guard in media.
	In other words, we'd be pretty much on the same page.
	Anyone in conservative media, and we've seen it where they are gatekeepers, but there's a mechanism to fix that.
	And we've seen that change.
	And Rumble is a big part of that.
	And I agree with you.
	And more needs to be done about Section 230.
	But I brought them up because you use those examples.
	And as someone who believes that they fundamentally disdain America, Kamala Harris.
	To be fair, she's really dumb.
	So she may not actually know what she believes or thinks.
	But I do believe that Whitmer hates America.
	I do believe that a socialist like Bernie does.
	And I know people say he's a populist, but I don't go along with that.
	But I, okay, I understand your point.
	Let's just chuck that up to a disagreement.
	There are some other areas if we want to go through where we probably agree, probably disagree, because I think you presented it pretty well.
	I just think we disagree on that, if that's okay.
	Yeah, sure.
	So some of the positions that you've presented for me, where I think we might disagree, but you could clarify, have given me pause.
	Second Amendment, that's a big one to me, a fundamental one, because I come from a country, I would also say socialized healthcare, because I put several family members six feet under who would have lived in the United States being raised in Quebec.
	It's awful.
	But the Second Amendment, considering the amount of threats, and we've talked about this, everyone has since Charlie Kirk, right?
	People just see the one that got through.
	I would imagine that you live under perpetual threat and need extra forms of security.
	I probably have that right.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And so for me, Second Amendment is pivotal.
	And I do see some rhetoric, not just from you, but from some people who are sort of dismissive that is disconcerting.
	I'd like to roll a clip on this and then give you the floor to clarify because we probably actually agree more than we disagree.
	Sure.
	There's this question of our government has no efficacy and it's not responsive to the needs or the wants of the people.
	So it's not really a democracy and it also isn't working.
	So what do you do in that situation?
	Well, people start to say, and this is, you know, as you know, this is the natural evolution of things.
	The people cry out for a tyrant.
	The people cry out for a dictator.
	Give us change.
	Give us reform.
	And I certainly feel that.
	I think that's compelling.
	I'm a little skeptical of it as time goes on because as I get older and more mature, I think we maybe take for granted the institutions that we've built up.
	And maybe I've become ironically more conservative in my disposition and saying, maybe let's not race ahead of ourselves and get rid of things which have been around for hundreds of years.
	I would argue the constitutional system is already impaired because it's being abused by all the other organs of government.
	You know, even the Supreme Court voted eight to one that said these injunctions are out of control.
	And you've got these like procedural things in the Senate to filibuster.
	The president can't fire as many people as he'd like to fire without all this oversight.
	It's like, you know, we do need an executive organ of government.
	So I would say that we should start with a more powerful president.
	And I would not be opposed to, you know, something like a king that sits over the presidency.
	I think that maybe they didn't get it wrong, but I think maybe we've outgrown a lot of those considerations.
	I'll even go as far as to say something like the Second Amendment.
	I mean, you know, and maybe I get criticized for this, but I'm just free thinking here.
	Ideally, you would want a society that is so orderly.
	Do you really want people running around with guns all the time?
	I mean, I know the argument about, and I am pro Second Amendment, I have guns, but you know, something like that.
	It's like that, that is a clear instance where the left kind of makes a point about how we've outgrown some of the things that are in there.
	I'm going to get a lot of shit for saying that, but I just think that's true.
	And like a modern city, you know, should everybody be packing heat like that?
	I mean, ideally, you'd have so much public order, it wouldn't be necessary.
	Okay.
	So, first, let me just be really clear on my position.
	I do like a place where people are running around with guns all the time because I've been a place where they haven't Canada and it's a nation of pussies.
	Also, I will tell you this: on this topic, I have seen your video where the police, I don't think arrest, police showed up at your house.
	One of my producers here, who's a lawyer, said people should watch that as textbook on how to deal with police.
	And he's not Jewish.
	He's Greek, one of the very rare Greek lawyers.
	He's not very good.
	I like him.
	Yeah, he's not very good.
	So I wouldn't hire him in a divorce.
	She'll get everything.
	But I do want to give you, in other words, I want to let people know that this is not a position taken from someone who has not been under threat.
	But I will say this: what I heard there and in watching you, concerning to me, because what I see communicated is in your ideal utopia, to use a word, would involve a much stronger state with much more executive power.
	And I agree on the executive authority, but the endgame, a much stronger state and much softer civilian arms, softer Second Amendment rights.
	And it sounds a lot to me like the left saying, well, it was for muskets and we can just revise it.
	Explain if that's a mischaracterization.
	How do we know when we decide and how do we decide?
	We probably don't want people running around with guns anymore.
	Well, I'm not in favor of gun control in America.
	I just don't even think that's practical.
	It's what, 400, 500 million guns or something.
	I don't think it's possible to control guns here.
	It's kind of gotten away.
	But I will just say it really comes from a feeling.
	I don't really have a fleshed out, like hot take on it.
	But I do think about a modern city like New York or DC or LA and think, where do we draw the line?
	You know, I know in Texas, for example, you have open carry.
	And I've done it.
	I was down in Texas with John Doyle actually years ago before we became enemies.
	And we were walking around with guns in our back pocket in the gas station.
	And I'm thinking, I actually don't know that I want to live in a city where people are literally walking around with guns hanging out of their pants.
	I guess I already do live in one.
	I live in Chicago.
	They don't do a legal living.
	I'm going to say that might just be a Chicago thing because everyone in this studio is trapped right now.
	And I love it.
	Like you're almost making me erect in your description.
	I caught myself.
	I'm like, oh, wait, that sounds like the South side.
	It sounds like Inglewood, actually.
	But, you know, so I guess I'm in favor of like concealed carry.
	We should be able to own guns.
	I just, maybe it's a cultural thing because I did grow up in the Midwest.
	And my parents actually trained people in how to use firearms, but we're not like a gun nut family.
	Forgive me if that's a pejorative statement, but we're not enthusiasts.
	And so there's something to me about it that I just feel like at a certain point it becomes less safe more than more safe.
	So, but like I said, I don't really have a fleshed out take.
	I'm ideologically in favor of the Second Amendment.
	I do support it.
	I don't have any prescriptive gun control measures.
	I just think there's a limit to it.
	And I get a little uncomfortable by some of it sometimes.
	Okay.
	Well, I think that's a fair answer if it's just sort of a feeling thing.
	I think that in combination, hopefully you can understand where it's prescriptive as far as a stronger state or theocracy or I feel like I know I've heard you use the word dictatorship.
