Louder with Crowder - Vanity Fair's Susie Wiles Hit Piece: Who's To Blame PLUS Special Guest Jillian Michaels

Dec. 17, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

02:19:25

Vanity Fair's Susie Wiles Hit Piece: Who's To Blame PLUS Special Guest Jillian Michaels

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's just webbing when I won't let marry your field.
	I help your buddy talk about grandpa.
	Waking up, talking about Kindle My Christmas.
	I won't let Mary Blue talked about grandpa.
	Love the flow.
	69.
	Now it's time for new, believable people.
	And we must do it.
	If we don't control insiders, this will be over and over.
	To lead it by an 8.
	Big fat.
	We love to find common ground.
	To hold the spread of lies.
	And we must do it big, fat.
	We love finding common ground.
	To hold the spread of lies.
	And any America first.
	America first.
	Naughty, non-fatal.
	We want to build a much better, believable people.
	And we must do it.
	Non-fatal.
	Communication very much higher.
	America first.
	To lead it by an any insiders fighting for insiders.
	Time to stop.
	Insiders fighting for insiders.
	More of insiders fighting for insiders.
	Time to stop.
	Insiders fighting for insiders.
	America first.
	Love the flow.
	69.
	Now it's time for new, believable people.
	And we must do it.
	If we don't control insiders, this will be over and over.
	To lead it by an 8 big fat.
	We love it.
	To hold the spread of lies.
	If that's an indicator, Jillian Michaels is going to run roughshod over everything.
	Welcome to the lineup live, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern.
	Now, Tullman, yeah.
	Live on Rumble weekdays.
	Hey, this is our last live show before the Christmas special tomorrow, which we give back, find some families, organizations in need, and spread it around.
	We are able to do that because of your subscriptions, because of your support.
	And it's a fun time of year today.
	We have Jillian Michaels on the show.
	You know that I will answer for anything I say.
	And she actually has been supportive of some things in the past and critical.
	So hopefully we can have a productive conversation regarding the state of the right wing, the conservative movement right now, where people like me fit in, where people like her fit in.
	Also, Vanity Fair wrote this article.
	It was kind of profiling Susie Wiles there in the Trump administration.
	I'll tell you everything you need to know.
	They said that nine people died January 6th.
	But we'll fact-check all of it.
	All of it.
	I mean, just rapid fire.
	It's media malpractice.
	Let me ask you, what surprised you most from the Vanity Fair article?
	And what questions would you like to see most?
	With Jillian Michaels, Merry Christmas.
	On with the show.
	What a game it has been thus far.
	The bases are loaded, folks.
	I got loaded last night after the bank called me.
	Uh-huh.
	Up to bat now is Babe Ruth.
	Wait, that's not a woman, is it?
	No, no, it was a man who called me.
	A woman at the bank?
	Are you ludicrous?
	No, you imbecile.
	The player, babe.
	It's saying right here, it's a man.
	Babe Ruth is in fact a man.
	Oh, they said due to the market crash that represents the house.
	There's the windup.
	The pitch.
	And ho, Doctor.
	It appears he hit the ball over the wall.
	That has got to be illegal.
	That's what I said, but I guess all my stocks are worthless now, and I'm dead broke.
	No, not you, you imbecile.
	I meant that towering hit over the wall.
	We have to check the rulebook here and see we'll get back to you, folks.
	That's never been done before.
	He'll likely get kicked out of the game for that kind of measure.
	Just like I got kicked out of my home.
	Will you stop making this about you, Chip?
	Your pathetic life, you're making everyone sad.
	What's this now?
	They're talking.
	Hold on.
	Yes, I'm getting word.
	The umpires have talked it over.
	Now they're saying that that is in fact a legal hit.
	Over the walls, a legal hit the battery and all three runners will score.
	Wow.
	Everyone's scoring but me these days.
	They're calling it a home run.
	After this game, I won't have a home to run to.
	Well, you wouldn't be in this situation, Chip, if you'd have called American Financing like I've told you.
	They've helped thousands of Americans.
	They never charge any upfront or hidden fees, so you don't have to worry about any curveballs, and you need to make better decisions overall, Chip.
	That doesn't sound half-bad.
	And for you, half-pads, the best you're going to get.
	Here's the pitch, and foul ball.
	Walk it off, Chip.
	We have a job to do.
	Chip?
	Call American Financing today at 1-800-974-6500 or visit AmericanFinancing.net/slash Crowder.
	No upfront fees.
	Closing as fast as 10 days, and you could even lay up a two mortgage payments.
	NMLS 1-82-334.
	Hello, everybody.
	Merry Christmas.
	Tomorrow, we are so excited to bring you our annual Christmas extravaganza in which Santa Crowder gives back its favorite time of year where we're able to use your generosity and your subscriptions to Mug Club Now Rumble Premium to help give back to those in our communities who really need it most and deserve it most.
	You've sent us your letters, your videos.
	Organizations have reached out, and we've decided where we can do the most good, and we want to share it with you.
	We'll see you all tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern.
	Oh, see you then.
	Thank you so much, Santa.
	The bottom of my heart.
	Gotta be with you.
	Hey, Tulan, good on you for not ruining the clips here, though.
	Hey, thanks.
	Yeah.
	Oh, I think it was an intro to reset.
	A lot to get to today.
	We're going to have to go through a couple of things pretty quickly because Miss Michael's miss, misses?
	Something.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I don't know how it works with the same-sex couples.
	Yeah.
	We'll go with Miss.
	We'll go with Fetching Lady.
	She's going to be on later.
	And, you know, we have a code here.
	If we are the ones who drew first blood, as it were, we answer for everything that we say.
	And she disagreed, wanted to talk with us.
	And I'm happy to welcome her.
	It's a live show weekdays, 11 a.m. Eastern.
	Captain Morgan, CEO, how are you?
	I'm doing well.
	How are you?
	Good.
	I need to adjust, just stay on Gerald because I need to adjust Christmas here.
	It's pretty close.
	Why?
	What's wrong with it?
	Christmas?
	Nothing.
	I think it's still on the 25th.
	But you're saying it in a leading way.
	No, I said, are you ready?
	Do you notice that are you aware that you have a way of making people intensely uncomfortable when it's not necessary?
	I make people intensely uncomfortable.
	I thought that was anxiety.
	It's just been Gerald the whole time.
	Yeah.
	Mostly the audience is uncomfortable at this point.
	It's like a crowd of cloud of just awkward.
	Well, somebody better tell the VA.
	They think it's their fault.
	I asked a normal question.
	I said, are you ready for Christmas?
	It's the angel of Gerald.
	If you don't place lamb's blood above your door, he'll annoy the firstborn child.
	Oh, we love you.
	The fourth board.
	Let me know how that one's supposed to go.
	True, you're going to be daddy times four.
	And Wednesday, December 31st.
	Touman, I might actually need you to adjust my thinking.
	It's going all crooked.
	And I'm the weird one.
	No, I'm a weird one.
	Okay.
	December 31st, Bananas Comedy Club in Rutherford, New Jersey.
	Hopefully that's the good part of New Jersey.
	I think it might be.
	I think there's the Jets and Giants play there, maybe.
	I'm not sure, but we're going to have champagne, sing old Ling Zine, and maybe slap each other in the face.
	None of that seems like a tradition.
	It just seems like it's all New Year's traditions in my house.
	Oh.
	In Canada, they have an old man.
	And he slaps you in the face.
	No, he wrestles a baby.
	Oh, he wrestles a baby?
	He wrestles a baby.
	Well, that doesn't seem fair.
	And if the baby wins, you go into a new year.
	And if the old man wins, you don't.
	You stay.
	So it's like in actually in Quebec, parts of Quebec is still 1984.
	And I'll tell you what, most years, it's just an old man beating the crap out of a baby.
	It's not a very fun one.
	It's like a really bad version of Groundhog Day.
	Effectively.
	Wow.
	Well, I like it, though.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's festive.
	You know, that the old man forgets what he's doing?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why am I beating this baby?
	It's ugly, but I'll keep.
	And occasionally you get a baby who's really strong and he'll surprise you.
	That's a thing.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Or like one of those, you know, what do you talk about Willis?
	What's his name?
	I feel like it's a good idea.
	Gary Coleman.
	Gary Coleman.
	Yeah.
	It's a Gary Coleman.
	That joke sucks now.
	No, no, it doesn't.
	I didn't remember that guy's name.
	It still works.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	Because he was little and he was funny.
	Yeah.
	And black.
	All right.
	Iowa State House candidate Ben Schauer just released a massive announcement.
	A huge, towering giant announcement.
	Hi, I'm Stephanie Stockman, candidate for Congress in the 4th District.
	And today, I'm offering my endorsement to Ben Schauer because.
	I value education.
	I demand health care for all islands regardless of where they live.
	And I want to revitalize our rural communities.
	Boys.
	These are of course he demands free health care.
	A little self-serving, love.
	And I know him is the guy to get them done.
	Let's get him elected, guys.
	Now, Shar is running for Iowa State House District 15 Stone.
	And he's also the star of Disney's new live action, Big Hero 600.
	Yeah, so he's, yeah, yeah.
	He looks familiar.
	He's Baymax.
	Okay.
	All right.
	La la la dead.
	Baymax.
	By the way, that's the worst.
	The series is the worst, most woke stuff you've ever seen.
	The show, the movie.
	The film was great.
	I love the film.
	Yeah.
	And then I started watching the show, and I was like, wait a second, this isn't a, and not that the mixed race part is a problem, a mixed race gay couple making out at a at a fish taco stand, is it?
	Yeah, someone had to animate that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's fun, isn't it?
	Right.
	And I guarantee you they were editing that one solo.
	That guy looks like Baymax XXX.
	Yes, he does.
	That's it.
	That's bad.
	That's all.
	That's why I hate local.
	There's nothing more on that issue.
	Yeah, vote for him.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	No.
	Can you vote for him twice?
	Yeah, like eating your leftovers.
	Yeah.
	I don't know how it works.
	Does he have to buy two places on the ballot?
	Cheryl, we moved on from the.
	Yeah, we're already done with how rude of you.
	It's unnecessary.
	Jeez, the guy just has a thyroid issue.
	He's a hero here.
	Yeah.
	You're one of those guys who would have been spinning the elephant man.
	Yeah, you're an elitist is what you are.
	He's a human.
	All right.
	Sometimes people forget that Donald Trump is a human being.
	Sometimes people get that Pete Hegseth is a human being.
	Sometimes people forget that anyone, Candace Owens, Erica Kirk, Nick Fuentes is a human being.
	When you see these public figures, legacy media has thrived.
	It requires dehumanizing people with whom they disagree.
	And of course, the people with whom they disagree are those with traditional values, those who represent half of the country.
	You know, the half that elects presidents.
	They are corrupt.
	You know it.
	I know it.
	But this latest example is so glaring to the point that you almost wonder if they've just decided that this is their last ditch.
	It's a Hail Mary.
	They're not even going to try and appear as though they're practicing journalism whatsoever.
	So Vanity Fair released this 10,000-plus word piece on Donald Trump and more specifically his chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
	A revealing new interview with really the most powerful, powerful person in President Trump's White House beyond him, chief of staff, Susie Wiles, commenting and going there on a wide range of topics, it seems, with Vanity Fair in a new series of interviews, from the handling of the Epstein investigation to her assessment of the big names on the team.
	Let me get into some of the main things that I found very notable from what Chris Whipple, who works with Venetian Fair, detailed from their conversations.
	One is that Wiles referred to President Trump as someone having a, quote, alcoholic personality.
	She also talked a lot about the vice president, JD Vance, someone who I should note, you know, had this conversion that Whipple noted as well from never Trumper to a MAGA acolyte.
	Susie Wiles essentially said that that change, that conversion has been, quote, sort of political.
	And she said the vice president has been a quote conspiracy theorist for a decade.
	Okay.
	Wiles already responded.
	Let me read you some of this.
	She said the article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me.
	And the finest president, White House, staff, and cabinet in history, significant context was disregarded.
	And much of what I and others said about the team and the president was left out of the story.
	I assume that after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the president and our team.
	The truth is that Trump White House has already accomplished more in 11 months than any other president has accomplished in eight years, and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
	None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of making America great again.
	And I know what you're saying or what you're thinking.
	Well, of course she has to say that because she, you know, Wiles doesn't want to lose her job, especially around the holidays.
	But who's right?
	Who's telling the truth?
	Is there context that may explain this?
	It's time for Media Mail Practice.
	All right.
	So rapid fire.
	We're just going to go through this, all the references, links available in the description.
	First, Vanity Fair claim from the author.
	We'll get to him later on, his background, Chris Whipple.
	First claim was that January 6th was a bloody riot.
	This is what he wrote.
	Then Trump issued pardons to almost everyone convicted in the bloody January 6th, 2021 assault on the Capitol, in which nine people ultimately died and 150 were injured.
	There's more that he wrote.
	I don't want to read it.
	Do I need to say anything else?
	Everything else is in chronological order.
	This one was so egregious.
	Honestly, I had to look up where they got the number nine.
	I've never heard that number before.
	I remember early on they said five, which was false.
	The furthest I'd seen people go was seven, which is false.
	Nine just seems as though it's anyone tangentially related to.
	In other words, if someone happened to be in the zip code January 6th and has died since then, if you calculated all of that up, you'd get nine.
	Here's the truth.
	Ashley Babbitt was the only one who was killed at the Capitol on January 6th.
	That nine include strokes, overdoses, suicides, some of which are months, months, months after and have no relation to January 6th.
	And that one guy who tried to shut down power to the building.
	I love how they just lead off trying to reframe it as a bloody coup, you know, where tons of people died.
	How many times do we have to sit through this?
	I mean, do people really believe this anymore?
	Like, do you think their audience actually does?
	I don't know.
	I think some people out there actually do.
	Well, by 2040, at least a few people will have died of natural causes.
	True.
	Oh, that's true.
	Yeah.
	It would be like doing an article on this show, let's say in 2050 and saying, and four people died at Ladder-Crowder.
	Well, one of them got AIDS later on because he was gay.
	Yeah, my count's only two.
	Yeah.
	I know.
	Right, two.
	If they were being honest, intellectually honest, you would go into one of the suicides that I'm sure that they counted in this on a guy who was ready to kind of settle.
	He didn't do anything, you know, anything bad really other than kind of do on a walking tour.
	But they tried to throw terrorism charges on top of it and put him away for the rest of his life.
	And so he killed himself.
	Yeah.
	Maybe that would be something to bring up.
	Here's the next claim from Vanity Fair that President Trump has an alcoholics personality.
	Here's the quote.
	Trump, she told me, has an alcoholics personality.
	Okay.
	Here's the truth.
	The context actually makes it clear that this was a compliment.
	So let me read you the context that was omitted.
	Some clinical psychologist that knows one million times more than I do will dispute what I'm going to say.
	This is, I believe, Wiles discussing this in the article saying, but high-functioning alcoholics or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink.
	And so I'm a little bit of an expert in big personalities.
	Trump has an alcoholics personality.
	He operates with a view that there's nothing he can't do.
	Nothing.
	Zero.