	It could be again tongue-in-cheek with softer Second Amendment rights.
	That's a huge concern to me.
	But I think that's a fair answer if you don't actually have a prescription for it.
	All right.
	Just I would ask that you not create any kind of a coalition with someone who would take any guns away because I have them hanging out of my pockets all the time.
	As a matter of fact, I've created new pockets for my guns.
	I keep forgetting you're Canadian.
	That seems like a big hang, maybe because you come from a country without it.
	But I don't know.
	I am American.
	I was raised in the land of pussies.
	So I was born in Detroit and was raised in the land of the spineless.
	Trans, trans-American, huh?
	You identify as American, huh?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I've actually tried to publicly reject, denounce my Canadian citizenship many times, and I don't know how to, I've just said it on air.
	Like I denounce it.
	I'm so ashamed of that.
	And my mom, who was French Canadian, I mean, gosh, many decades ago, is embarrassed by it.
	So I'm not Canadian.
	I'm never running for office.
	I just don't want people to actually think I'm Canadian because that would be awful.
	Okay, sure, sure thing.
	Well, I mean, me, as far as just one last thing.
	We agree.
	Look, Canadians are awful.
	We have to agree.
	They're the worst.
	But they're your people, Steve.
	They're your people.
	Oh, son of a bitch.
	All right.
	I hate, I hate that country.
	It is awful.
	It's also, by the way, probably why I'm much more in favor of a two-party system because I come from where I was raised, a parliamentary system.
	And when I had it explained to me, I said, so someone can become the leader of this country with like 28% of the vote.
	How is this not retarded?
	You know, and it doesn't work very well either.
	It doesn't mean that either is perfect.
	But yeah, Second Amendment is a really big thing.
	But I also understand, too, because I was under that impression coming from a place where not a lot of people had guns.
	But I will tell you this.
	My prescription is there is no limit.
	You would probably consider me an extremist on that.
	And almost all mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.
	The lowest number you'll find is 94%.
	Increased gun laws do not at all correlate with decreased crime.
	Matter of fact, quite often the opposite.
	And guns save far more lives each year than they take.
	So that's one of those, if you're a pragmatist, which I know you've said, guns, homicides each year.
	And this is my soapbox, and I'll get off just since I know you said you're not convinced either way.
	There'll be anywhere from 15 to 20 something thousand each year, homicides.
	Defensive uses, low end, half a million to 3 million.
	And that's a low count because so many defensive uses of firearms, like you mentioned, just someone showing it, right?
	They don't need to be fired.
	They save far more lives than they take.
	And that's one where I say, yeah, I want an armed society because I know what it looks like where they're not.
	And in Canada, Montreal, where I was raised, they pretty much invented the school shooting.
	We had Eco Polytechnique Concordia.
	I had friends at Dawson College where there was a guy who roamed the Maritimes with like a shotgun and shot multiple people for days and no one could do shit.
	That's how bad it is.
	So that's me making a pitch since you seem like you're reasonably open to it.
	Well, I agree with all that.
	I guess the feeling comes from, you know, there's this sense in American conservatism of like, well, they can't take the guns.
	And I feel like there's a sense that guns are going to protect us from tyranny.
	And I feel like they haven't.
	I feel like, especially someone like myself, the government can touch you.
	The government can do what they want to you.
	The government took my money, put me on an o-fly list.
	And if they wanted to get me, they could get me.
	And so I just feel like people.
	They have gotten you.
	And they've gotten me too.
	You know, thank God we're here.
	But no, and my heart goes out to you.
	I mean, being subpoenaed by the ATF and being threatened to be investigated by the FBI along with the Nashville police, they can, but then apply that to society at large and you end up like Australia with COVID camps.
	Yeah, and I'm not like, I'm not against all guns.
	I just think that conservatives need to think beyond that issue because they tend to consider that the last line of defense.
	I feel like if you lose everything else, the guns won't protect you either.
	That's why I'm more proactive.
	Like we really need to do other things.
	And that's why the Second Amendment's less of a concern to me.
	Yeah, and I understand that.
	I would just say if you're not pretty steadfast on that, you will lose everything else.
	Historically, there's no exception.
	And that's why it's so important to me.
	But I think we're pretty close on that.
	And maybe if every year around week, I can take you shooting.
	What about this guy?
	What about I have a little gun right here?
	I had to take it out because when I sit down, it digs into my gut fat and leaves a gun imprint.
	That's a cute little gun, right?
	That doesn't intimidate you.
	Look at this tiny little thing.
	That's a good gun.
	It's a little Celtic.
	It's, you know, if you come down, we can shoot it sometime.
	And they won't even know about it in Chicago.
	Don't carry it illegally.
	Okay, so that's a big issue for me.
	I would say the biggest issue since you can go back when I was a teenager as well.
	We share that in common.
	Second Amendment, First Amendment.
	Again, socialized healthcare, very important to me just because of the results.
	I understand where you're coming from saying that our system is broken.
	I just have seen how much more broken it can be.
	Immigration, I think, is probably the biggest issue of our time, both legal and illegal.
	I think we agree, maybe different methods, if that's fair, but it's a I am for you.
	I don't want Texas to look like India.
	We have a segment high on India where it's pretty much just human beings throwing shit.
	It's a terrible, terrible place.
	And I don't believe that they're smarter.
	I don't believe that we should be replacing Americans.
	So I think we're on board there.
	But freedom of speech, big thing for me.
	The fact that we're able to have this conversation and the fact that I will take so much crap for even having it.
	I hope that you can appreciate it and I would do it again.
	That's a big one.
	Now, I want to play a clip for you that The Hill took and they edited some stuff in this clip.
	I'm sure you're aware.
	And then, towards the end of this, for fun, I want to go through some rapid-fire viral clips that have no context so that you can address them because these are the ones that people see of you sometimes.
	Sure.
	So, this is the one from The Hill that they ran regarding, I guess you would say, freedom of speech, but seems pretty severe.
	And then, I would like to roll not the whole two-hour show, but a longer clip so that people can see what they cut out and then we can talk about it.
	Is that fair?
	Sure.
	Here's the Hill clip with I think the two hosts who presented it.
	I think one of them is gay or just acts like it.
	There is an occult element at the high levels of society and specifically among the Jews.
	So many of the people that are perpetrating the lies and the destruction on the country are evildoers.
	They are people that worship false gods.
	They are people that practice magic or rituals or whatever.
	And more than anything, those people need to be, when we take power, they need to be given the death penalty.
	Straight up.
	And I'm far more concerned about that than I am about even non-white people or mass migration.
	These people that are communing with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff, and these people that are suppressing the name Christ and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power.
	This is God's country.
	This is Jesus' country.
	This is not the domain of atheists or devil worshipers or perfidious Jews.
	This is Christ's country.
	Now, for those watching, that is what the Hill ran, right?
	And of course, people were horrified.
	They did edit out a very particular portion of it, which I think is relevant.
	So forgive me if you need to take a sip of water.
	I want to play the longer version and let's see if people can see what was edited out and then give you the floor to explain it.
	It just makes me sick to my stomach.
	There is an occult element at the high levels of society and specifically among the Jews.
	And, you know, whenever I see that stuff, it just makes me want to proclaim louder and more firmly and more rigidly that it is nothing other than Jesus Christ.
	No, no pagan stuff, no false gods, no deities, no demons.
	It is Jesus Christ.
	And we need to start saying that name more.
	I feel like I haven't said his name enough on the show lately, but that is what breaks the spell.
	It's the name.
	It's the name Jesus.
	Talk about it.
	Say it.
	Pray to him.
	Talk about the sacrifice on the cross.
	That's the answer.
	Because so many of the people that are perpetrating the lies and the destruction on the country, they are evildoers.
	They are people that worship false gods.
	They are people that practice magic or rituals or whatever.
	And more than anything, those people need to be, when we take power, they need to be given the death penalty.
	Straight up.
	And I'm far more concerned about that than I am about even non-white people or mass migration.
	These people that are communing with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff, and these people that are suppressing the name Christ and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power.
	I'm not calling for political violence, but that cannot have any quarter in our society.
	And we need to put up a crucifix every home, in every room, in every school, in every government office to signal Christ's reign over our country.
	Not that God needs it, but it must be outwardly expressed from the interior that this is God's country.
	This is Jesus' country.
	This is not the domain of atheists or devil worshipers or perfidious Jews.
	This is Christ's country.
	So anyway, I know the guy earlier said, can you be agnostic and be America first?
	I'm amending my answer.
	No, you must be a Christian and you must submit to Christianity.
	Okay.
	So, and I know it feels tedious, but this is the game that the media plays.
	I noticed they cut out the part where you said you were not calling for political violence, which I think is an indictment on the hill.
	But I would also ask, you say that, but you also talk about executing people.
	So if you're not advocating political violence as it relates to putting people to death, how would you do it?
	Well, you know, that was a few years ago.
	And I would say that I'm not really in favor of the death penalty at all anymore.
	But I remember that monologue well because I saw a lot of this satanic occult stuff.
	I'm talking about like Pizzagate stuff.
	Like we have to acknowledge there are a lot of people in the elite that are straight up devil worshipers.
	I firmly believe in this like eyes wide shut kind of thing that does happen.
	I don't think it's necessarily a grand conspiracy, but no, there's spiritual warfare for sure, for sure.
	Yeah.
	And I think there's a lot of those types of people out there, especially in like Hollywood.
	I saw it up close and personal when I was with Ye, and I just hate that stuff so much.
	Wait a second.
	I want to give you the answer, but what do you mean you saw it up close?
	Were you at an eyes wide shut party with Ye?
	No, I wasn't at a party, but being with him, you see, you know, like with Balenciaga, they did that at Balenciaga.
	All right.
	They had that like SNM teddy bear.
	And there's things like that.
	It's like a wink and a nod to basically just evil, just straight up evil.
	And so, so, no, I, you know, that they always do this.
	I do a show every night, as you know, and you sometimes get whipped up and you say something like that.
	So I don't know that I have a policy of like when I get in charge, I'm going to give everyone the death penalty.
	But suffice to say, the people that are involved in that kind of stuff, they can't be negotiated with.
	It's not going to be a power sharing agreement with people that worship Moloch and Baal and the Epsteins and who is it?
	The Podestas.
	Like those people are going to have to be like imprisoned or something like that because that stuff just makes me sick to my stomach.
	So that was the gist.
	But it's not like my program is, so we're going to become president, that we're going to kill a bunch.
	I'm not in favor of the death penalty even at all, really.
	Okay.
	So even if, let's say, you know, a perfect world coalition, you reach that point, the Nick Fuentes government, you wouldn't be executing people for not being Christian.
	No, no.
	And that's not what that was about.
	I mean, even in that clip, I'm talking specifically about the occult, which I hate.
	Okay.
	But you wouldn't execute people for worshiping false gods either.
	You wouldn't execute people at all.
	No, no, not at all.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Because for me, I mean, I just go, oh, well, essentially they cut out the, I'm not advocating political violence.
	But then I still come back to you, I did say execute, so I do want to ask him about that.
	Yeah, it's an unfortunate statement, but it's one of those things.
	If I could take it back, I would.
	But I just, that occult, I don't know about you, but when I see that kind of stuff, like it, it pisses me off.
	When I see like Order of Nine Angles and stuff like that, I'm like in my bones, I hate it.
	Yeah, well, I hate evil wherever it may be.
	And I do think I do believe, this is my belief, that the progressive left is a death cult.
	That's the only common denominator that I see.
	If you look at the abortion policy, if you look at the mutilation of children, if you look at, yeah, even it's whenever you see an LGBTQ flag next to a country that's represented by Hamas.
	Now, I'm not saying all Palestinian people.
	I'm saying those two can't be reconciled, where you go, how do they have this?
	How do they have these co-the only commonality is that they can't stand the United States and it's a death cult.
	And I think what does bother me a little more sometimes is I see a lot of immature Christians.
	And I know you've talked about this as a Catholic who obviously has much more of an understanding of your theology, or maybe sometime we can have a conversation about that.
	We agree or disagree.
	But I see a lot of young Christians who come in and they think that everything is like satanic, like a proactive satanic worship.
	I'm going, well, hold on.
	The biggest threat is making yourself God.
	Like abortion is just sacrifice at the altar of self.
	Are there people involved in the occult knowingly?
	Yeah, but there are far more people who succumb to temptation and evil and worship the devil without knowing it.
	And I think a lot of people kind of sound nuts and unreasonable because they don't understand theology sometimes.
	Yeah, no, and I agree with that.
	I just, to me, it's completely irredeemable when you just, it's explicit.
	Because there, like you say, there are a lot of people that do it unknowingly and maybe it's guided by the best intentions.
	You know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	It might be out of empathy or, you know, some kind of ideology.
	And I agree with you, but to me, it's like that explicit occult stuff.
	It's, you know, that to me is irredeemable.