	Nothing.
	It seems that that context is actually complimentary.
	And I think it's pretty well known that Donald Trump is a teetotaler.
	He doesn't drink at all.
	Here's how you know it's true.
	No one's ever attacked him for being an alcoholic.
	No one's ever attacked him for abusing alcohol.
	The left would use it as they do with Pete Hexett trying to say he's a drunk because he got drunk one time at a hotel.
	So, this idea that anyone would buy this, it just tells you how little of an attempt there is for Vanity Fair to be accurate.
	And actually, the opposite.
	They're deliberately lying to you.
	This is an omission.
	This is a lie.
	So, let me read it again.
	He operates with a view, like an alcoholic, that there's nothing he can't do.
	Nothing, zero, nothing.
	That sounds like Donald Trump, including taking on an entire Chinese gang alone.
	I cut the bottle.
	There's another one.
	Whoops, whoops, hit your eyes.
	Don't drink.
	I'm going to come.
	Do you think that's a good idea?
	Don't worry.
	He gives him college.
	Here he comes.
	Get ready.
	A lot of drinking.
	I'm not used to it.
	Bang!
	Look at that, surprise.
	Oh, over you, little Chinaman.
	Back kick.
	Another kick.
	Here comes the tie.
	Oh, elbow.
	Look.
	I'm feeling it.
	Yeah.
	And block.
	Break elbow.
	Oh, that hurts right on your toe.
	You ever stub your toe?
	Hit.
	Bat, bat.
	I'm going to break it.
	Look at that.
	You have no chance.
	Worth it.
	That's ridiculous.
	Was it?
	I don't know.
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure.
	Sometimes we're sitting here and it's like, all right, just run the clip and we'll just dub it as Trump is a drunk or Johnny's watcher and let's see what happens.
	It was awesome.
	I don't think that's real.
	I don't think he really did that.
	No, that's the director's cut.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	Donald Trump was a director.
	That's his commentary.
	Look at this little Chinaman.
	Look what he does.
	Look, he moves right.
	The Peking Opera.
	They would, if you didn't jump over a table properly, they'd beat you and place you in a closet.
	They didn't get everything wrong.
	All right.
	Next claim, unless anyone has more to add, and I think we wrapped that one up.
	And this one is really bad.
	That Charlie Kirk's assassination was just like the Reichstag fire.
	Oh, really?
	Charlie Kirk, here's a quote: Charlie Kirk's assassination in September turbocharged Trump's campaign of revenge and retribution.
	Critics have compared this moment to a Reichstag fire, a modern version of Hitler's exploitation of the torching of Berlin's parliament.
	Okay.
	Here's the truth.
	First off, the comparisons to Hitler and the comparisons to Nazi.
	That's a big reason why Charlie Kirk was killed through radicalized leftists.
	And we told you that and you guys have kept doing it.
	But the real truth is the SS started said fire.
	Oops.
	So unless they're implying that President Trump killed Charlie Kirk, it couldn't be less apt of a comparison.
	He did, President Trump started a couple of fires, though.
	Oh, hot, hot, hot coffee.
	And that's fun.
	It's just different fires.
	Yeah, the name's a little on the hook.
	I mean, just think about that.
	They just can't help themselves.
	Well, and it's not even something that the author is claiming.
	It's just saying, well, and some critics have said.
	It's like, well, you didn't even need to throw that in there.
	What's the real point of throwing that in?
	Name the critics who said that.
	It's such a cop-out.
	I know.
	That being said, Donald Trump does that too.
	He does.
	Guarantee those people say that.
	A lot of people have told me that Chris Whipple, oh, what a small penis he has.
	I say, I wouldn't know that unless you, but they say it.
	The people who've seen it say it.
	He's an angry little penis boy.
	I would never say that.
	That's what people tell me.
	I say, stop it.
	He's a whipple nipple.
	Whipple whipple.
	Pumper third nipple, they call him.
	You know that was rough as a child, though.
	Come on.
	Of course it was.
	Maybe deservedly so now.
	Yes.
	Absolutely.
	You know what?
	Nerds can deserve to be beaten up.
	I was one of them.
	Here's the fourth claim from Vanity Fair.
	Again, all the references available, link in the description.
	And by the way, best way to stay in touch, download the Rumble app.
	Follow me there.
	Get out of these social media ghettos where they determine what you see and what you don't.
	Just follow me on Rumble.
	You get to see when we're live.
	Of course, weekdays, 11 a.m.
	And sometimes we do some special streams, special uploads.
	The claim is that ICE has arrested 170 Americans.
	Whoa.
	Man, that's big.
	Yeah, here's the truth.
	This writer, Whipple, Whipple, Whipple, Pumpkin, Pumper, Third Nipple, whatever it is.
	Pumpkin nipples.
	That's what he is.
	They call him Pumpkinhead with Nipples.
	He roams the earth with his nipples hanging from his horse, looking for his real nipple.
	This writer got it from a ProPublica report, which in the report clearly states 72% of these people were held for interfering with ICE.
	You know, punching, kicking, screaming, committing assault.
	And the remaining 28% were questioned and released.
	You know, like someone who's questioned, arrested, or brought in for questioning regarding a crime.
	And they go, okay, you're free to go.
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	So what they want you to believe is that 170 Americans, American citizens, have been arrested by ICE and had their rights violated.
	And perhaps you'll even fill in the blanks and think that they've been deported.
	The truth is, these were criminals who were committing assault and battery on ICE, or they were brought in for questioning.
	They were detained, and they were released.
	That's it.
	It's pretty simple.
	How does Vanity Fair get this wrong?
	Well, I think you know the answer.
	Next claim, number five from Vanity Fair: that President Trump wants a regime change in Venezuela.
	It's not about drugs.
	He wrote, Over lunch, Wiles told me about Trump's Venezuela strategy.
	He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries, uncle.
	Oh.
	Not starting to.
	Wait, he's writing that like a bad thing?
	Okay.
	And people way smarter than me on that say he will.
	Wiles' statement appears to contradict the administration's official stance that blowing up boats is about drug interdiction, not regime change.
	Here's the truth.
	You know, regime change might be a happy accident, but these are drug boats, which publications like Vanity Fair in the past tried to obfuscate.
	Remember that?
	Yeah.
	So here's some more context.
	Wiles didn't mince words.
	The president believed in harsh penalties for drug dealers.
	As he said many, many, many times, these are not fishing boats, as some would like to allege.
	The boats, she argued, carried drugs, eliminating them saves lives.
	The president says 25,000.
	I don't know what the number is, but he views those as lives saved, not people killed.
	And on whether President Trump will take out Maduro, well, he's still thinking about it.
	I haven't done it yet.
	I may do it.
	If this doesn't work out, probably I will do it.
	I would almost say definitely.
	I love that.
	I'm still not sure.
	Yeah.
	Maybe.
	Very possible.
	Very likely.
	Maybe not.
	Yeah.
	Almost 100%.
	Probably, absolutely.
	Look, they always say blowing up drug boats always comes before E, except on the C.
	And maybe they'll be happy, or maybe it's me.
	Aesop.
	So, claim number six from Vanity Fair.
	And this one comes by way of Brian Krassenstein.
	Oh, geez.
	Gay.
	Bless you.
	Wiles.
	Rocket.
	Okay.
	Gesundheit.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Wiles said Trump is in the Epstein files, is one of the claims.
	Here's the truth.
	She said he's in the file and said so to clarify that he didn't do anything.
	Here's what Wiles said: Trump is in the file, and we know he's in the file, and he's not in the file doing anything awful.
	I told you a very long time ago, the one thing that you can be guaranteed of regarding the Epstein files is that Donald Trump is in it because he worked with authorities.
	We already knew this.
	We already knew this.
	Like, there's no world in which he's not in the file.
	Now, I think the file should be public.
	I think the public has a right to know, especially since it was promised.
	But this idea that it's somehow a scandal, it's silly.
	10,000 words.
	10,000 plus.
	The next claim, claim number seven from Vanity Fair, that Elon Musk is a ketamine fiend.
	He said, Wiles described Musk as something akin to a jacked-up Nusferatu.
	I'm going to wrap that as a nickname on my Cybertruck.
	Jacked-up Nosferatu.
	Jacked up Nosferatu.
	It's really cool.
	You know, he would.
	The challenge with Elon is keeping up with him, she told me.
	He's an avowed ketamine user, and he sleeps in a sleeping bag in the executive office building in the daytime.
	And he's an odd, odd duck, as I think geniuses are.
	You know, it's not helpful, but he is his own person.
	Here's the truth.
	This one pretty much seems true.
	That seems true.
	And also, Scott Besant probably punched him in the face.
	Yeah, probably.
	Scott Bessant's probably his supplier.
	Well, maybe.
	Do you think that went further than we knew with Scott Besant?
	I think so.
	Careful.
	You're messing with Nosferatu.
	I'm undead.
	Also, on ketamine.
	Not to mention, look, let me, so you see all these claims, and now you know the truth.
	And I hope that you go check out the references.
	But this also is important to note: like, the background of somebody does matter if it is in line with the bias that you see in the reporting in their writing.
	Yeah.
	In this case, well, what do we know about Chris Whipple?
	He's a very well-known leftist political author, writes for New York Times Daily Beast Politico.
	He ignored Biden's mental decline in his 2023 book, The Fight for His Life, to be clear.
	Also, this is the picture of Caroline Levitt that he picked.
	And here's the thing: here's the thing.
	Like, people are telling me that the women were saying you can see where she gets lip injections.
	Now, first off, I think Caroline Levitt is a very pretty woman.
	She doesn't need lip injections.
	It's not a thing that women overdo it.
	But I've never seen marks from lip injections.
	They would have had to proactively find this picture.
	And I know I have been to places where they have had before and after of women who get lip injections, right?
	A close up, and you still don't see where the lip injections have taken place.
	Somehow, Vanity Fair accidentally picked that picture that, by the way, doesn't even look, bring it back up.
	Does that look like Caroline Levitt?
	No.
	Someone wouldn't recognize her.
	So how is that journalism?
	It's not.
	She looks yellow, too.
	Like they put a filter on it, like when they did Joe Rogan dirty.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right now, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but they certainly weren't picking a picture that would be most clearly indicative of Caroline Levitt.
	Yeah.
	If your goal is for the reader to be informed, hey, here's Carolyn Levitt as we talk about her.
	You know her, you've seen her, you know her job.
	All right, now let me give you context.
	Instead, it's just used to try and get some jabs.
	It's just petty.
	Yeah, that was them going, oh, these are the things that this lady said, and also look ill.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	What do you think about this?
	Right.
	Like, okay.
	And when asked his thoughts about the article, President Trump had this to say.
	They don't know what the fuck they're doing.
	Do you understand that?
	You know what, I agree?
	A little crude, but it gets the point.
	That's one of my favorite presidential quotes ever.
	Oh, yes.
	And then my favorite presidential walk ever is him with the bandage on his ear walking out.
	Like, this guy has some, people use the term aura.
	He's got aura, and he's had some moments.
	He gets it all over everybody around him.
	It's my second favorite presidential quote of all time.
	What's your first?
	What's my first?
	As President George W. Bush.
	You fool me once.
	Shame on you.
	Fool me, you can't get fooled again.
	Yeah.
	You can't fool the fooler.
	You can't fool a fool.
	I do like that one.
	My favorite is, are you going to finish that?
	That was Taft.
	But we were asking this during the break.
	Taft, Grover Cleveland is the second most overweight president.
	That's what I said.
	No, it isn't.
	No, I said Garfield.
	My bad.
	Yeah, you were thinking of the fire.
	You were thinking of Arthur.
	I was thinking of the cat.
	Yes.
	With the lasagna and the Mondays.
	Yeah.
	And I was thinking of the cat that's a clock.
	So I believe we are going to have our guest on here any moment.
	I think that you guys are establishing the call with guest Jillian Michaels.
	And I will say this: tomorrow is our Christmas special.
	So this is our last live show today.
	It's always great.
	We always love doing the special where we give back.
	We've been doing it now for what?
	Half a decade?
	Yeah.
	At least.
	And yes, that does have to be pre-taped because we have to call the families and many of them work.
	And there are a few moments where there isn't a dry eye in the house.
	So look for that.
	But I will tell you this: I'm glad to see this moment in time now where, remember, it used to always be the war over Christmas, Merry Christmas, the Cups, and Starbucks.
	It seems to be over with now.
	Yeah.
	We have this administration just saying Merry Christmas, President Trump.
	That should offend nobody.
	And I'm glad that we have gotten past the point.
	People don't realize how bad it can get.
	They don't realize, some young people, how bad the woke progressive left got for years, where everything was politicized with not even a mainstream left agenda, but radical left.
	And it was getting tiresome.
	I'm glad we're past.
	For example, nothing was said.
	Even children's shows, past this.
	Everything I touch turns into a disaster.
	I guess I don't know what Christmas is all about.
	Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?
	Sure, Charlie Brown.
	I can tell you what Christmas is all about.
	Lights, please.
	Christmas is just another excuse for white Christian capitalists to shove their wealth and religion in the faces of marginalized people.
	It has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus, who wasn't even born on December 25th.
	Your Christmas isn't the only holiday, Charlie Brown.
	What about Hanukkah, Kwanzaa?
	Where's the school place to celebrate Yule?
	Or the Hallmark movies, wishing everyone a merry winter solstice?
	How about the Diwali Festival of Lights?
	You never heard of the Diwali Festival of Lights, did you?
	Don't get me started on the Salvation Army.
	All this because America is a quasi-religious, anti-LGBTQ AIP oligarchy, where Christmas is thrust upon us and everyone falls for materialism each year like the good little mindless sheep they are.
	And they follow their shepherd, Donald Trump.
	And that's what Christmas is all about, you cis white male.
	Oh, brother.
	See, we got past that.
	That's great.
	That was only a couple of years ago.
	I believe we have her on the line, Miss Jillian Michaels.
	Before I bring her on, I do want to sort of present to you what was the catalyst for our back and forth and why she's on the show.
	And I'm very glad to have her here on the show today.
	This is when she sat down with Donald Trump Jr., and they were discussing sort of the right, its current state, and the need to disavow certain people to which I responded.
	All of those people that your dad invited in-Tulsi, Kennedy, myself, inadvertently, right?
	All of these more Rogan, all of these more moderate people who flee the crazy on the left are alarmed if the right doesn't disavow the Nick Fuentes.
	And it doesn't mean, I'm not saying cancel Tucker Carlson.
	That is not what I'm saying.
	I wish Tucker had handled him differently.
	I have no problem saying that.
	But I do think it's going to be a problem.
	And I'm wondering if you see it as a problem for the right in the midterms and in 2028.
	I think if this continues without it being fully condemned aggressively, I think you get Gavin Newsom for president.
	And I know what that looks like.
	And it's scary stuff.
	I'm just deeply concerned that if there's a guy who says women want to be and somebody does not say, this is not who we are as a party, this is not conservatism.
	We find him repulsive.
	I'm telling you, it's also sometimes.
	All right.
	And then there was a back and forth.
	Please welcome host of Keeping It Real or Keeping It Real.
	It's not N, to be clear.