	I mean, it's obviously, whereas Christians, we don't believe it's actually irredeemable.
	But to me, like I said in the clip, there can be no quarter for that, especially in the halls of power.
	As far as the left is concerned, I mean, you're right about that, but I don't hate it as much, actually.
	The left?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, we just, I do.
	The left is evil.
	I agree with you, but that other stuff is just on its next level.
	No, no.
	Obviously, anyone who is, anyone who's like, you know, doing a bloodletting devil worship ceremony is the worst.
	I'm just saying that I believe the left in general is an evil, evil movement and ideology.
	And for proof, look to Canada.
	It's both evil and a nation of pussies.
	It's almost hard to make that happen, but somehow they pulled it off.
	And I also think the coalition that you see with the left and big business, this is where you say donors, but I just mean corporatism, period, like BlackRock.
	I mean, we had an investigation people can go and watch.
	Funny enough, McKinsey Company was one where we got a lot of blowback.
	But BlackRock then threatening Rumble if they don't remove us to take legal action.
	And I don't even think it was a Jewish lawyer, which is kind of funny, just as an aside.
	So I think that's why it didn't go anywhere.
	It wasn't very good.
	Say what we want about it.
	They tend to be good as lawyers.
	That is a really unholy coalition and leads to a lot of our problems with big tech and censorship.
	I will say this.
	I find that I agree with you on a lot.
	And I know you have a lot of time.
	I don't want to take up too much of your time.
	I don't know if you saw Coleman Hughes just released this whole thing on you last night.
	Did you see that?
	I did.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	And it seems to me when I saw that, that they have some sites set on Rumble because they started bringing Rumble Nick, Rumble Nick.
	They said it was said like 20 times.
	And of course, I believe Coleman Hughes works under Barry Weiss and CBS and they spend a lot of money on YouTube, would have a vested interest in alternative platforms going away.
	So that kind of raised an eyebrow and I want to look into it more.
	But he did say that you, Nick, you'll give one face to the audience on Rumble and then sometimes a different face when you go on podcasts and moderate quite a bit.
	Do you think you've been doing that here?
	Because I know you'll, well, I could take that back, or do you think this is fair and it's consistent?
	I think I'm being fair.
	You know, they've been saying this about me for 10 years, where they say, you're presenting a more normie-friendly face.
	I would just say I'm a three-dimensional human being.
	And when you watch a show, it's a performance.
	And it's me, as you know, well, maybe because you have, you got other people, but for me, it's like I'm in a room by myself.
	And when I do a show, I'm just talking to myself.
	And when I'm talking to myself, you know how it is.
	You get whipped up and you make jokes or use hyperbole.
	You're being rhetorical.
	Like that tends to happen.
	Then when you're in a serious conversation where they say, do you want to kill everybody?
	You're like, no, no.
	Like here I was joking or here I meant this.
	But no, I think that's a dishonest characterization of it.
	Yeah.
	Let me ask you, you say, you've said one time, I think you were giving an interview.
	It was funny.
	You said, sometimes jokes don't land.
	And you were just, you just were straightforward about it.
	I know that all too well.
	Believe me, a crowd full of drunks in Schenectady will let you know when you're 19.
	Let me ask you, like, what in your mind when you're doing it?
	Like, what's the perfect joke?
	I don't know if I, for me, it's if it makes me laugh.
	Yeah.
	I mostly do my show for my own sense of humor.
	Like the things that I say, it's because I think they're funny and I can't, I literally can't help, but I have to say it.
	And I make myself laugh.
	And so to me, the best jokes are the ones that I laugh out loud if I watch the clip.
	Okay.
	And do you like, do you, do you ever write a joke?
	Do you ever think of a perfect structure?
	This is just sort of, you mean these are sort of joking statements?
	I don't write jokes.
	It's all extemporaneous.
	So if I think of something funny, like, you know, just like a funny scenario or a bit, I just, I have to, I have to perform and I have to act it out.
	And sometimes the edgier, let's be honest, if it's edgy, it's funny.
	Right.
	That's in my opinion.
	I mean, I've always had an edgy sense of humor.
	If it's a little offensive, it's a little bit sharp.
	If the audience doesn't like it, sometimes I like it more if half the audience gets really mad about it.
	Yeah.
	That's rage bait.
	You know, so I understood.
	That's actually the only reason I have people in the room because I talk to myself all the time.
	So it's just so people don't think I'm crazy.
	Because I don't know about you.
	Most of my ideas usually come to me in the shower or driving.
	And I think it's that sensory deprivation, right?
	You ever drive and you go, wait, where was I for an hour?
	And you have a bunch of things you have to pull over and write down.
	Yeah, it's almost like if you're doing something, it like frees a different part of your mind, you know?
	If you're not doing anything, if you're idle, you're a little too in your head.
	So that maybe that's how it works.
	Yeah.
	I think Normac Donald said once, he said, the perfect joke is where the punchline is the exact same as the setup.
	And he had a joke about Julia Roberts marrying Lyle Lovett and the punchline was just when they realized that Julia Roberts had married Lyle Lovett.
	Like that was just the punchline.
	But to me, I think in topical stuff, because I've caught a lot of flack for jokes.
	And I believe at one point, Matt Walsh even joined, like a bunch of conservatives joined in gave me crap for a tweet.
	And this is why I say feel compelled to defend when I go, well, hold on.
	Even though it's not a joke, it's a statement made in jest.
	I'm using the term broadly.
	The one I wrote was I said, if, and it was in response to Lena Dunham back then, if an angry feminist is raped in a forest, but no one there to hear it, is she still heinously unattractive?
	And people got so mad and conservative saying, we have to be better than this.
	I was like, that's a solid bit.
	Yeah.
	Like, I don't, and then Anna Kasparian, who's been welcomed into the fold with open arms.
	I don't know why.
	I was called a garbage person.
	One of my favorite jokes that I ever wrote, and a lot of it is not necessarily written, was remember Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh?
	I was a big thing.
	And it was something like the setup was like she accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape in a letter to Dianne Feinstein.
	And I'm paraphrasing.
	And the letter that she gave to her psychologist contradicts the story that she gave to the New York Times.
	And that contradicts the story given to her attorney.
	And the attorney version contradicted with the story that she had given to the authorities who are still, it should be noted, pursuing the distinct possibility of her being a, quote, dirty lying whore.
	And Anna Kasparian goes, I'm better.
	That's a garbage person who would make that joke.
	It's just a fact.
	Christine Blasey Ford was a dirty lying whore.
	There's not much more to it than that.
	Let me go.
	So on that vein, this is, and again, I want people to know, don't take this out of context.
	I want to run some clips completely out of context the way they have been run as hit pieces on you so that you can clarify.
	So this is going to seem really shitty, but I know that people have seen these and I probably already know the answer.
	So we can have a bit of fun with it.
	Here's one that people might have seen they use against you that, you know, the whole, the dating is gay thing.
	If we're really being honest, never having a girlfriend, never having sex with a woman, really makes you more heterosexual.
	Because honestly, dating women is gay.
	Having sex with women is gay.
	And having sex with men is gay.
	And then, you know, it's really, it's all gay.
	And if you want to know the truth, the only really straight heterosexual position is to be in a sexual incel.
	Now, I have to treat this with the seriousness it deserves.
	Do you believe that having sex with a woman is gay?
	Because some could argue that intercourse with a woman is the most heterosexual thing that someone could do.
	Well, you would think that by definition.
	But at the same time, you know, it's the closeness with women.
	I sort of see women as like the abyss.
	And it's like the longer you stare into them, the more they stare back into you.
	That's an experienced woman.
	Yeah.
	I mean, a lot of these like hypersexual men, they become more like women.
	They become a little more gay.
	So yeah, we have to acknowledge there's something very true there, something very true.
	Well, I think the reason people also use this, and it really bothers me.
	They go, oh, Nick is an incel.
	As I understand it, you have always said that you are going to be waiting until you're married.
	So they take something that's a virtue and use it against you, combined with, I think, what you just said was in jest and go, well, he's an incel who's gay.
	Well, the incel thing is true.
	I mean, women hate me.
	Women can't stand me.
	I'm 5'9.
	I'm 5'9.
	Women think I shouldn't exist.
	That doesn't matter anymore.
	I should be dead.
	Yeah, I can see right now.
	You've got big hands.
	No, no, no.
	You have notoriety right now, my friend.
	You just go do some live shows.
	They'll be throwing themselves at you, but still maintain that virtue.
	You know, you have to learn to swat them away.
	Don't stare into that abyss.
	But no, that's what they'll do.
	They'll go, oh, this is, you're not, that's not true.
	You're not an incel.
	Not at this point.
	You choose.
	You're a choose cell.
	A volcel.
	I'm Rizless.
	I'm Rizless.
	I have no Riz, Steven.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And I won't do it.
	I won't do the playful banter.
	I just, I won't.
	You won't.
	All right.
	I got it.
	Well, that's, I don't know what Riz, I've learned about drip.
	So neither one of us is wearing a whole lot of drip, but you seem to have a nice watch.
	Thanks.
	This is the other one that people have talked about.
	I think it's, is this the one with Destiny?
	I don't know.
	I put these because they're each like a few seconds.
	So I'll just play it because people go, ask them about this, and then you can clarify.
	Again, I assume all of these are in just.
	I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up because I'm people like, I can't believe you let him get away with it.
	All right, roll that one.
	They want to get the Medal of Honor, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, because they went out with some, you know, some average woman and have a couple of kids and they live in some house where they're watching Disney Plus.
	And he says, you go to the farmer's market.
	It's a revolutionary act.
	I don't think so, Buster.
	Like, we need to go at the center, and that requires real dedication, real sacrifice that, yes, might involve actually not having kids for some people.
	You know, does it ever cross people's mind that in a war, young men die?
	Is this any different?
	Is sacrificing a family life different than dying in a war for a political outcome?
	I don't think so.
	And I'm sorry, that's the wrong clip I meant, but we can address that one too.
	The clip I wanted was of destiny about him being based or something.
	But that one is one that some people obviously would say to bring up because us being replaced.
	And by the way, I'm not using the term replacement theory because just like nationalists, the left tries to coin that, that that advice would maybe fly in the face of fixing the problem of us being replaced demographically.
	Yeah, you know, I hear that all the time.
	And I don't think the solution to demographic replacement is everybody that watches my show has kids.
	Because even if everybody watches my show has kids, it doesn't solve the problem.
	It's a political problem.
	Like, why is our fertility rate low?
	It's really, it's a policy problem and it's a societal-wide problem.
	And so I don't like the idea.
	It's sort of like, you know, you look at how society is, people go, oh, well, you know, if you don't like the way your city is, go move somewhere else or go do something else or change.
	You know who you're talking about on that one.
	Yeah, I mean, that's, but there's a lot of people that say that.
	And I think it ignores the reality of politics, which is that if we want to change society, we have to change politics.
	And a lot of people like to say, no, just be the change you want to see in the world.
	I don't believe in spontaneous action like that.
	I think that you do actually need people that are going to fight a very difficult battle.
	And some may have families and some might not, but they have to put the political cause first.
	And then you can change society by changing the capital.
	And so that I really don't like when people say, oh, well, you know, if we all just had kids at the same time, it's like, okay, but who's listening to this?
	Like 10,000 people?
	The fertility rate is low globally.
	And so it's going to need to be addressed by the state.
	Yeah, I think people need to do both.
	I was going in the silly direction, but not to go back to the serious, I think people need to do both.
	And even people who go to war can do both.
	And I think that you actually can see, you know, it was Andrew Breitbart who I kind of came up under his tutelage because I was just a comedian and he had Big Hollywood back then before was Breitbart trademark anything.
	And he said that everything was downstream from culture.
	I've heard people say both downstream and upstream.
	I'm not sure which is correct.
	But I would argue that's true.
	And a big reason that birth rates are low is because culturally we have been bombarded with that for a long time because the world is going to end and it's morally wrong, right?
	Population is a problem, overpopulation.
	That's what we were told for a very long time.
	So it justified, it was this confluence of that along with the feminist movement and sexual liberation, the idea of taking control of that.
	And we really saw an anti-natalist country.
	So I do think culturally it's important.
	I agree with you.
	I don't just think be the change you want to seek.
	I think you need to have a plan and a prescription.
	I would include in that encouraging people to have families, especially, you know, native born, not feather Indian, but native born Americans.
	No, I totally agree.
	Yeah.
	I totally agree with that.
	But I understand the point that you're making, that that can't be the only thing.
	But I also don't want to take for granted that there's been some headway made on that, where you actually have a lot of young people now who are very pro-family and understand the necessity.
	Whereas when you and I, I mean, you're younger than me, not that much younger than me.
	When you were young and I was young, that wasn't considered a virtue or a duty at all.
	As a matter of fact, the opposite.
	So I've seen the pendulum swing, and I definitely want to continue that momentum.