	This is not Michael What Up Steal.
	Keeping It Real.
	You can follow her on X and on YouTube.
	Jillian Michaels.
	Jillian Michaels, can you see me, hear me?
	Merry Christmas.
	I can see you hear you.
	Merry Christmas.
	Well, thank you for making the time.
	I want to, and I'm sure we'll get to Nick Fuentes if you watch the interview.
	I want to give you the ability off the bat some rapid fire.
	These are not trick questions.
	They are yes or no because I saw this clip on Pierce Morgan and I think it's funny.
	The Wajahada, whatever, prick who said this about you.
	I want to give people the context first.
	Listen, I've been in this for a long time.
	Jillian, I know you're just discovering this.
	Congratulations.
	I think I've also been a little bit more.
	Let me just finish.
	I let you say a lot of people, stupid, reckless things about Muslims.
	Would you like to say one?
	That's 20,000 people.
	Jillian, Jillian, you are by your own admission, are a white nationalist.
	By your own admission, that's what you are, a white nationalist.
	You admitted it?
	I'm a white nationalist.
	You know what I'm Arab, right?
	The number of people who are Syrian and Lebanese and Turkish.
	Everyone who said it, I didn't say it.
	That's why I was shocked.
	When did I say I was a white nationalist?
	You're not a white nationalist?
	There was a.
	Okay, wasn't there a clip that said you were a white nationalist?
	You're not a white nationalist?
	No.
	So I did, I always do my research and I try to be as charitable as humanly possible to anyone who comes on the show.
	I couldn't find any evidence, but just to clear the deck here, Jillian Michaels, are you in fact a white nationalist?
	No, I am not a white nationalist.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I'm just marking that down for my own edification.
	You did mention that you were Arab.
	So the follow-up, of course, Jillian Michaels, do you hate the Jews?
	I actually happen to have one grandparent who was a Russian Jew that ran from the Nazis.
	So I'm a bit of a hybrid and I do not hate the Jews.
	Does not hate Jews.
	Okay.
	I noticed you said Turkish there.
	Part Turkish.
	Do you deny the Armenian genocide?
	How about that?
	I do not.
	I do not.
	No.
	All right.
	Good enough for me.
	I think we got it out of the way.
	Jillian.
	Where did he get that from?
	What a prick.
	Well, I think he got it.
	He got it from a CNN clip where we were debating whether or not all of MAGA is racist, which kind of leads us into the conversation we're going to have.
	But you know that everyone gets smeared with the, you're a racist, you're a white nationalist.
	If you voted for Trump, if you're America first.
	And what I was trying to point out, or what I did point out, and then it got manipulated, is that, first of all, white people were one of the first races to fight to end slavery.
	350,000 Union soldiers died to end slavery.
	Slavery has existed for thousands of years.
	And what Wajahat may not know is Muslims, in fact, enslaved million-plus white Europeans.
	Every single ethnicity is a whip in the chains.
	They still do.
	I was trying to get to a place where we could establish that not all white people are bad.
	And my bigger concern, which I know you take umbrage with, is that if you demonize all white people in this way, it is going to lead them into the Nyquists of the world, which I know you don't think are bad.
	I happen to think is quite scary.
	No, no, I don't think that.
	I don't take umbrage with that statement.
	I agree first off with the first half of that statement: that if you demonize white people, yeah, completely.
	And that's where I think we maybe have a miscommunication.
	I'm not concerned with driving anyone into anyone's arms outside of the parameters of truth.
	I would say that some of those people on that panel are incredibly radical.
	And I find it pretty nuts that sometimes people say, I'll platform this person, not platform this person.
	And what I want to always do is be as charitable to the person expressing a view as possible.
	For example, the way that guy did it.
	That's dishonest, right?
	Him saying, hey, you white nationalists, it's a way of poisoning the well.
	And I don't want to do that.
	And that's where, if you want to say, take umbrage, the idea that people need to disavow someone wholesale as opposed to understanding the why so that I can present a better case as to why not.
	And that brings us to, I mean, I know you tweeted at me, and this seems silly.
	If you want to go ahead and speak, I was going to read it so I could give you the floor.
	Go ahead, please.
	No, no, by all means.
	You're absolutely right.
	Go ahead.
	You wrote that if you'd spent five minutes on Google at S. Crowder, that's my handle there because Stephen Crowder's taken, you'd see I've never claimed to be a conservative.
	Fair enough.
	I've always said I'm a moderate who happens to enjoy the company of conservatives and prefers the way they govern over progressives.
	Fair enough, I agree.
	And if you only trust the concerns of established conservatives, well, Charlie Kirk was fairly adamant.
	There's no place for Fuentes in conservatism to address the rest of your clipped montage.
	And I do want to get to that.
	My early vote was for Kennedy because Americans' health has always been my priority.
	But that's not the point.
	This isn't ideological.
	It's about basic decency.
	The only thing I'll answer and give you the floor is: let me ask you plainly: you're comfortable with the claim that, quote, women want to be raped.
	There's no statistic, moral framework, or political philosophy, philosophy that validates that.
	None.
	That's the only one I'll respond to.
	I would say, of course, there is not being raped by Elon Omar's brother in an alleyway, unless you're Elon Omar.
	I'm talking about sexually aggressive or dominant males.
	It's a replicatable study.
	That was the one issue where I want to be as charitable as possible, going, That's the context there.
	And then you said, as I told John John.
	For you, it is.
	It's not his context at all.
	And you did say that you've never heard him say it.
	So I actually pulled it for you so you can hear it for the first time.
	Well, I've never heard him say wholesale, and I asked him about it.
	So I've heard him say that phrase.
	Are you ready?
	Here you go.
	I've heard him say that phrase.
	Yeah.
	A lot of women want to be raped.
	And when I say raped, I mean like, that sounds bad when I say it like that.
	But there's like a lot of women that really want a guy to beat the shit out of them.
	But also, they have to pretend, but part of it is they have to pretend like they don't.
	Okay.
	So first of all, let's address the study that you reference.
	I happen to know a lot about this study.
	I've covered it in numerous podcasts.
	My mom has her doctorate in psychoanalysis, so I'm familiar with it.
	First of all, every single woman in the study came forward and said, in reality, I would never want this to happen.
	Of course.
	There's also a very big difference between fantasy.
	Fantasy is consent.
	Fantasy is: I choose the person, I choose the place, I choose the time.
	Rape is not.
	You said women want a dominant male.
	First of all, want is not consent.
	That's not rape.
	And a dominant male is not a male that beats the shit out of them, Stephen.
	And I don't understand why you want to defend this.
	Oh, I'll tell you why.
	Because I've spoken with him about it, asked him about it.
	And I think the idea that here's why, 50 Shades of Gray.
	In other words, when you look at what women, you know, in the context of that study, which is the context that he was discussing, he didn't cite the study, but I think it's pretty clear.
	And I need to be charitable towards him.
	Look, I disagree with him on so many other things.
	The context.
	Women want the shit out of that.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Actually, it's very poorly worded.
	But that's not him saying you should go out.
	Do you believe that Nick Fuentes is saying you should go commit a felony and commit violent rape?
	You believe that?
	Yes.
	Okay, I don't.
	And ready?
	Here's why I think so.
	Another one for you, just in case there's many of these, but in case you've missed some of them.
	And repeat after me.
	I will kill, rape, and die for Nicholas J. Fuentes.
	We could go on all day with these.
	Well, let me give you one for me.
	I've said I would lie, cheat, maim, steal whatever it takes to save the lives of my children.
	That's rhetoric.
	Okay, but Stephen, he's not referencing protecting kids.
	No, it's a silly creed.
	I mean, there's nothing funny about it.
	There's nothing funny about it at all.
	Who's the butt of that joke?
	Not only, there's so many problems with this.
	His Groypers actually carry this out with regard to they were going after Piers Morgan's 13-year-old daughter saying they were going to rape her.
	Like, come on, Stephen.
	Of course, that's horrible.
	But let's go back to what is it worth discussing.
	Saying you need to disavow person X for a very uncharitable view that most people understood and they can agree or disagree.
	Then you can't get to the areas where you actually disagree.
	For example, like global jewelry, where I disagree with him.
	And I was able to say, I think that Islamic immigration is a bigger threat.
	What I don't want to do is exactly what Pierce Morgan did in interviewing him, which drove people into the arms of Nick because he presented as far more reasonable than Pierce, or attack him or his audience, these young men, over something that's clearly out of context and not meant to be taken literally.
	To give you an idea, yesterday we had Cardi B's new album dropped, Cap, Circumcised Ass Pussy, because she was performing in Riyadh.
	It's a joke.
	That's disgusting.
	I agree with you.
	I actually just had this conversation with Tom McDonald about the fact that Cardi B has become a role model for 12-year-old girls.
	And there's got to be something behind that because it's just so absolutely insane and insidious.
	But that's a separate issue.
	And I also find that disgusting.
	But it's not about sexual violence.
	And here's another concern of mine is that, you know, you got a group of young boys.
	Okay.
	I have a 13-year-old son.
	And I know you, I believe you have kids.
	And forgive me, I haven't done my homework on that part, but I believe that you do.
	You've just said, like, I would do all kinds of stuff to protect them.
	Okay.
	I cannot tell you how much time I have spent, my brother has spent, my business partner, who's my closest friend has spent, explaining to my son that no means no.
	So that when he is with a young girl, just hold on, and he hears Nick Fuentes in his mind going, no, really, actually, she wants this.
	No, really, she wants you to beat the shit out of her.
	No, really keep going.
	And he ends up in jail.
	Or God forbid some misguided kid who ends up with my daughter one day and she decides she doesn't want to continue.
	This is not only is it repulsive messaging, I find it exceptionally dangerous.
	Yeah.
	So, and I would agree with you in principle, but you added there, no, really keep going.
	What I heard from the clip that you played, and to be fair, you said I played a clip out of context as far as a montage.
	As far as I know, this is the only show that always links to entire clips and references.
	I don't know if you do that with your show.
	We have a bibliography every day.
	It takes hours of work.
	So we don't do that.
	And I wanted to be very much fair.
	I think you're kind of doing that.
	And you just added, and no, no, really keep going.
	I didn't hear him say that.
	I heard him say, yeah, absolutely.
	He did.
	He said they have to pretend like they don't want you to.
	That's what I'm referring to.
	Yeah.
	If we change one thing, right, in the context of male-female sexual dynamics, I think that it's very understandable.
	And I wouldn't wholesale disavow someone because my question is, do you think that blankly disavowing people, which I don't do, I disagree with views across the board.
	I've had communists, I've had imams who've called for my death on the show.
	I didn't have him back, to be clear, on the show.
	I was like, oh, he really wants to kill me.
	Probably won't have him back.
	And I will give them the same respect.
	Yeah, not a great idea.
	I will give them all the same respect.
	Do you think that blankly disavowing a person is better than clarifying their statements and understanding where they come from so that you can present a case as to why not?
	Understand the why so you can explain why not.
	That's my view, and we may disagree.
	Okay, first of all, when you disavow someone, you deny responsibility for it and acceptance of it.
	Right.
	It's not saying you can't talk to that person, which you're like, Jillian Michaels is trying to tell me who I can talk to.
	That didn't happen.
	Jillian Michaels is trying to tell, you know, is trying to cancel, I don't know, A, B, C, or D. Also didn't happen.
	But when you platform someone like this, first of all, disavowing, I do think is important with somebody who says things like, I mean, this is so insane.
	Women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
	Women are whores who shouldn't be in politics, who calls JD Vance a race traitor for marrying an Indian woman.
	Yes, I would disavow that.
	And what I mean by that is the literal definition of the word, which is, this is not a part of who I am.
	Now, if you want to understand him, that's absolutely up to you.
	And that's a very different conversation.
	And if you feel like you can effectively cross-examine him, which honestly, Stephen, I don't think you did.
	I think that you gave him the layups like you gave me.
	And then that was it.
	I think you led the witness.
	And it's like, did you watch the two-hour interview?
	I watched the whole freaking two and a half-hour interview.
	Yeah.
	So I watched the whole thing.
	You want to talk about which part of it?
	Like, the Stalin piece.
	Like, you want to talk about that one?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we absolutely can.
	But before that, why?
	And this is what I'm trying to maybe provide some perspective on, because you've had this happen with you going on Matt Walsh's show.
	And you'll have the same thing appearing here.
	And I've said things.
	I wasn't on Matt Walsh's show.
	He was kind enough to come on mine.
	Sorry, when you sat down with Matt Walsh, people said, okay, you're sitting down.
	You're a traitor, right?
	People in the lesbian community would say that.
	People will say you're sitting down with a Nazi with me.
	People said that about Donald Trump.
	So the tactic that the left uses is you need to make really clear that that person isn't you and disavow them.
	And that, by proxy, falsely sets a premise that there's any association.
	I don't have any association with your worldview any more than I do with Nick Fuentes or Imam Shoudry or the communists I sit down with.
	Well, I wouldn't disavow you.
	I would disagree.
	I would disagree.
	That's my approach.
	I think what we're doing is we're arguing over semantics.
	When you disavow someone, you're saying, I don't agree.
	I don't condone.
	That is the literal definition of the word.
	And I personally think it's important that if the right ever, I mean, we can talk about what's going on with this.
	This is being weaponized against the right very effectively.
	And, you know, we could talk all about that.
	But at the end of the day, if you agree with him, that's one thing.
	If you don't agree with him, I would strongly suggest you say that.
	And I've watched some of your things.
	And can I respond to that?
	I would strongly suggest.
	And this is one thing when you say it's been used against the right.
	And I hear that a lot.
	And here's the thing: whether it's Kanye West, whether it's Nala Ray, who now has a mission's work or sorry, a ministry, people who are new, I know you don't claim to be a conservative.
	People who are new to a fundamental worldview, who maybe don't have an understanding of it, should refrain from telling men who they should disavow or who should be permitted and who shouldn't.
	I think it's more productive to listen for a while before you take the pulpit.
	And that is my perspective.
	I've listened for quite some time and I appreciate your perspective.
	What about the conservative?
	Since 2024, Jillian, I mean, that's when you said you voted for Trump, and you kind of compared him a little bit to Hitler after the election.
	So I wouldn't say that you're very experienced.
	When would I compare Trump to Hitler after the 2024 election?
	After him winning, I could find it.
	You had a quote where, and again, I can clarify this, where you said, absolutely find it.
	And I went to the inauguration.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I, well, it was taken out of context, then I guess, by people saying that you compared him to Hitler.
	I never compared Trump to Hitler.
	That did not happen.
	And I'm also not a white nationalist.
	I know you're not a white nationalist.
	I know you're not a white nationalist.
	In 2016, I absolutely thought that he was.
	And I've been very clear about that.
	And I thought that he was Hitlerian.
	Oh, okay.
	And sorry, I was.
	And I have come forward and said how I was misguided and misled and had believed Russia, Russia, Russia, and all these different things.
	In 2020, I didn't vote because I started to see some very scary things on the left.
	And I really didn't know which was the better choice at that time because Biden was presenting himself as a moderate.
	And then I was like, you know what?
	I'm sitting this one out.