	Yeah, me too.
	No disagreement.
	Okay, this is the one.
	It's not destiny.
	It's something about the, again, the young milk that people run and go, you got to ask me about that?
	Okay.
	Right when the milk is good, I want to start drinking the milk.
	Same thing goes with women.
	I don't want to turn 30 and find some 20-year-old, 29-year-old woman that I have something in common with.
	And it's like, hey, properly aged, like wine.
	Women don't age like wine, they age like milk.
	Okay, so the last part everyone says.
	The first part, people go like, you want that milk when they're young?
	I mean, we just did a whole segment on Rosh Hashanah where Indian men suck on their own mother's tits as part of a wedding ceremony, which is another reason that we should import none of them.
	But what is it was a joke?
	In jest, people are saying that you actually, you know, you want young women so you can suckle their milk.
	Oh, well, no, they are the milk in the analogy.
	It's not about their they age like milk.
	No, um, no, of course not.
	I think the age of consent should be like 25, honestly.
	You know, it's like these 20-year-old children are out there getting married and having sex in college.
	I don't know how anybody's okay with this.
	Yeah.
	You know, 20 years old, that's a child.
	That's a literal child.
	And men are having sex with them.
	It makes me mad, honestly.
	Well, now you've gone too far the other way.
	25, like if it's a 20-year-old and a 20-year-old and they get married, I mean, like, Mary was pretty, she wouldn't meet that for like another 10 years.
	We wouldn't have Jesus Christ.
	Yeah, but now with the, you know, with the seed oils and everything, it's different.
	So I, no, I think it should be way, way higher.
	I, it pisses me off.
	20 years old, that's a literal kid.
	I can't believe you would even say that, to be honest.
	What?
	But two 20-year-olds getting married?
	That's a literal child, Stephen.
	How could she consent?
	She's 20.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	You're being facetious.
	I'm teasing.
	I thought we were being facetious.
	I didn't know.
	Well, yeah, I know, but that's you were just doing the opposite of it.
	And considering that people will take it seriously, I said, I don't want them to take that.
	And they're like, see, Nick is inconsistent.
	But no.
	I thought we were joking.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, that is one thing, too.
	Like, it's just often it's just older women who are jealous that men like younger women.
	So, yeah.
	Bingo.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	How many four-year-olds are like, well, you just want to hire her because it's like, yeah, now do the guy's wallet.
	Shut up.
	And we have the same thing with.
	By the way, any questions you would like me to ask next week?
	I have Jillian Michaels on the show, which the funny thing is, I don't feel the need to disavow you because you've said, like, you're not, you're not conservative.
	I don't think we're in the same exact space.
	There's some overlap.
	But for the same reason, I wouldn't need to disavow, I mean, use Rokana as an example.
	I mean, Rokan and I are not of the same stripe politically.
	And so we can talk about it.
	But any questions for the lesbian personal trainer, Jillian Michaels, who says that you declare all women want or need to be raped?
	You got to press her.
	You got to press her on letting me come on her show.
	I saw you tweet that.
	And I really appreciated, by the way, defending what I said about that topic.
	If I say defended what I said about rape, it's going to sound really bad.
	But like, I appreciate what you said because no, I am a rape defender.
	I am a huge rape defender.
	That's part of the overlap.
	That's where we agree.
	Provided the man is attractive, wealthy, and not a Somali crackhead.
	But you didn't mention it.
	And that was one where I just sort of, you know, filled in.
	I'm like, well, I don't think I've never seen Nick say women need to be raped.
	I assume that you were discussing, again, 62% of women have rape fantasies.
	You were so real for that.
	That was so real for you to say that.
	Well, it's so repeatable that someone, like, we've done study after study.
	This is not an outlier.
	And what that means is a sexually dominant man.
	I mean, look at, I mean, women's erotic literature right now is far worse than male pornography.
	Neither one is good, to be clear.
	Have you seen this book with the centaur thing?
	Like, that's the new trend.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's disgusting.
	Yeah.
	It's like, look, even, you know, as a teenager, I'm not going to lie and say they've never seen pornography.
	Of course, I've dabbled.
	You know, we live in the 21st century and it's terrible.
	We all fall short.
	But, you know, usually it's a naked man having sex with a naked lady.
	There's no centaur cock, no centaurs.
	Yeah, well, in 50 Shades of Gray, that was like 10 years ago.
	I know, I know.
	And now it's advanced.
	Now it's like refined.
	Yeah, that's where that came from.
	And we're all going to pretend like we don't know what's going on there.
	Like they don't want to be choked now and everything like that.
	I mean, yeah.
	So you were real for defense.
	No one wants to talk about it because it's uncomfortable, but it's true.
	Well, because Christians will come down on you, too.
	And that's the problem, too.
	Is if you're like, oh, you shouldn't talk about it.
	It's like, so what?
	So we're supposed to address and combat evil without addressing it.
	Every now and then, a lady's a little bit like, hey, come on, guys.
	We all know this.
	So just read their books.
	Look at if Fabio's on the cover, read the book, go five pages in, someone's getting raped.
	And, you know, we could argue whether it's healthy or not.
	It depends if the mood strikes.
	Is there anything else that, you know, we do have some chat from people?
	Would you like to take a few chats and also let people know where's the best place for folks to find you since you are no longer deplatformed?
	Yeah, I'm on X Nick J. Fuentes and Rumble, Nick J. Fuentes.
	And yeah, let's do some chats for sure.
	By the way, I think you and I agree too.
	Elon Musk done a lot of good things.
	I'm glad that he, you know, ex potential Antichrist.
	Do we want to take some chats?
	It's a candidate.
	It's there.
	Definitely on the H-1B stuff.
	That was one where I think there's a lot more overlap.
	I couldn't believe that I was seeing a lot of these astroturf people saying, yeah, H-1Bs, that's one of those things.
	Huge disappointment with this administration.
	I cannot express it enough.
	And I do hope that the feedback mechanism that has seemed to work in the past with Donald Trump applies here because it's horribly ill-advised.
	Noodles, do you have some chats for Nick?
	And thanks again for taking the time.
	I do.
	Yeah, first chat from Court 070.
	Question for Nick.
	With as large of a ship that America is, how fast can we write the ship?
	Can it be done in four years?
	It's a good question.
	No, I don't think it can be done in four years.
	And so, in that way, I think maybe we agree on that.
	We need reasonable expectations.
	So I'm with you.
	I'm not one of these people that can never be satisfied.
	I'm not happy with the, like you said, even about H-1Bs, but no, the country can't be changed in four years.
	It's going to take 15.
	Yeah, I would agree.
	It could be destroyed in four years.
	I would say that it's a lot easier to destroy than it is to build something.
	That's why I think these conversations are important, no matter how much we disagree.
	Except for people who call for the actual death.
	That's my standard when people go, because someone said, I can't believe you would have Nick on when Stephen Crowder, you say that you would never have someone on who calls for the death of anyone of a political stripe because Nick has called for the deaths of all Jews.
	I'm like, well, by the way, I don't fully agree with some of the things that you say about the griffs, as we call them in French, but I've never heard you call for the death of all Jews.
	When I'm talking about people like Hassan Pike or Destiny saying political violence against my opponent, that's a line because I had an imam on my show who called for my death and it got pretty dicey.
	I was like, I'm not going to do that again.
	That's my standard.
	All right.
	I think that's a fair question.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	Next chat from Ignatim.
	Do you consider Islam a major threat to the U.S.?
	No.
	And I said this on Alex Jones the other day.
	I really don't.
	And I think that, don't get me wrong, I don't want America to be Islamized.
	I don't like Islam.
	I'm not pro-Islam.
	I'm Catholic.
	But I think that politically, that is something that is trotted out whenever people start to scrutinize Israel too much because it's certainly more of an issue in Europe.
	It's far less of an issue here.
	And I think that is something that they try to get us to identify Muslims as our principal enemies.
	And by they, I mean Zionists, because that is Israel's principal adversary in the Middle East.
	And I don't think they have the same ranking in America as they do in Israel or in Europe, not by a long shot.
	Yeah, I would say yes.
	Mernats, because I was, again, I was raised.
	I remember the school where I went in Greenfield Park, Quebec.
	I watched some kids cheer when the second tower was hit, had a very, very large percentage of Islamic students, so much so that some of my homeroom class at lunch hour was turned into a prayer room.
	And that's always where you and I differ is Europe, obviously, it's a bigger threat.
	That's why I don't want us to emulate Europe.
	And Canada emulates it in a lot of ways as far as the parliamentary system and as far as the sort of multicultural mosaic, to use their term.
	If we emulate them outside of an actual Catholic theocracy, which I know you've said you don't want, you can't fill the void with nothing and it gets filled by the more brutal religion.
	And that is something they're called to.
	That's why we have 200 million Muslims on earth who believe that violence against non-Muslims and apostates is justified.
	So do I think it's an imminent threat now?
	No.
	But we could be Europe if we follow their lead on that culturally, would be my case.
	Maybe slight difference.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	Next chat from DefenderXX.
	Question for Nick.
	How would you properly incentivize smart people of industry and technology into political leadership?
	Would you want them in elected positions or appointed?
	I think they should serve in the bureaucracy.
	You know, because I don't really look at elected representatives as the people that are really in charge.
	It tends to be more the departments, the agencies, and maybe advisors.
	Maybe there should be some kind of new creation, but we live in a technological society.
	I think we need some level of technocracy.
	It's sad that we have these like 90-year-old, like you have Chuck Grassley in the Senate.
	What does he know about wafers?
	What does he know about chips?
	What does he know about any of this stuff?
	I think they should be advising Congress and they should be in the federal bureaucracy.
	I heard that answer, and I'm a child.
	So I heard you say wafers and chips and I was thinking nillow wafers and potato chips because I'm sure he's very familiar with those.
	Nilla wafers.
	It's noon.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Let's grab two more chats and then let Nick go on his way because he probably wants to be with his people.
	All right.
	Next chat from Carfel.
	Question for Stephen and Nick.
	Okay.
	With all the new additions to the conservatives, what do you believe is key to prevent infighting and find our center?
	Ooh.
	First off, I don't like saying finding our center because that sounds like eat prey love bullshit.
	But outside of that, your floor, Nick.
	You know, I guess the biggest thing is we have to prioritize what matters to us.
	And for me, you know, when I look at the, it's like you said earlier, the number one threat to the country is the demographic change.
	And so to me, that, if we're going to find the center, that's the center.
	And I'm willing to compromise on other issues if we're going to stop the flow of immigrants.
	And I don't care what the argument is.
	I don't care the why, but we got to prevent them from coming in.
	And then I would say on top of that, the priority is we got to put America first in foreign policy.
	So in trade and war, we really need to fight the corruption.
	And so I think as long as we rank those things, we can redefine like what it is to be America first.
	Or not redefine that, maybe enshrine America first as the center of what it is to be right wing.
	And then you could say a guy like Mark Levin, he really doesn't land on the same side as us because he's not on board with that.
	Neither does Shapiro.
	So that I would prioritize and maybe we can reconceive what it is to be on the right.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I'd have to ask Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin and see where they line up because I think on some of the close-handed issues, they do.
	What I don't want to see happen is the only litmus test be if someone morally opposes Israel.
	I think that it needs to include people, this coalition, people who think we should cut all funding and we should only look out for our own interests and remove foreign entanglement, remove ourselves from foreign entanglements.
	But those people can also say, I hate Hamas and I think that Islam as a prescription is a greater threat to the West.
	We may disagree as long as I think the important closed-handed issues, I would say, for me, immigration, absolutely, both morally and pragmatically.
	People say demographic change and they go, great, replacement theory.
	I'm talking about like this country will cease to be.
	That is the thing.
	And you combine the mass illegal immigration, the mass H-1Bs with the census rule change.
	That is huge that people have overlooked.
	I mean, I will say for all the flaws of this administration, I don't know anywhere else where you get a Tom Holman, big fan, had him on the show.
	That's a guy who really is uncompromising, and he talks about the moral imperative to deport everybody.
	He made it on this show.
	He said that once they've seen what I've seen, they would.
	So immigration, I would say First Amendment.
	I would say Second Amendment.
	I would say the idea of the destruction of the family.
	We have to end anyone who pursues that can't be a part of it.
	And then see what kind of a coalition we can build on that.
	But I don't go along with people who go, we can compromise on all these other fundamentals, provided it's just immigration or Israel.
	Because you can find some people who are to the left of everything on those.
	They can't be in the coalition if they're not on board with a strong immigration plan.
	But I think we can determine the closed-handed issues versus open-handed issues, like you're talking about, intervention.
	For example, tariffs.
	I think people could be pro or against tariffs.
	I am pro these tariffs, but I wouldn't exclude them.
	Okay.
	Final chat.
	All right.
	Final chat from Elenoism.
	Question for Nick.