	That's my vote.
	I don't really know which one of these is a better choice.
	And then in 2024, by that time, over the course of four years, I'd been paying pretty close attention and I felt that Trump was a better choice.
	Now, obviously, I leaned more into Kennedy, and we can get into why.
	And I probably would have been more for DeSantis.
	I'm being honest.
	I lived in Florida for three years.
	I think he's doing a pretty good job over there.
	A less divisive character, which makes it easier to defend some of these points, which, you know, maybe you think, I think DeSantis would have done a good job.
	So, yeah.
	I think there's a good governor.
	And I do stand corrected.
	It was 2016.
	Like you said, that's the quote I'm remembering where you said something about when Hitler's elected, like, yeah, he's batshit crazy, but let's just see what he's going to do.
	Like, I can't.
	I'm not there.
	I'm not going to go on board.
	That was, so to be fair, that was a comparison, just to be clear of Trump and Hitler.
	That was a while ago.
	It's 2016.
	But that was a Hitlerian comparison.
	Years ago.
	But you're like, after the election, that's this year.
	So it's like 2016, right?
	Yeah.
	I understand, but there's been a complete evolution.
	So you're saying, like, you're new to this, and you just said this.
	It's like, and I'm just illustrating an eight-year journey that you've gotten incorrect.
	Well, no, hold on a second.
	But 2020, you didn't vote.
	And then you said Donald Trump was a lesser of two evils.
	And I know that you've said you're not conservative, so that's fair.
	But then advising conservatives on what they need to do, I mean, that's what I would say is you want to talk about used against the right.
	I mean, feminism is responsible for the failures of almost all the ills that we deal with with Western civilization and the reason that young Gen Z men voted for Trump.
	It's not taxes.
	And they're not big fans of people who are new to it saying, hey, sorry, go ahead.
	I think it's a myriad of issues.
	There are a few, but that's a big one.
	That's a really big one.
	I think also, Stephen, there's a U-shaped curve with everything, right?
	So you go in from women can't vote to women are completely emasculating men.
	Of course, both are wrong.
	I'm sure we can agree on that.
	No.
	And there's a goldie luck.
	You don't think you think women shouldn't be able to vote?
	I don't think that it's wrong to say that women are emasculating men.
	And if you were to talk about the 19th Amendment, I would ask you, why do you think the vast majority of women were against women's suffrage back then?
	We can get into another show on that one.
	No, I think it's important because that's the context because I don't want to do it.
	You're saying you don't think women should be able to vote.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	I think women should be able to vote.
	You don't?
	No, I don't think that as long as selective service exists, a draft exists.
	I think that only those in the draft should vote.
	So if women want the draft, sure.
	If women want equal rights, absolutely.
	There was a period of time in this country where men couldn't vote because it was a privilege, not a right, that they had to fulfill certain obligations that women didn't.
	For example, the draft, for example, being property owners, for example, bucket duty mandatory.
	Yes, we do.
	We have a current ongoing draft?
	Yeah, we have selective service where if I don't register for it, if an American male doesn't register for it, that's a crime.
	And you forego your vote, but women don't have to.
	So the context, the point, let me just finish the point.
	The point is the context of, hey, look, this is why there's a problem with the 19th Amendment.
	It was a very large vote buying scam early on.
	Now, we discuss it in full context on the show.
	I've created a five-point solution on who should be allowed to vote.
	The shorthand, the bumper sticker, women shouldn't vote, is something that I wouldn't agree with wholesale as a statement.
	But when people use that to then tar and feather someone's entire reputation as though their views are completely unreasonable, that's what the left does.
	So yes, most women wouldn't vote if we reformed voting back to the way it was throughout all of humanity.
	But a lot of men wouldn't vote either.
	Okay, well, we may need a separate show for that topic.
	I obviously disagree with you.
	There are many reasons I disagree with you.
	That's not the only reason people are taking umbrage with Nick Fuentes.
	And since your concern is a woman telling you, you know, hey, this is alarming.
	I didn't actually tell you, and I suggested it as a strategy for conservatives.
	There are plenty of male conservatives who feel this way.
	Many.
	Feel which way, just to be clear.
	That feel Nick Fuentes should be disavowed.
	Very famously, Charlie Kirk, for example, called him vermin and vile.
	So Charlie's a male conservative.
	Let's take me out of the equation.
	He was wrong?
	I'm not Charlie Kirk.
	That's true.
	So Charlie Kirk can do whatever.
	Yeah, Charlie Kirk can do whatever he wants.
	What are you telling me?
	No.
	But I'm telling you, many people partially, I should say, yes.
	Men are very tired of young men if you want to reach them because you're talking about reaching people.
	The reason that I address the 19th Amendment and the quotes is because you took two examples, right, to be clear.
	Two examples.
	You said, for example, there's a U curve, and you said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
	And we go to women are emasculating men, right?
	You said, and both of those are wrong.
	And I just wanted to be clear because I think what happens a lot is people soften their views and people have accused Nick of doing that.
	I want to make it really clear that I'm not doing that.
	I don't think that either one of those, if you take the context in which they're taken, are impermissible views.
	I don't think you're softening your views at all.
	No, no, I definitely am.
	I mean, yeah, I have views that would be significantly to the right, obviously, of your own.
	And I think we can disagree in understanding the why.
	Women telling men what to do and how to be men, which has been going on for a long time, is a problem.
	You're going to turn people off because that's why young Gen Z men broke away from the Democrat Party.
	It's a huge reason why, a huge reason why, too, with Hispanic men.
	You cannot separate feminism and LGBTQAIP and Latinx.
	They're all one and part of the same agenda of breaking down gender norms.
	That's why I was addressing it.
	Now we can move on to the next point.
	First of all, I never told men anything.
	I suggested that the conservative movement say that there is no room for these ideas in it.
	So as for being a role model for young boys, that's not something I've ever tried to do because I think it's counterintuitive.
	I made quite a long video about that, actually, which is why I am hopeful that men in positions of influence send good messages to young boys.
	I feel that Charlie did that.
	I feel that Tom McDonald does that.
	Both men, of course, that have been called all the things they call Nick Fuentes.
	But I've done kind of a deep dive on both and see zero evidence of it.
	And quite zero evidence of what?
	Evidence of Charlie being a racist.
	I don't believe he's a racist.
	I don't think Tom McDonald's a racist.
	No, I agree with you on, yeah, I agree with you on that.
	I don't think that's what we're talking about.
	But the left called them Nazis and racists.
	That's my point, though.
	And the left demanded that people disavow them.
	And that's like, so why would the Jillian Michaels standard be the only applicable one?
	As opposed to disagree with views, but talk, I would interview Hitler.
	This isn't a Jillian Michaels standard.
	This is a racist, not racist.
	There's no Jillian Michaels standard.
	Charlie was not a racist.
	Nick Fuentes.
	That's the Gillian Michaels standard, though.
	We agree.
	But the left doesn't.
	But you say that marrying an Indian woman makes you a race traitor.
	That's my standard of racism.
	So when you say that you want to live in an all-white country, that's not racism?
	No.
	This is the moving the goalpost.
	No, no, hold on a second.
	Don't move the goalpost, Jillian.
	You said that's not racist.
	Half the country said that Charlie Kirk was a racist and a Nazi to the point where not a single vigil, memorial, could be attended without rampant vandalism and desecration.
	So that is the Jillian Michaels standard, right?
	He's not racist, and it's my standard as well.
	I would hope that you wouldn't want the standard of the left, of people who don't share your values, applied to you wholesale.
	What I would say to those people on the left is, hey, why don't you talk with Charlie?
	Why don't you actually find out why and see if he's a racist?
	They don't because they say we need to disavow all racism.
	And having been here a long time, done this for a long time, and yours truly has been accused of all those things as well.
	I think it's important to understand why if you plan or have any hope to present a case as to why not.
	Well, let me address that.
	Okay.
	I listened to all of the accusations that they made about Charlie and I investigated them and watched them in context.
	So when you're saying, oh, you know, he's got a problem with the Civil Rights Act, and then you imply it's because he doesn't want black people to have equal access or the ability to vote.
	That's in fact not true.
	And he said that very clearly and then explained what his concerns were with the Civil Rights Act and talked about how it allows men and women's sports and men and women's bathrooms.
	And we could get into all of that.
	But when you accuse someone of something they didn't actually do, that's a very different thing.
	When you watch Nick in context, it's pretty darn clear.
	So do you mean doing like, Jillian, to be fair, doing what you just did?
	What did I just do?
	Explain to me again, because what you just said is Nick wants an exclusively white country, an all-white or only white country.
	What was your word?
	And then you interview him and you go, I'm going to give you a layup.
	Do you want to live in an all-honest?
	But do you mean what you just did?
	Because Nick has been very clear that he doesn't think that America needs to be an all-white country.
	He's also been very clear that he thinks it does.
	No.
	And he's playing a dude.
	Yes, he has.
	No, he hasn't.
	He has said that preserving racial characteristics of America is good.
	Here's where I disagree with him.
	I think that racial characteristics are secondary to value characteristics.
	I think sometimes race or country is shorthand for culture.
	For example, I don't think we need H-1Bs and a bunch of Indian immigrants because I don't want the United States to look like India.
	So I will say Indian immigrants.
	But he has been very clear that he doesn't think it should be an all-white country, but that he believes, and I disagree with him on this, that preserving racial characteristics of America should be a primary goal.
	So you just did what they did with Charlie Kirk.
	It's something he didn't say.
	There are plenty of interviews where he says these things.
	And what he does is he plays a duel game.
	And, you know, you went after Coleman Hughes for calling this out, but he's absolutely right.
	How did I go after Coleman Hughes?
	You're like, Coleman Hughes is accusing you of saying one thing here and saying another thing there, but he works for Barry Weiss, so therefore none of this is valid.
	And it's like, absolutely valid.
	Yeah, you did.
	I said he accuses you and he works for Barry Weiss, so nothing he says is valid.
	I said that.
	Your implication of the fact that he works for Barry Weiss, so let's take it all with a grain of salt.
	So why would you bring that up if your whole point was, you know, Coleman accused me?
	Because you asked a question.
	Do you want me to answer?
	Because we do this.
	I think it's important.
	I mean, I wasn't done giving you that Coleman is right.
	But you asked me why I asked it.
	And I'd like to answer so that I could specifically call him on and box him in with no wiggle room.
	Hey, Coleman Hughes says that you have podcast Nick and Rumble Nick.
	Is that what you're doing here?
	I remember that's closer to what I said.
	I said, so when you answer this and you say that you don't.
	He didn't cross-examine at all.
	He did exactly what he does, which is exactly what Coleman Hughes talks about.
	Oh, oh, God, you know, I said Hitler was cool.
	But now the goalposts have moved, right?
	You accused Candace, sorry, Coleman, Mr. Coleman, of working for Barry Weiss.
	Therefore, nothing he says is valid.
	That's not what I said.
	You moved it to implication.
	You moved it to implication, and then you moved it to cross-examination.
	And then you say, Sorry, go ahead, Julian.
	There's two separate issues.
	There's two separate issues.
	Sure.
	Number one, you brought up Coleman, and then you went on to say, but he works for Barry Weiss.
	And the implication there very clearly was like, so I don't know that I could trust his intentions when it comes to you.
	But what did you mean?
	Okay, no problem.
	What did you mean?
	Well, the Barry Weiss thing was a joke, but I don't like Barry Weiss.
	And I do think that Barry Weiss rules with an iron fist.
	And I do think you have to be biased.
	But I do think that context.
	Why would you bring it up in that context?
	You were truly saying like.
	Yeah.
	So Jillian, again, I want to have the conversation in just as good faith as I can have with Nick or hopefully with people like Tucker or Candace, who I vehemently disagree with.
	And I think we would share some common ground on that.
	But the interrupting and the moving of the goalposts and then saying, well, he didn't say that, but that was the implication.
	How about I answer for what I say?
	And you answer for what you say.
	And then we allow each other to finish.
	Otherwise, people might perceive you as a feminist.
	Oh, dear God.
	Go ahead, Stephen.
	Are you a feminist?
	Because that's the way it's feeling right now.
	What is your definition of a feminist?
	I don't even understand.
	If it means that women can vote.
	No.
	Sure.
	If being a white nationalist means not all white people are bad, you got me.
	Like, I think I've been pretty clear that I'm the farthest thing from a man hater.
	But, you know, obviously you don't consume my content and nor do I expect you to.
	If you're looking for clarification, what is your definition of a feminist then?
	You want to give me that checklist?
	I mean, you're acting very much the way the feminist left acts today in demanding that people behave in the way that you deem acceptable, making inferences based on implication rather than taking words and then abdicating accountability when the question comes back to you and moving the goalposts.
	We're not going to get anywhere here.
	Let me ask a point-blank question.
	Is there any room in a space of conversation online for Nick's ideas if they diverge from other mainstream views?
	My position is, yes, there's room for it, even if I disagree.
	Here would be my concern with that.
	And I tend to follow Victor Davis Hanson's school of thought here: is that when you mainstream somebody who has a clear agenda that I personally feel is nefarious, calling people the N-word and saying marrying somebody of another race is being a race traitor and women shouldn't vote.
	I don't see a need to listen to his ideas when I can consume similar ideas from people I think are good faith actors.
	And for example, like we can talk about Stalin.
	I thought that was a good one.
	Oh, no, I misunderstood.
	I admire him because he industrialized Russia.
	There's no pushback there, though.
	Like, how about there is.
	And we can get to that.
	But what you just did, what you just said, and here's the issue, right?
	For example, is there any, you just said people who say the N-word.
	Let me ask you this.
	Is there any context in which a white person could say the N-word and it not be a disqualifier?
	To be dead honest with you, I've never used the word because I think it's gross and offensive.
	I don't care.
	I'm asking you, is there any context in which a white person could use it?
	Do you want to run down content?
	I don't think it's necessary.
	No, I think it offends people.
	Why?
	What would be the same thing?
	But I'm asking you to.
	So there's no way I can give you a reason, but if you're not.
	Go ahead.
	Give me a reason.
	But can you answer the question first?
	Can you answer it?
	I don't see a reason for us to use that word ever.
	No.
	And the context to use it is.
	No, no, no.
	I just want to ask the question, and I'll give you a context myself because that has been used against myself.
	Change my mind on why white people should say the N-word.
	Well, I didn't say white people should say the N-word.
	The question was this, and I'll ask it again.
	Is there a context in which a white person could use the N-word and it not be a disqualifier as far as their voice at the table?
	For me personally, that's not a voice I would listen to.
	It might be for you, and that's okay.
	Well, you're listening to one.
	Okay, that's totally fine.
	And here's the context.
	Because you said, again, wholesale blanket, this is why.
	Just understand where I'm coming from here.
	Because people will use it and they'll use it as a disqualifier.
	Considering that people have used those against you for different reasons, and they've used it against me for this exact reason, well, I don't think it's acting in good faith.
	I was on Pierce Morgan's show with Mark Lamont Hill, where we were talking about the use of that word.
	And I said, you know, I do find it odd when we're giving words so much power.
	This may be an exact word.
	It's pretty damn close.
	And we have an office with Jewish people in the office and people around going, yeah, have you heard that new song from Kanye?
	N-word, hail Hitler.
	I said, when we look at three words there, you have a noun, a verb, and another noun.
	Nigga, hail Hitler.
	Nigga, imbued with no power from a verb before it, it's simply used in the ether.
	Hail Hitler.
	Hitler is imbued with the power of the verb before it to hail, to venerate, to honor.
	And I think the hail Hitler portion is far more offensive, if we're going to consider something offensive, than merely a word used by a black rapper, even if it's repeated by a white person.
	In that context, is that a disqualifier?
	When someone's referencing the name of a song?
	In the context that I just used it, yeah.
	That's not the context that he uses it.
	I didn't ask that.
	I'm asking, is there any context because you started with someone when someone mentions the name of a song, by the way, that's there is a if you know, if we brought somebody into the room who was a person of color, I feel that they could distinguish the difference between the GGA part of the word and the ER part of the word.
	but it's not really a path I feel the need to go down or qualified to speak upon, but I am aware that many feel there is a difference to those two words.
	Having said that, I don't understand why you're fighting for this.
	Like, what are you fighting for?
	The ability to use the, I'm so confused.
	Yes.
	So that women can't vote and women really want to be raped.
	Like, I don't know.
	And there's the mischaracterization, which is a very, very leftist way.
	It's still the leftism is still in you.
	Well, I asked you a question.
	The reason why is because you said wholesale, I'm fighting for listening.
	When you say anyone who uses the N-word and you use that as a disqualifier, and I hear, I go, well, I have in context as a wordsmith who writes jokes where it's relevant.
	I don't like any phraseology, ideology, viewpoint that says any word used makes someone, which is how you framed it, makes someone disqualify.
	I think that the problem is my problem.
	Yeah, tell me.
	Not your problem.
	I said the problem.
	I heard your problem, but I have bad hearing.
	I said, go ahead and play it back.
	Okay.
	I said, I think that the problem with our conversation is that I'm focused on much bigger themes that scare me.
	You're talking about using the N-word in a joke.
	Like, we can argue about that all day long.
	Go use the N-word in a joke.
	What I'm telling you is that you've got a guy who is saying very scary things.
	I'm pretty sure he means it.
	That's my personal opinion.
	I do think he's playing a dual game.
	I think Coleman was right.
	I think we've seen this pattern throughout history with the Nazis.
	They ran a dual state.
	Like everyone knows the playbook.
	Anybody who understands history at all has seen it with the David Dukes, the Osir Arafat, Mao.
	Like this is a strategy.
	I personally think he's playing it.
	I think Coleman's right.
	I think Victor Davis Hansen is right.
	I think he's being mainstreamed.
	I think it's being weaponized.
	And I think you're going to end up, I really do, with a Gavin Newsom as president.
	And I've lived through him running California.
	And, you know, I don't, I don't think it's a good thing.
	We can agree on that.
	Okay, well, then I think the question is, what is our agenda here?
	Yeah, I can tell you what mine is.
	It's to have good people run the country.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	That's my agenda.
	My agenda is for young boys not to end up in jail thinking like the girl really wants them to keep going or for some girl who says no to get raped.
	Like my agenda is for young kids to not hate people of color.
	This is my agenda.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I don't know that you talking about using the N-word in a joke.
	Like I don't, I don't, what are we doing?
	It wasn't a joke.
	You just said I'm a comedian and a wordsmith and I use it in jokes.
	But I gave you the example of where I used it in context.
	Okay.
	You say greater issues at play.
	And I agree with you.
	Greater issues at play.
	Yeah.
	well no for me as well and as someone who's been here since as someone who's been here since you know 2008 2009 and the first person demonetized de-platformed right i I think that people who say this phrase, this word, this litmus test, this perspective on this issue, which by the way is very personalized.
	I noticed that the disqualifiers very closely relate to yours and not those who criticize you or not even people further to the right.
	Anyone who says that and doesn't understand how it will be used against them and how it has fostered and created a culture of censorship is very concerning to me.
	And I don't want that to be influential on the conservative movement because it's antithetical to it.
	The idea that this word bad without context, it seems that you're missing a fundamental precept that I would say to the idea of free speech, which is context does matter over content.
	And we don't disqualify people for naughty words.
	And that's not why I understand you're disqualifying Nick, but it would disqualify me.
	Your standard would disqualify me.
	And many people like me.
	Anyone who uses the N-word.
	That's why I addressed it.
	So let me address it.
	First of all, no one called for him to be canceled.
	No one, so free speech, First Amendment, nobody asked for the government to get involved in his ability to speak.
	And I would go against that.
	No one, forgive me, no one here.
	Me, I did not.
	I don't support that.
	I never have.
	What I do recommend is that if the right would like to maintain power, they disavow, make the statement, we don't believe in these more radical ideas, like women want to be raped, or if you marry someone of a different race, you're a race traitor.
	And the list could go on.
	So that's my opinion.
	Yeah.
	I've not ever made a statement.
	You asked me personally, I don't use the N-word.
	I've never gone after somebody who's used it in a joke.
	That's not an issue of mine.
	Do I, you know, I don't really, honestly, I don't even pay attention, nor have I made a statement about it or made it an issue.
	My issue is what is going on on the right.
	That's where I'm at right now.
	So we can go down all these rabbit holes.
	Are you a fan of the people?
	I don't think it's a rabbit hole.
	I think you just answered it.
	You haven't really paid attention.
	And what I mean is a lot of young men have.
	I'm not using the N-word and jokes.
	No, no, no.
	Again, this is from we're moving the goalpost again.
	Your statement that anyone who uses the N-word, anyone who says women should be raped.
	And what I am telling you is my perspective is fundamentally different.
	Here's what I would say is productive.
	Anyone who actually believes in racial superiority, for example, or supporting extermination, anybody, but I'm talking about what you just said, your language.
	And I'm telling you why that's not going to resonate very well with I'm going to finish my phrase as though I'm able to.
	Any young man who's had to play this game for a long time where they get canceled, their job is lost because they've used a word where in context should not be a disqualifier.
	Or they've expressed an opinion where in context should not be a disqualifier.
	No one, I have no one here said that.
	I've never said it.
	Point me to the part where I said, if you use the N-word, you should be disqualified.
	Point me to that.
	I'm telling you personally.
	Here's an answer to my question.
	Here's my answer to your question.
	I don't use the word.
	That's not an answer to the question.
	What is the answer to you?
	Would you like, have I called for you to be disqualified?
	You've used the word.
	You did preemptively.
	You did preemptively.
	That's why I brought it up.
	Yeah.
	You said these people who use the anyone who uses the N-word, that's not a voice that should be listened to, is what you said.
	That's our disagreement.
	Okay.
	So let me antithetical to a world.
	Then what I mean is in a derogatory fashion.
	Forgive me.
	You got me.
	I mean when it's used in a derogatory and harmful fashion.
	Is that better?
	Forgive me for not for not clarifying that.
	I take a lot of time to look into context.
	And I think when Fuentes is put in context, it's worse.
	Are we going to talk about any of that?
	Or are you just going to try to take me down rabbit holes?
	It's okay.
	What are we doing here?
	Well, I think establishing the terms in a foundational worldview is important if you're going to be advising other people on who should be allowed to discuss things at the table.
	I don't think it's a rabbit hole when someone states in the affirmative preemptively anyone who does X. I'm glad you clarified.
	It's disavowing bad ideas, like rape.
	Of course.
	Racism.
	Rape is bad.
	Racism is bad.
	Anti-Semitism is bad.
	Well, then you just did it.
	You just disavowed it.
	Yeah.
	But I've done that my whole life.
	So then why are you angry that I would ask you to just make that clear, even though I didn't ask you?
	But in this moment, let's say I am asking you.
	I am.
	You got 6 million followers.
	People, I've listened to you.
	No, I know.
	And I appreciate you've been supportive and I'm not sure.
	I appreciate it.
	You know, I have listened to you on quite a few different topics.
	So, I mean, I guess, yeah, I kind of would want to hear you say as a guy who has significant influence that I personally have listened to you.
	Like, yeah, Jill, these are bad ideas.
	You know, you think he means it.
	I don't think he does.
	We can sit here and talk about like why you think he does and why I don't think so.
	But it would just be awesome, in my opinion, for someone like yourself, even though I didn't specifically ask you to do so, to say, I don't think that we should, you know, call people who marry someone of a different color, a race trader.
	Like, I'm not for it.
	That's not for me.
	I'm not for rape.
	I'm not for we could be done here.
	That's, that's really just.
	Well, that was the first thing I said.
	I've never, I said, disavowing ideas is actually productive and should be done.
	You are disagreeing.
	I didn't call you any of those things.
	No, my dispute is with the idea that people should ever disavow people and not listen wholesale and preemptively set a bunch of qualifiers that sound a whole lot like Chuck Schumer's.
	Disavowing ideas is good.
	I do it all the time, every single day.
	Never disputed.
	Disavowing people wholesale, especially based on some what I would say are misleading or tangential or out of context quotes is not good because that's the game the left plays.
	And I think that we need to sidestep that game completely.
	It plays no role in where we are.
	That's why I'm listening with you.
	For example, we can have a disagreement.
	I mean, this is a view that many people would find abhorrent.
	I've been against same-sex marriage as long as I've been in the public eye.
	Said it to Dave Rubin on my show.
	You know, that used to be considered Nazi-esque.
	I don't find you Nazi-esque.
	There are many conservatives who feel this way.
	I obviously disagree with you.
	I respect your opinion.
	And if we had a good faith conversation like I had with Matt Walsh, I feel confident that we could agree to disagree at the end without, you know, wishing harm upon one another.
	You know, or thinking significantly less of each other.
	I know you feel this way.
	I would imagine from my understanding, I don't know enough about why you feel this way.
	I know why Matt Walsh feels this way.
	There is a religious component for many different people.
	And I respect that.
	And we could go down this path of gay marriage if you choose to.
	But again, I have one agenda.
	Maybe I guess we could wrap it.
	We could take three different agendas.
	One is kids don't become more tribal or racial.
	That boys don't think girls want the shit beat out of them.
	That good people run our country.
	And at the moment, I feel like JD Vance is a better person than Gavin Newsom.
	Okay.
	So maybe I'm, yeah, I think you feel the same way.
	I think this is going to cost him.
	Okay.
	So maybe you and I actually have the same agenda and just different ideas on how to get there.
	And you may not want my vote and you may not want me in this tent of yours, but the reality is that to get the better guy in the oval, like we're going to have to find, like, you're going to have to accept my vote.
	And I'm not asking.
	Who's rejecting your vote?
	I know that, listen, you're like, you don't belong here.
	You're not a conservative.
	Or you're a little like, don't tell us what to do.
	Did I say that?
	You said something like, don't tell conservatives what to do.
	You're new here.
	And I'm not telling conservatives what to do.
	I'm trying to tell conservatives.
	I think we're kind of on the same page about the bigger picture.
	I'm coming at it from this angle.
	And there's a lot in the math, right?
	The politics in large part is math.
	The math isn't math without the more moderate people.
	I could be wrong.
	Maybe you'll say, no, you're wrong, Jill.
	We could do without all of them.
	But I don't think so.
	Yeah.
	I don't.
	I've not said that.
	That's not what I'm expressing here.
	And I don't think you're moderate.
	What do you think I am?
	I think you are very much.
	I think you are very much to the right on some issues, as I understand it, like on generally, compared to most of the left on freedom of speech.
	I think you're very much to the right.
	The left would consider you a Nazi as it relates to transing children, unless I'm mistaken.
	Right.
	They would say Nazi, right?
	White nationalist.
	I am.
	I am.
	And I think that you are, I think you're very, very, not even moderate, very far left when we find ourselves at the point in the country where there would be nothing controversial about a conservative American saying, well, not only am I against same-sex marriage, but the foundational restructuring of the family where kids can be brought into a family or the world through surrogacy without a father or without a mother.
	I think that a nuclear family and complementarianism is foundational.
	And I think a view that doesn't believe that or adhere to that, I think is actually pretty historically radically left.
	So I think you're very far right for the left on some issues and very far left.
	And honestly, I would say foundationally, that is more of an issue as far as where we disagree, the chasm between where I definitely disagree, to be clear, with Nick Fuentes on global jewelry versus the threat of Islam.
	So I wouldn't classify you as a moderate or a conservative.
	I actually don't disagree with you, though, about the importance of a father.
	I've made that very clear.
	And, you know, if we were to get into my personal family, we absolutely can.
	Is that the road you'd like to go down?
	How I ended up with.
	No, I wasn't going to ask anything personal.
	I know your views.
	I mean, I know I thought that same thing.
	I firmly believe that fathers are, in fact, listen, just to preface this, not that I don't know if this is relevant or not, or we need to go down this path, but I was always planning on adopting.
	And I figured, look, if I can give a kid that is in the developed world a path to citizenship, a shot at a life, do I wish this kid had all the, you know, a wonderful loving father?
	Yes, I do.
	But the reality is there are millions of these kids that need homes.
	So on the continuum of disaster, never getting out of Haiti, having your organs harvested, being sold into the sex trade versus like living with a lesbian who can give you a really good life and a shot at, you know, I'm going to go with that.
	Now I have wonderful, loving men in my life that I also know can provide a strong role model for my kids.
	Do I think they need a dad?
	Yes.
	Now, my ex wanted to have her own kid.
	And Stephen, I, first of all, I can't tell somebody not to do that.
	And second of all, now that I have my son, I'm not sorry that she did.
	And this is a conversation that he and I have together all the time because I wanted him to have a father so much so, and this is deeply personal, but I'm trying to show you that I don't disagree with you.
	But in this continuum of perfect world versus where we are now, because this is kind of the reality of life.
	Not everything works out perfectly.
	Sure, I get that.
	That, you know, I was like, at the very least, can we use somebody like very close to the family?
	So the child has a father figure.
	It was a huge fight.
	Probably one of the top reasons that we are no longer together.
	Now, having said that, I see the pain my son goes through, not having a father figure, which is why, by the way, I'm so deeply alarmed by characters like Nick Fuentes, because I see the grasping.
	And, you know, he leans into Rogan.
	I'm like, yeah, okay.
	Sean Ryan, good.
	Tom McDonald, Charlie Kirk, and you know, I'm like, dear God, please don't let him end up over there.
	And fortunately, it has not happened.
	And he is not a fan of Nick Fontes.
	But having said that, I actually don't disagree with you.
	But there are extenuating factors here.
	And now, despite the fact that he is a child without a father, which really sucks, he's alive and he's the love of my life.
	So I don't know what to tell you.
	Well, I would say, and I agree with you.
	Of course, I think there are better role models out there for young men.
	I completely agree, namely men who, you know, obviously are married and raising families.
	That was one of the questions that we brought up.
	But I would say that screaming platitudes and issuing disqualifiers is going to drive more young men towards not just people like Nick Fuentes, but someone who I know you disagree with as well, people like Andrew Tate, where when people are presented with something that is less than authentic or a lie, which has been, by the way, largely presented through the 1960s to today, a feminist worldview, men will be driven into someone who at least is speaking some truth.