	You say that bombing the Middle East for Israel is not America first, but you also say you're against bombing Venezuela for killing Americans with fentanyl.
	Care to elaborate?
	Yeah, well, as far as Venezuela is concerned, I'm much more in favor of intervention there than in the Middle East.
	And I've gotten a little flack for that because I do believe that the Western Hemisphere is our domain.
	It's our sphere of influence.
	That's the Monroe doctrine for 200 years.
	As far as the boats are concerned, though, have I said I'm against that?
	I guess what I don't like.
	My impression was that, just to be clear, my impression of you, tell me if I'm wrong, was that you said, you know, like limited parameters.
	We have to define objectives clearly, but you supported that more than other interventions.
	You could be persuaded.
	That was my impression of your view.
	Am I wrong?
	100%.
	Yeah, 100%.
	The only thing with the drug boats is it's a lie that Venezuela is responsible for a lot of the drug trafficking.
	That's just a pretext.
	And I don't even mind that.
	Like you said, I could be persuaded to support an operation as long as it's clearly defined, effective.
	If it works, I like it.
	If they're able to get Maduro out and we get a good guy in, if they could do that and they know they're in the NSC, then sure.
	But I'm very hesitant because regime change doesn't have a good track record.
	But we do have legitimate interests here.
	So I'm not opposed to intervention on principle.
	Yeah, I would say I'm not opposed to intervention.
	And I think the principle is, is it in America's interests and how necessary is it?
	Where we would differ is I definitely think that Iran is the case.
	I understand they also with Israel.
	I know that your view of Iran is different.
	You think that there's sort of a safeguard against Israel, a nuclear Iran.
	I think that there's a reason that no nation around them, including people who would be more in line with them, want them to have nukes ever, ever, ever.
	But I think that the principles, now we may disagree on the target or the place.
	I think first off, the principle is to be very, very hesitant to do it.
	And it goes through the filter.
	Is this serving America's interests?
	Because libertarians who act like there's no intervention that ever serves America's interests, well, that's silly.
	Yeah, I'm not a libertarian.
	I'm not even a non-interventionist.
	I'm with you.
	It's just got to be America first, and then we could do whatever we want.
	Yeah, well, yes, yes, pretty much.
	And Venezuela, yeah, you're right.
	I don't think a lot of people are being killed from fentanyl from Venezuela.
	But I will say, like, I also, again, culturally take an interest in, like, remember Code Pink?
	Remember them?
	Code Pink all.
	The name rings a bell.
	What are they again?
	They were the yappy bitches who would show up at anything war.
	You know, George Bush, it was Code Pink everywhere.
	No war for oil.
	Disappeared with Barack Obama and the drone strikes, then kind of reappeared.
	You're just like, well, hold on a second.
	Where did they go for all this time?
	But I also look at these Venezuelan drug boat busters.
	And by the way, they're also largely China-funded Code Pink.
	So that always takes place.
	I would argue that China is probably the primary threat.
	Or not argue.
	I think we're probably on the same page.
	But these are one of those stories where culturally, when you tune in, and that's why we always have CNN on live every day, and I go, see, nothing up my sleeve.
	So people know we're live because you and I both know a lot of people say they're live.
	They're not live in this industry.
	They go, and these people who were killed in this war crime.
	I go, well, hold on a second, war crime.
	Drug runners in the middle of the ocean on cigar boats with four outboard motors, no fishing equipment to be seen.
	There could not possibly be collateral damage.
	And then I go, oh, okay.
	It's not about a war crime because you would say, look at the women and children.
	Now you're saying, look at the drug runners on drug boats.
	And that to me highlights that, again, the left hates the United States of America or they wouldn't be making a big deal out of drug runners in Venezuelan cigar cigar boats.
	Yeah, no, I totally agree.
	I mean, they're defending the worst of the worst this year.
	It's like, don't deport criminals, don't blow up criminals, don't arrest people that are stabbing people in the neck.
	So I'm with you on that.
	And as far as Venezuela is concerned, even Iran, like I think a case could be made about Iran.
	That's a whole other topic.
	I know we're wrapping it up, but yes.
	Yeah, but I'm not, I don't know that I 100% even agree with Dave Smith on this.
	Like, I get where you're coming from.
	I'm not in favor of proliferation.
	I just have maybe a different prescription for how to solve it.
	But I think we're fairly aligned on foreign policy.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think pretty close.
	Or at least in principle.
	And then that's where coalition matters because you go, okay, are we on these?
	Okay, now let's look at these specifics.
	And you're going to have disagreements on specifics, but I don't think anyone can be letting the door's disagreements on these foundational.
	And I don't want to say prints because it sounds like old school conservative, but I mean non-negotiables is what I mean.
	Like someone going, oh, we disagree on this, we agree on the specifics, but I want to take away all your guns and ban everyone for hate speech.
	You know, like a Pam Bondi.
	I don't think she should be in this.
	Well, all right, Nick, I appreciate you taking the time.
	I want to see if hopefully thought fair, productive.
	I think it was pretty friendly.
	We disagreed, but I'm happy about it.
	Yeah, totally.
	Great conversation.
	Great getting to meet you.
	Absolutely fair.
	And yeah, I believe in conversations like these.
	And I thank you for, I know you're going to get flack for it.
	I thank you for giving me the platform and the opportunity.
	So it's good to finally speak with you.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And hopefully, yeah, that's why I say give you the floor because I don't want anything to happen like what happened after with Tucker.
	I won't do it.
	And I don't want any drive-bys after.
	That's how this works because people try and stir the controversy machine.
	I think this had a beginning, middle, and end.
	And Tucker was really shitty with what he did.
	Like, here's the thing.
	Whether I agree with him on some issues or you on some, it's just so bitchy to do that once you're gone.
	You have my word.
	I won't be doing that.
	Yeah.
	And likewise, I'll be singing your praises.
	I'm a number one.
	I'm a mug club guy now.
	Okay.
	Well, don't go that far because we were.
	I endorse you completely.
	Yeah.
	No, It's just like, when you think Steven Crowder, think Nick Fuente.
	All right.
	All right.
	Well, if I don't see you, Merry Christmas, Nick.
	Thank you for taking the time.
	Be well.
	Thanks, man.
	Merry Christmas.
	Nick Fuentes, everybody.
	All right.
	To people out there who are, you know, I know people are going to look at that and go, well, everyone has their own thing as far as where you should press, where you shouldn't, where you disagree.
	But my job as a host is to be fair and to host someone graciously as well as be consistent.
	So people have a problem.
	I don't really give a rest.
	I don't give a shit.

▲