	For example, the difference between male and female sexual dynamics.
	So those platitudes, the not these words, not these views, will drive, and I've seen it happen, will drive people into the arms of those you fear most.
	Listening and presenting a better case as to why not and applying it across the board, whether it's a communist or whether it's far right, is in my opinion, and I've seen this for a very long time, a better approach.
	I don't think you did present a better case as to why not, though.
	Okay.
	But that's, you know.
	But would you sit down with, for example, Tucker, Nick, and present that as well?
	Would you sit down with them?
	Listen, Tucker really hates gays.
	So I don't, I don't, you know, he freaks me out a little bit.
	And that's like, you know, I don't think Tucker would sit down with me.
	I would sit down with Tucker.
	I don't think he hates gays.
	I don't think I have a lot of criticisms of Tucker.
	I don't think he hates gays.
	You know, like some of the, listen, some of that is a bit scary.
	I'll be honest.
	Some of the things he said scare me a little bit.
	Or, you know, you platform a guy who I think I've never heard of this guy, Milo, to be dead honest.
	And I'm not saying platform like he shouldn't.
	Oh, I don't know.
	I'm trying to say when you, when you, when you put forward a guy who I, I think suggested it was okay to sexualize a teenage boy as a representation for the gay community.
	Like, I don't know that that's good faith acting, but okay.
	Do you mean Milo or talking with Milo?
	No, no, no, Milo.
	I don't.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	No, the reason I ask, and I agree, I agree with you.
	I agree with you.
	He doesn't really like gays.
	And I have, you know, a few things that have kind of freaked me out a little bit with regard to like how much I think he does not like them.
	You know, like complimenting elements of Maduro's regime because of how he squashed LGBTQ rights.
	I'm like, whoa, that's intense.
	It's a little scary for me.
	I've listened to his, you know, different shows on with one with Chris Moritz, I thought was brilliant about how TransInc, all the money that's going into transing kids.
	I asked Chris Moritz to come and talk with me.
	I mean, I've listened to his shows on Wikipedia and how the CIA is behind it.
	I don't, and I've never called for him to be canceled.
	You're asking me personally if I belong there.
	Probably not, you know, given the things that we've just talked about.
	Would I talk with him?
	Sure.
	I don't think he has any interest in talking with me for the reasons I've just suggested.
	And I could be talking about it.
	But sorry, just to clarify, who are we talking about?
	Who do you think wouldn't talk with you?
	Tucker, Tucker.
	Sorry.
	Tucker.
	I'm talking about.
	Okay.
	So Milo, I'm very, and I don't know if you're familiar with this.
	I sat down with Milo when he had a couple thousand followers.
	So I had him on very early on.
	It was Gamergate.
	And I don't know if you're familiar with that.
	That was something that was going on, which is a big reason for the rebellion, kind of the catalyst for a lot of Gen Z emails becoming conservative.
	This was an example of feminists creating really, really bad video games, right?
	And injecting woke ideology into video games.
	And it turns out they were sleeping with some prominent reviewers.
	And there was kind of an expelling of cis straight white males.
	So Milo Yiannopoulos back then was reporting on this undercovered topic by the mainstream media.
	That's how he sort of came to prominence.
	So I had him on, gosh, 2014, 2015 discussing that.
	And that's evolved very much.
	Back then, he was just a gay conservative reporter.
	So I'm very familiar with it.
	I understand your views, why you might be concerned.
	But you would sit down with Tucker.
	Would you sit down with Nick and present your much more effective than mine case?
	No.
	You wouldn't.
	Let's look at how this has gone so far.
	So Tucker didn't cross-examine him the way I think many wished he would have.
	In other words, we've all, I mean, Tucker is an exceptional journalist.
	He's a, has a wicked intellect.
	We all watched him dismantle Ted Cruz.
	And it was just like, yikes.
	You almost wanted it to stop.
	It was such a bloodbath.
	Yeah, no, I don't agree with that, but yeah.
	You don't really think he did?
	Okay, well, I don't think Ted Cruz did very well, no, to be clear, but I don't think that Tucker dismantled him.
	No, I thought that was an example of journalism that I don't like, the gotcha.
	You know, put it this way: I'm not suggesting one way or another side.
	I'm saying like he went after him aggressively.
	Yes.
	And that's what I'm talking about, his interviewing techniques.
	I didn't see him apply that to Fuentes.
	And I saw Fuentes come out of that winning off of a guy with a massive platform, and Fuentes gets bigger and his messages are mainstreamed again.
	Then he goes on Piers and he loses there and he plays Piers like a fiddle.
	And the kid is a master rhetorician.
	He's a very wait.
	Who loses there?
	I think Piers did.
	Oh, Pierce loses.
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah.
	I think he did.
	Now, listen, I agree with you.
	Okay.
	I do not want you to, I'm not trying to insult you here.
	I think he comes out of your interview and I think he gains a bunch of your followers.
	Now, when I watched him bring up Stalin, and this is something Victor Davis Hansen talks about when he talks about Buckley, because the truth of the matter is, when I look at who could effectively, really do a good job getting to the root of what this kid really believes and what he really thinks, it's going to take an extremely erudite and sharp, arguably historian, economist, a Victor Davis-Hansen kind of character who doesn't even know that he's up to the task, has said, you know,
	when I watch William F. Buckley take on characters like this, he goes, I don't even know if I could do it because if you make one mistake, the stakes are too high.
	And God forbid, I make a mistake in a moment.
	I personally don't want to see those messages grow.
	And, you know, he brought up Stalin.
	I happen to know a little bit about how to push back on that.
	But the reality is, let's say I didn't.
	Let's say I didn't know about the Mai G restoration in Japan to hold up an alternative path to industrialization or like the great spurt theory in Russia that the economy is actually growing better under the czar than the Bolsheviks.
	Like you just sit there looking like a dumbass as this kid's like, I didn't really mean it.
	I really just appreciate industrialization.
	If you don't know this stuff, you're going to get, you're going to get knocked the fuck out.
	And luckily, I knew a little bit of it.
	It sounds like you know it, so I think you should take a crack at it.
	Some of it, Steven.
	Some of it, I'm not a historian.
	I'm an economist.
	But here's the thing: but if everyone approaches that, right, and then they sort of cloak it under, yeah, but I won't do it because I'm not good enough.
	You need to be good enough, right?
	So that's gatekeeping.
	And there's this disqualifier, which we use words or phrases, then no one does it.
	And I guess, you know, it may not be enough.
	I brought up Stalin.
	My question to him, and you could tell me maybe what your question would be.
	Question was, I know you've said that we need a Catholic theocracy or some sort of a Christian theocracy.
	I've heard the word dictatorship.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	So I would ask you since the end point, we started off with saying, you know, you admire Stalin, played the clip.
	So I would ask you, since the end point is very similar to where Stalin would have us reach, just swap atheism for Catholicism or Christianity.
	Would you be able to name or is there any one thing that you think America concretely should copy about Stalin's rule and/or methods to get there?
	Tell me how that's not a fair question as opposed to disqualifier.
	I understand.
	Okay.
	Then he pulls the whole like dual state of, no, it's just that I admire that Russia became an industrial power.
	And when I said Hitler was cool, like, I was just kidding.
	Jokes.
	Like, these are not jokes.
	Hate speech.
	They can be.
	Hate speech, what?
	Satire that directly mirrors hate speech, in my opinion, is hate speech.
	Generally, satire punches up.
	It's clear now.
	In my opinion.
	In my opinion, satire punches up and people walk out less racist, not more racist.
	Well, it's the same reason that people say you can't make trans jokes or you can't make racial jokes.
	And by the way, I don't believe hate speech is a thing.
	I just don't agree.
	I think Pam Bonnie was an idiot to even use it.
	I don't think hate speech is a thing.
	And it's not.
	My question about the Second Amendment, and this was one that was concerning where we actually found disagreement.
	And frankly, some of his own fans weren't really thrilled with his answer.
	I said, what I heard there, meaning his clip and in watching you is concerning because what I see communicated is your ideal utopia.
	To use the word would involve a much stronger state with much more executive power.
	And I agree, by the way, on the idea of executive authority being appropriate, but the end game would be a much stronger state and much softer civilian arms, softer Second Amendment rights.
	It sounds a lot to me like the left saying, well, the Second Amendment was for muskets and we can just revise it.
	How do we know when to decide?
	And how do we decide?
	We probably don't want people running around with guns anymore using one of his quotes.
	Is that a fair question to delineate a difference in a worldview?
	Well, first of all, I don't take umbrage with his Second Amendment positions.
	I actually thought that was kind of, I know.
	And you know what I thought?
	It was actually very, it was.
	So I just interviewed, hold on.
	If I could just go back for a second on Stalin.
	Sure.
	What I would have done is push him because when he's like, oh, I don't really admire him, I would have cross-examined him on that piece because there's a way to say, I find it fascinating the way the country industrialized without saying you're an admirer.
	But at the same time, you asked him, can you do this without starving people and enslaving them?
	I already know.
	Well, there are examples.
	No, but he did say no.
	He did say no.
	And that's the thing.
	He may be lying.
	And I said, are you lying?
	Are you doing podcasts, Nick?
	I said, okay, show trials, secret police, gulags.
	Walked through.
	He said, no, of course not.
	Absolutely not.
	Anything that inflicts human suffering proactively is not something I would support.
	And he gave an answer.
	And since I said, I have to take your answers here at face value, you're not doing what Coleman Hughes, by the way, rightfully sometimes characterizes a softening of viewpoint, which is why I haven't done it today.
	I apologize.
	Thank you for standing in the pocket.
	He did give answers.
	He didn't just say, I don't know.
	He didn't.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me figure out which part of this I'm addressing.
	So first of all, I don't feel like you cross-examined him on that position, though, because you asked him, can it be done without these tactics?
	There's an answer.
	The answer is yes.
	So instead of, and there are many historians and economists that have laid this out.
	And this is where it's like, okay, so if you really care about industrialization, you probably would have taken the time to look into the work of this guy, that guy, this guy, that guy, the great spurt theory, all of the things I've already kind of mentioned.
	So, I probably would have cross-examined him more aggressively on that point.
	He has said, I'll kill, rape, and die for Nick.
	Like, he has a host of.
	Now you're conflating.
	I'm sorry.
	That's just, it's just inaccurate.
	I just don't play.
	Yeah, I just don't play that game.
	He didn't say that in the context of Stalin.
	Accreed to him with the gripers, which I called him on.
	I called him out on that.
	By the way, he sent them after me.
	This is going back to 2015.
	That's not the same thing.
	He didn't say I would kill, die, rape for Stalin.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm just going to, I'm not going to go down that path.
	But the point here is, you do have the chance to cross-examine him the way you think he should be cross-examined.
	Why don't you push Nick back on those areas?
	Sexism, racism, Stalin.
	Charlie, I believe I agree in Charlie's position when he went after Dinesh D'Souza.
	And Dinesh was, he even released these text messages.
	And Dinesh was like, but I'm dismantling his ideas.
	And he's like, you were ineffective.
	You gave him a huge platform.
	And now more people are following him or his platform is great.
	I can't remember exactly.
	I agree with Charlie's position on that.
	I agree with Victor Davis Hansen.
	I personally do.
	On the Second Amendment.
	And how's that worked out, though?
	How's that worked out?
	Everybody's platforming him.
	So I would actually say Charlie was right.
	I think he's getting bigger.
	But there's more to it there.
	No, no.
	My point is it's not.
	He is getting bigger.
	He has been getting, but he was getting bigger consistently with, and this is a fundamental disagreement I had with Charlie Kirk.
	I've been very clear.
	I would interview Hitler.
	I would interview Hitler to try and prevent him from being Hitler.
	I would also interview Donald Trump because they accuse him of being Hitler to find out if he's Hitler.
	The question, would you kill baby Hitler?
	By the way, I would.
	But I would interview Teenage Hitler.
	I would kill Baby Hitler.
	I beat the shit out of baby Hitler.
	I don't care.
	I don't give a shit.
	I know I can take a baby.
	There are weight classes for a reason.
	I know you know personal training.
	You know what I'm talking about.
	Fuck baby Hitler.
	But I would interview teenage Hitler.
	I would interview Nick at Knight Hitler to try and prevent him from being Hitler.
	I can't know if it's actual Hitler or Donald Trump, who they say is Hitler, or me, who they say is Hitler, or you, who the trans community says is Hitler, unless I said and asked.
	So why, and this is real, is why don't you actually cross-examine him and ask these questions?
	It seems like you're prepared.
	To me, there's no moral framework.
	There's no statistics that justify any of his positions.
	And you just give what I think is, I won't go after him personally because I think it's in poor taste.
	I think our terrifying ideas, a platform to grow.
	I think that, again, it takes an exceptional mind who's extremely learned to be able to react appropriately in those moments.
	I think the kid is a master rhetorician.
	And I've seen people platform him, and I think it's not working.
	I can address the Second Amendment piece if you like, or if you want to move on from that.
	If you want to address it, yeah.
	Can I ask you one question?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Oh, sorry.
	Sorry.
	My only thought on that, honestly, was maybe the one moment that he actually made a point I thought was interesting.
	So I had just yesterday interviewed Carl Higbee about that, about the Second Amendment and, you know, what were his thoughts and pushing like, oh, well, you know, the founding fathers didn't have assault rifles.
	And Higbee took me all the way to the end of if the government has F-16s, we need an F-16.
	And I thought it was all very, very interesting.
	But Fuentes brought up, he brought up a good point where he said, they'll get you.
	No one needs a gun.
	And I was like, wow, I didn't think about that when I was interviewing Higbe.
	That's just all transparency.
	I was.
	I think you did bring up a good point with that.
	Yeah.
	That the Second Amendment, obviously, for me is foundational.
	But they can de-platform you and debank you.
	So there need to be some, I would say, additional protections in the new world, not stripping of rights and protections, but adding because of people being debanked and country where I was raised, Canada.
	I mean, it's weird that you have a totalitarian hellhole that's also filled with pussies, but that's how I would describe Canada.
	I know it seems like a misnomer.
	Let me ask you, what's your position on the Second Amendment since we're there?
	And has it changed?
	Or have you always been where you are now?
	I think I've always been where I am now.
	And here would be my position.
	I live in a reality.
	This is kind of our continuum conversation of the perfect family, right?
	If there was a perfect world where nobody had a gun, then I wouldn't see a need for one.
	The reality, you know, like if everybody was a good guy and nobody robbed people and raped people and murdered people, sure, but that's not the world we live in.
	Bad guys have guns.
	It's my understanding that there were like 400 million of them in this country.
	I think 20 to 30 million of them are illegal.
	I can't cite the source on this one because I don't recall in the moment, but by all means, fact check me.
	This is what I remember from a previous conversation.
	It's approximately right.
	And when bad guys have guns, good guys cannot defend themselves.
	And whenever I've lived, you know, when you look at Brown, for example, the part that makes me so pissed is it's a weapon-free zone that's completely open to the public.
	So you made these kids sitting ducks.
	And both my kids know how to use guns.
	And I plan on the minute they turn 18, getting both of them a license for concealed carry.
	Because I just think this is the world we're living in.
	Bad guys have guns.
	So I have a feeling that, and you know what Higbee said to me yesterday?
	And I won't do nearly as good of a job recounting this, but he listed all of these different incidents where citizens who are carrying took down bad guys that were killing people.
	So listen, that's where I personally stand on it.
	I do, I would like stronger background checks.
	And maybe you'll dismantle me on this one.
	Higby's answer was I have no problem with that as long as you have the same prerequisites for voting.
	We both agreed on that.
	So, you know, if someone's got a history of being violent or crazy, I wouldn't like to see them get a gun.
	Yeah, but they're already not allowed to.
	But I don't want to go after that because it sounds like we agree pragmatically.
	But you did say you don't want to because there's no moral framework as far as interviewing certain people.
	What I am interested in knowing is what is your moral framework on the Second Amendment?
	Sure, the real world is bad guys have guns.
	Listen, if this kid didn't say women want to be raped and they want the shit beat out of them, of course, listen, if I didn't feel I have a mixed race family.
	No, no, what's your foundation?
	I'm asking you about the second amendment.
	What's your moral framework on the right to owe guns?
	Not that bad guys have them.
	What's your basis of your rooting ideology as far as should people have the right to own guns, period?
	Why or why not?
	That's what I was asking.
	Well, it's in the Constitution.
	It's in the Constitution for a reason to prevent a tyrannical government from literally enslaving a population.
	I agree with that.
	What Fuentes pointed out, though, is they'll get to you anyway.
	And I had a blind spot there.
	So there's that piece.
	And there's also the piece of bad guys have guns.
	And I think we need at least a fair shot.
	So that's my moral framework.
	Yeah.
	It's not one I've given a ton of people.
	I wanted to clarify that it's not based on the top.
	No, no, I just, I wanted to make sure.
	I'm not an expert in this area.
	This is a personal opinion.
	Well, that's what a moral framework is.
	So that's why I was asking.
	So we see where we agree.
	For me, the foundation is pretty important.
	I agree pragmatically.
	I mean, you know, 94% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, half a million to three million defensive uses of firearms.
	You were said in the anecdotal, and those are very powerful, but statistically, it's overwhelming, far more defensive uses than offensive uses.
	And it's just, it's not even close.
	I mean, gun ownership correlates with lower crime, but that's not the basis of my opinion on the Second Amendment, coming from a country where you don't have the right to defend yourself.
	It's a God, the moral framework for me is the God-given right to self-preservation.
	And anyone who speaks out against it, even if no bad guys have guns, God should damn straight to the pit of hell because preventing anyone, woman, disabled, younger, smaller, weaker person from preventing themselves.
	I don't care about the results.
	Even if they were worse, they're not.
	That's the moral framework.
	Can I reframe it then?
	No, I think we agree.
	God-given right to self-preservation.
	What I mean by bad guys not, if bad guys didn't have guns, to take it a step further, it would be there'd be no need for self-preservation.
	So I'm in full agreement with you on this one.
	At least I think I am.
	Well, no, I'm glad to hear it because that's a big one.
	That obviously is, and it's one where I disagreed with Nick.
	I'm further to the right of Nick.
	I don't know there was a strong disagreement, but I told him it sounds a lot like the left saying it was just for muskets.
	Let me ask you this.
	If you learn something, like you just said from Nick on the idea that there need to be additional protections, could there be some other things that maybe you would learn or gain perspective on by talking or listening to him?
	Stephen, I think in our cost-benefit analysis of illustrating or illuminating, forgive me, a blind spot versus elevating what I believe to be our terrifying ideas, I'm going with still no.
	And all I'm going to tell you is that there are people who are far better at this than me.
	I'm just truthfully a concerned mom and a concerned citizen with regard to why I engage in these conversations, not Fuentes.
	When you got guys like Charlie Kirk and guys like Ben Shapiro and guys like Victor Davis Hansen that suggests no good comes of it, I think I'm stronger than them in certain areas.
	I could probably talk to you about big pharma more effectively than they could.
	Pull up.
	You do a fantastic job.
	Of course, big food, big insurance.
	I'm pretty erudite on those subject matters.
	But when guys like that, who are far better equipped don't do it, I think that's like, if you have an Olympic, like what if they're not?
	What if your premise is false?
	What if, and by the way, I believe I sat on some panels with Victor Davis Hansen back when I was at PJ TV in 2009 because he wrote for PJ Media.
	Obviously, Ben Shapiro has been on the show a whole lot.
	And this is something that I see, and this is where I diverge from a lot of them.
	They have a complete, everyone you've mentioned has a very large blind spot as to why this generation, meaning the Gen Z generation, you know, I'm right in the middle millennial, why they are so upset about the emasculization of men.
	And a big part of it is the nuclear family, why they are rejecting modern gender theory and why there's so much pushback.
	So that's something that I think is a blind spot for the entire right-wing conservative movement.
	And I think that you even saying, for example, Ben Shapiro, not understanding that people have rejected him resoundingly, and not necessarily that I agree with it.
	I think he's a brilliant guy.
	I think this is a huge blind spot.
	So I think saying, hey, these guys are so great.
	And people are going, yeah, they have a blind spot, they'll go, but this guy won't interview them.
	It's like, well, yeah, yeah, because he has a blind spot.
	There is a disconnect and there's a reason.
	Okay.
	It's my understanding that people have The people who have turned on Ben Shapiro is over Israel, though.
	And I listen, you could again, the Gaza conversation, I've said very clearly, I am not the person who can take this one on, nor do I want to.
	Here's what I want: I want, I take the Trump, the Trump approach here.
	All I know is I want people to stop dying.
	That's it.
	You'll never get me to.
	I couldn't even begin to talk to you about Smot Rich and the history of this and they did that and then they did this.
	And then they, oh, you know, I mean, it's like insane.
	This is kind of what I mean about Stalin.
	Like, I was lucky enough to know a little bit about that.
	But, you know, I've sat in interviews where people are like, did you know that Netanyahu funded Hamas and he wanted this?
	And like, I don't know that.
	Then I'll go talk to someone like Dave Rubin and Dave Rubin's like, no, no, no, no.
	That's not what was happening.
	What was happening here is they thought that Hamas at the time, 30 years ago, was a better alternative to Arafat.
	Like, I don't have the ability.
	Do you see what I'm saying?
	Nor, like, that's what I, what I mean.
	If I see what you're saying, yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.
	And I disagree.
	And that's where we disagree.
	And I think there's the quote about the man who enters the arena.
	And I think at some point, all the people, all the men, women, Zs who don't enter into the arena are less productive.
	And I think you should enter into the arena rather than telling people that they shouldn't enter the arena and have disqualifiers in gatekeeping.
	They shouldn't enter the arena.
	Or if you don't enter the arena saying not that way, this way, but you point to people who won't do it.
	Ben Shapiro, I agree with probably on a whole lot more on some issues than Nick Fuentes, certainly.
	Victor Davis Hansen.
	Certainly.
	But Ben Shapiro won't show up.
	But Ben Shapiro will platform other people who are much further to the left, who have pushed against worldviews that are far more antithetical to what he and I believe, or at least espouse we hold dear.
	And that's a big blind spot.
	Just like I know you said, I think that you said you don't care at all about, and I don't want to mischaracterize, but the Browning of America.
	This is a term, right?
	It's shorthand.
	Things that you didn't give a damn about it.
	Okay, but a lot of young people do.
	Can I address that?
	Yes, but if I just make issues, the point is, and I agree with you, not everyone is going to be as qualified as the next guy.
	I understand it.
	But then you end up abdicating.
	And if everybody abdicates, then nobody actually has a conversation of ideas.
	And in my experience, which is more than anyone in this movement at this point in time, I've been here longest, is more corrosive in the long run.
	Let's take this example to go to that: the Browning of America.
	Young people do.
	They don't want their neighborhood to look like little Bangladesh.
	The culture issues are where the old conservative guard are losing, and they're going to continue to lose.
	So I think our concern is from two different sides there.
	Okay, so first thing, with regard to, I never said no one should talk to Fuentes.
	I said, I wish that Tucker had done it more effectively, like he did with Ted Cruz.
	I was asked by Marissa Street, why wasn't I upset about Patrick Bed David's interview?
	And I thought Patrick Bed David, in his way, he's not aggressive at all ever.
	But I thought that Patrick Bed David, in his way, did effectively dismantle his ideas.
	And, you know, we could point, I could give you a specific when Patrick Bed David addressed his concerns of organized Fuentes' concerns of organized Jewry.
	PBD said, I admire this quality.
	I don't resent it.
	I don't fear it.
	I want to understand it.
	I want to emulate aspects of it.
	This happened before Tucker's interview.
	I was asked specifically about it.
	And I was like, well, I didn't say anything because I thought that he effectively dismantled or provided a better alternative to Fuentes' ideas.
	Now, you want to talk about Browning.
	For me personally, The melanin in someone's skin is not my concern.
	Chanting death to America in Dearborn is my concern.
	Sure.
	You know, like that worries me.
	Me too.
	Common ground.
	Yeah.
	No, not a fan of death to America.
	Okay, so Stephen, I actually have listened to you here.
	And to be dead honest, very recently I listened to, it must have been a couple of weeks ago, and I don't remember the name of your episode, but you got into Muhammad and I was like, they're going to kill this guy.
	Like I genuinely was worried for your life when you were taking that one on.
	But I think that's not new.
	When you have a do a sketch as Bob Ross painting Muhammad, and then you go back to 2009, I did a three Stooges routine of Muhammad beating his six-year-old wife called the Quran challenge.
	I mean, listen, we, we, you know, all I'm going to say is like there, I have similar concerns with regard to culture.
	Yeah.
	I think we're on the same page.
	It has nothing to do with the color of someone's skin, though.
	And if I could give you a few examples, Patrick Beth David is Persian.
	Vivek Ramaswamy is first gen, obviously.
	He's very Persian.
	Indian.
	No, no, Patrick Beth David.
	I've been to his house.
	I've walked in.
	I'm like, nothing like perpetuating the stereotype.
	It's marble and gold.
	Let me put it to you that way.
	I couldn't afford the 2.5 pound gold lion in the front door.
	Okay, me mental.
	It's like, dude, this is exactly how I'd picture.
	It's like Xerxes' house.
	Okay, but are you concerned?
	Okay, all done.
	Okay, more to my point, though.
	Do you want Patrick Beth David to go home to Iran?
	No, of course I don't want Patrick Beth David to go home to Iraq.
	We're on the same behavior.
	Well, here, yes, we're on the same, but here's the thing.
	Back then, people said it was Nazi for even speaking out.
	I mean, I lost my management.
	I lost my booking agent.
	Yeah, for a lot of this, because you couldn't even question Muhammad, right?
	Question Islam, because that was sort of something you couldn't do back then.
	People are scared.
	But I do think that race has a component.
	Now, of course, not all, not all, not all, not all.
	But when you're looking at the influx of H-1Bs in entire neighborhoods, not even just Muslim, where people feel like a stranger in their own neighborhood, and that displaces, by design, young white Americans with cheaper labor.
	It is a legitimate grievance.
	And the problem is there's a whole group over here, the people who you've named, who I respect greatly, who don't actually address this entire group, a very large voting block, on the terms that they present.
	They're saying, no, no, no.
	Here's why race does matter.
	And I think they get it wrong sometimes, but it's not completely invalid.
	But again, you just brought up the fact that, you know, young men are feeling young.
	By the way, I would bet you that young American men who are also black and brown, I've seen a lot of young black American boys who don't like immigration for the reasons you're just talking about.
	So again, this is where I just, I don't, I, the melanin piece, I don't think is productive and I don't think it's relevant.
	But I do see all your points with regard to immigration and cultural assimilation.
	Yeah.
	And I think that's, and again, sometimes what I'm just saying is we need to be charitable to people who, if shorthand, say Browning of America, or if people say shorthand, white Americans when they talk about displacement.
	Let me ask you this.
	Would you care if white people?
	That's not what these are not things that Fuentes says.
	No, no, but I'm saying, but let's take the people who are listening.
	A lot of young people are concerned about this.
	And I think we need to, especially if you want to reach them.
	I personally don't think I'm going to be effective at reaching these people.
	I don't think I'm the one.
	I think you are.
	And that's kind of one of the reasons I guess if you were to say, you asked me to do that.
	I mean, I guess I am kind of asking you, can you disavow?
	Well, yeah, I already have.
	I don't know.
	I don't like raw.
	Then there we are.
	Okay, well, good.
	Now, if we're talking the fantasy, I got a hat.
	I got a padded headboard for a reason and a leather football helmet.
	Let's keep it.
	Yeah, I know the problem is she just looks like she's special needs.
	I'm like, no, no, it's part of the role clap.
	But let me ask you this.
	Jillian, would you care if, and by the way, if you have time, I do want to when we go to, I know we've gone late to Rumble Premium.
	I want to ask you some fitness stuff because, you know, it's just, I never get to talk about it.
	Okay.
	But would you care, for example, because I will tell you, a lot of young people do.
	They view it this way when they're pulled.
	Would you care if white people were a minority in America?
	Honestly, the skin color thing is not my issue.
	The value thing is my issue.
	I'm being honest with you.
	Like my issue are American values.
	I don't personally look at it as a melanin thing.
	I just don't.
	I have two half siblings.
	They're Venezuelan and Mexican.
	I got a kid that's black.
	Oh, they must hate each other.
	They actually don't.
	My son is half Latin.
	I just don't.
	My dad's an Arab.
	My mom's mom is a, like, I just don't, the skin color thing is not my issue.
	I, I don't care.
	It's, for me, it's about principles and values and assimilation and not chanting death to America in the streets.
	Well, that's definitely a big one.
	That's definitely a big one.
	I think I see, I think I see all of your, you know, I think I, I, like I said, I have listened to you and I tend to agree with many of your concerns.
	I just don't equate them to skin color.
	I'm not equating them to skin, but I'm saying you do need to understand why some people might, and then you can present the why.
	Well, hold on, it's not just skin color.
	Now, here's the thing, though.
	There is a component of that, right?
	We make generalizations and we have to.
	It's a self-preservation mechanism where you go, okay, we've tried a lot of immigrants, for example, from a place like India.
	People from India tend to look more similar than people in the United States, different skin color, and the assimilation isn't there.
	It's not there in a way that we saw from Irish Americans, that we saw from Italian Americans, that we see with Jewish Americans.
	I would say where I disagree with someone like Nick Fuentes, Polish Americans.
	And a big reason for that is because we share, you know, if you take Italian immigrants and Irish immigrants, they'd be in different boroughs, maybe, but they share a common religion, a common language, especially if they learned it here.
	It's not like one is from Mars and one is from Venus.
	And so the shorthand is: okay, no more people from this country that happens to be brown because they don't become good Americans.
	And they're displacing Americans as far as work, as far as culture, and it's legitimate concern.
	And it's why people like Nick Fuentes are just eating the lunch of a lot of the people who you list, old guard conservatives.
	It's not even because they're necessarily wrong.
	On some issues, they're right and he's wrong.
	I would agree with him a whole lot more.
	It's that there is this pervasive ignoring of grievances from people saying, well, it's not that, it's this.
	And I've just never seen that work.
	That's my point.
	But I actually agree with you.
	I just think you do a massive disservice to the message.
	And you hand somebody a weapon to club you over the head with and utilize against you by making it about skin color.
	All of the points you make, they happen to be, hey, listen, if you're from this part of the world and you believe whatever, we could get into all the different ideas that you and I arguably both deem un-American, right?
	Iran is a, you know, they beat a woman to death because her hair was showing.
	Like, no, that is deeply alarming to me.
	But at the same time, I have another Iranian in Patrick Bed David who ran from that and thinks it's disgusting and foul.
	I just, for me, it is about principles and values and assimilation.
	And I just think if you're trying to communicate this, you do yourself a disservice about making it about skin color because you also effectively allow the left to shut you down with that.
	Yeah, I don't care.
	And the reason I don't care, I'm not making it about skin color.
	I'm saying meeting them where they really will make the case that it is and understanding it.
	And that's because the left would shut me down for criticizing Muhammad.
	The left would shut me down for supporting safe.
	Why don't you give them that?
	Why?
	I'll tell you exactly why, because I don't want to step over dollars to pick up pennies.
	I don't want to hopscotch the giant voting bloc in this country who are concerned with demographic changes that are real, who are concerned with feminist pervasive influence, which is real, to try and reach the Kanye's of the world or the ex-only fans of the world.
	I see people constantly abandon, like you've talked about, fundamental principles in order to cater to a new voting base that isn't going to be around that long anyway.
	So I just have to do it the way that I believe is truthful.
	Okay, that's fair.
	And you know what?
	I respect that.
	But I think you're, I personally, I think you're a very good faith actor.
	We may disagree on how to reach those young boys.
	You're saying I have to acknowledge this.
	I'm saying, well, okay, if you feel you have to do it, I think it could be counterintuitive because it shuts you down to this group of people over here.
	We'll agree to disagree.
	I actually don't know the answer on who's right there and there's no way to bear it out now in this moment.
	You know, we'll hopefully reconvene at the midterms, maybe.
	If I should be so lucky to have your company again in the future and say, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, you're right.
	As long as you don't mind spending time with a prick like me, then I'm not talking about it.
	As long as you don't mind spending time with a lesbian feminist, I, you know.
	It's okay.
	You're an exception.
	I will say lesbians are very often, Jillian, not fun.
	Like, it's one of those, one of those groups of people where you're like, hey, they're like, you're like, shut the fuck up.
	Can you just stop?
	Like, whereas with a gay gal, just be like, I know.
	Gay guys are more fun.
	They're caddy.
	They're bitchy.
	It's a little risque.
	Like, lesbians are just often, and I'm not saying you're amongst us.
	You're killjoys.
	You're like, keep.
	I don't disagree with you.
	I don't disagree with you.
	Okay.
	All right.
	There we find common ground.
	I don't have, I don't think I have one.
	I guess I would consider my wife a friend, but outside of her, I don't have any lesbian friends.
	It's got to be tough.
	I've almost never met a lesbian in real life with a sense of humor.
	It's incredibly rare.
	So it's got to be tough to be around those folks.
	I had something I wanted to ask.
	I don't remember exactly what it was, but yeah, I understand where you're coming from.
	And I think we got to the foundational disagreement.
	I wanted to ask you, you know what, we're not going to premium.
	We'll just keep it stay.
	It's before the Christmas episode.
	Let me ask you, obviously you came to prominence, fame with health and fitness.
	Because it always sounds like, you know, sort of a pejorative if you're like, with work or not, but you know what I mean?
	Health and fitness is your specialty.
	What would you say are the most important?
	Because there's so much now in the age of influencers, right?
	You'll get a guy who's just obviously an anabolics and buy my tea.
	And you're like, tell them about the trend, bitch.
	But what about, like, what do you think should cut through the fog?
	What do you think are the most fundamental sort of precepts that people need to know, especially going into the new year, as far as strength training, like the fundamentals without getting off in the weeds?
	You're spot on.
	It's really all about the big rocks.
	And that just means, listen, this is all very simple, but it's not easy.
	And that's a separate conversation as to why.
	But eat more foods.
	Don't overeat.
	Move more.
	In a perfect world, you'd have a strength training goal.
	Four days a week would be amazing.
	Three days a week would be good.
	Two days a week is still solid.
	So, like meeting people where they're at, but obviously, strength training, having a step goal, engaging in HIIP training.
	Exercise is the number one form of preventative medicine.
	Focus on your sleep.
	Like, this is dipshit stuff.
	I think the depth of the conversation is: why are so many people struggling to do it?
	And that's a whole nother, you know, that's a whole different ball of wax.
	It's quite insidious, to be honest.
	That's my answer.
	Everything is big.
	You know what?
	No, and I mean, no, no, Jillian, I mean this.
	Every size is beautiful.
	It's not.
	You can be healthy at any weight.
	Fuck off.
	Stephen, that is legitimately a big food psyop.
	And, you know, listen.
	Well, then you just have to tell me why so many feminists fell for it.
	Because they were having such a hard time losing weight that they leaned into the message.
	I'm being serious.
	Again, like, how much time do I have?
	Apparently, I'm not in a rush.
	It's my last day before Christmas.
	Okay.
	So the Washington Post, actually, I know you want to vomit, but just hear me out.
	They actually did a really good job in exposing the ways that big food worked to push this narrative, whether it was paying off registered dieticians, influencers online, coming up with hashtags like D-Rail, TheShame.
	And they were very effective.
	Now, when you have a group of women who've been struggling with their weight for a host of different reasons, and you say, oh, no, no, no, listen, this is not your fault.
	Because already they're feeling ashamed.
	They're beating themselves up.
	They don't know what's wrong.
	And you say, no, no, no, this is awesome.
	And this isn't your fault.
	And probably genetic.
	And they're like, oh, this is awesome.
	This is great.
	This is not my fault.
	And it's genetic.
	And how dare you, you fat shamer?
	Yeah.
	And then you had big pharma turnarounds.
	And their narrative was, no, no, no, no.
	We're going to play on your apathy and your, you know, this assertion that you are a victim of circumstance.
	But it's not that it's beautiful.
	It's not that it's healthy.
	Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but it's not that it's healthy.
	It's not, but it's genetic, you see.
	And so you're a hapless victim.
	And what you need now are our drugs.
	And I would argue in this particular instance, this is not feminism.
	It's a vulnerability to culture norms with regard to body size.
	That would be my argument.
	And I think women are being very effectively manipulated by these two industries.
	Yeah, I think, well, I think that the fat pride, I don't know if you know this, I actually was published.
	So I actually went into C. Matheson, this was during COVID.
	I wrote a paper on fat pride as a method of self-care in the era of Donald Trump and dressed up as a lady in a sweater.
	And I had to present it digitally at a town hall, put on a fake belly.
	And they were like, wow, this is so brave.
	And I was like, I just took a bunch of buzzwords and wrote it.
	It was an academic conference, I should say, where it was accepted.
	And I realized how, and it was all women.
	And I will say this, I do think so, because there has been, and this is a big part of young men when they talk about feminism.
	And a lot of women are like, they just hate women.
	It's that young men do face an accountability and a direct feedback mechanism that a lot of young women don't.
	So I have a twin son and a twin, a daughter, both four.
	And I am going to, and I had to think about this a lot.
	I am going to have to raise him and say, hey, you are not a piece of shit because you were born a white male.
	You are not guilty.
	And tell her, hey, you are not perfect the way you are.
	You're not a princess because you were born a lady.
	Everything else is earned.
	You were both fearfully, wonderfully creative, but your actions define you.
	But it is two very different messages from society.
	Young men, guilt, check privilege.
	Young women, you're perfect.
	If he doesn't like, this is just for you.
	Because young men, like, it doesn't work.
	Like, you can't tell a man that he's beautiful at a big size.
	But, Stephen, I actually totally agree with you.
	So much so that I got labeled a white supremacist.
	Nationalist.
	Yes.
	Oh, sorry.
	Yeah.
	exactly.
	Just, yeah.
	Both of which are untrue.
	I agree with you completely.
	Yeah.
	Again, I really do think largely outside of I understand gay marriage piece.
	And I don't even know if it's worth it for us to ever get into that down the road.
	But I really do think largely you and I share a similar agenda.
	I think I see, I listen to you.
	So I have a limited amount of time in my life, so I can't consume everything you do, but I have listened to you.
	I have identified with you and learned from you on numerous topics.
	I agree with you.
	I just think we have differing ideas on how to reach the end goal in large part.
	In large part.
	I agree with you.
	I was just talking about the fat pride thing in particular, because when I was talking about that.
	I think you're right about all of it.
	Well, what's funny is a boy, I was literally removed, posts removed from Facebook back in the day in the 2010s when Tess Holiday was a big thing and the fat pride.
	Me saying this person is, I'll tell you what, a change of my mind that I've wanted to do for a long time.
	We haven't been able to do it.
	Is at a fat pride conference and actually having a treadmill and a doctor present and saying all sizes are beautiful, stress test with a stack of $10,000.
	If a morbidly obese person can get to the point of moderately athletic, and I actually wanted to hang it from a fishing rod, you know, along with cake, just to see, just to prove the point definitively.
	It's like approach.
	I stress approach.
	Yes, but that's.
	Yeah, why not?
	But I remember when I would talk with young women, they would say, well, men can be fat and no one cares.
	And I remember saying, okay, I said, name me one hunk, one sexiest man ever on the list who was fat.
	Because I can name you 10 and rattled off women.
	They said, well, someone like Chris Farley, I said, funniest man alive.
	He's attractive in spite of being, no one said he's beautiful because he's fat.
	And they couldn't find one.
	It doesn't exist.
	And you know, the standard for men, and this is something, again, when listening to young men, they will tell you for young women, look, not everyone's, you're obviously very, very fit.
	It's your lifestyle.
	But men don't expect that of women.
	We just expect to be within the parameters of health.
	In other words, you can be thin.
	Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, sexiest women of each decade, right?
	For men, though, if you look at our magazines, you have to be lean and reptilian.
	And that is a much more unrealistic standard.
	I totally agree with you.
	And I think it's doing a massive disservice to young men.
	I mentioned I have a brother.
	He's significantly younger.
	He's 35.
	And I have over the past decade shot down so many insane questions with regard to anabolic steroids.
	And I'm like, no, testosterone because of the pressure they're seeing on Instagram.
	Like, you're good, sweetheart.
	You're fine.
	You're healthy.
	You're handsome.
	And I agree with you.
	The pressure is staggering on boys as well as girls.
	I think there's healthy role models that can speak to young boys better.
	These young boys just happen to have access to me through my brother and have grown up around me and reached out to ask me about these things.
	But I, again, I agree with you.
	But I do think people are being manipulated by far more nefarious influences than feminism.
	I don't.
	Personally.
	I don't.
	I really don't.
	And I say because it's the root cause of a lot of, not just feminism, not just men, fuck, but I mean the root cause of a lot of society's ills as far as the fundamental deconstruction of our central governing units, the family, and also male-female roles in society.
	That's why it's important to me.
	And it's obviously downstream.
	I mean, communism, Marxism, like a big part of it.
	can go back to the Industrial Revolution and get in the get two incomes so you can have some spending money.
	And now we have other people raising our kids.
	But I will talk about this, a different approach.
	You mentioned Charlie Kirk.
	And by the way, I think he's a very good man and took it probably, it affected me more than most because only really two people consistently know what it's like to be in that spot.
	And I've dealt with a lot of these threats.
	But we did have a different approach professionally and I disagreed with him.
	And let me explain to you what that is and maybe it'll help illuminate as to why I'll sit down and talk with anyone.
	I never had one time because the school required it.
	I've never had a speaker outside of the one time at Urbana, Illinois at a change my mind.
	And I don't talk with anyone who isn't sitting down next to me at that table.
	And that was foundation.
	The approach was, I don't want to yell because it's no longer a conversation.
	It's performative and it becomes dunking.
	And so I was always able to sit down with actual communists, actual Antifa people, because I was able to say, ignore all this, ignore all the rest of the noise.
	And you, it's just you and me at a table.
	There's no speaker.
	Charlie's was a different approach.
	And I would actually say more confrontational in the sense that people get antsy and they feel like they have to perform for the audience.
	So that's why I was able to, I've always been able to sit down with people no matter where they are.
	Of course, if they call for the death, like violence of myself, I'm like, okay, interview over.
	But it is a difference in approach.
	Yeah, well, I'm willing to sit down with anyone.
	And in doing that, I learned so much.
	Nobody said don't do that.
	Victor Davis Hansen actually said, if you can do it this well, by all means.
	If you can't, there's a lot on the line.
	No one said don't do it.
	I even said I appreciated the way PBD did it.
	I said I didn't love the way Tucker did it and I didn't.
	And he said, well, fuck you.
	Go to your own interview to everyone who said what I said.
	And that's a fair point.
	I just think that is the only way to address it.
	Honestly, I would have thought you could have been harder on him.
	But again, like, this is your interview.
	And I understand why you weren't.
	You were trying to acknowledge the feelings of the people that follow him.
	And you think that's a better approach.
	No, I wanted to be hard on the ideas where we disagree.
	And I was.
	And I'll stand by that, the ideas where we disagree and not hard on the sound bites.
	And that was what I told Pierce too.
	The platitudes, the, but you said this.
	If I waste that much time on, but you said this, he goes, well, okay, yeah, but this is the context.
	And maybe he didn't provide it before.
	I'll never be able to get to, and I've seen this in change my mind after change my mind.
	We're being able to recognize, and I've always said this is the single most valuable skill if you are looking to grow a movement or preserve it.
	One skill, being able to identify the minds that you can change and the ones that you can't, meaning people who have taken a position by default, that's the liberal position in this country because of academia, because of our institutions, media, and the people who are the purveyors of said perspective, the James Camerons of the world, the Sean Penns, the Chuck Schumer's of the world.
	And if you can delineate your approach is different.
	One is a Socratic method.
	It's rhetoric.
	And the other is, okay, now you need to make an example of this person in the correct way so that everyone else's mind who can be changed, you can reach them.
	And being able to, not saying I always do it, but I've gotten more reps in than anyone else going the person across from me, who am I trying to convince?
	Them or the people watching?
	And it defines my approach where sometimes it may seem softer than people realize and sometimes it may seem a lot harsher.
	But that's the way I've always done it.
	I've been doing it since 2008.
	And I am glad to have, by the way, more people in the fold, even if we disagree.
	And I do think that this was done in good faith.
	Hopefully, you can come back at some point and we can find something to bitch about together.
	Perfect.
	I would love that.
	And I appreciate you being willing to have me on.
	And I really do.
	Listen, again, obviously we don't agree on everything, but I really do respect a lot of your work in particular.
	And not to say I disrespect some of your work.
	I'm saying clearly, you know, we will have our fundamental disagreements based on just literally who I am as a person.
	But having said that, I really like your work on monkeypox was incredible work.
	And I did want the opportunity to tell you that.
	And thank you for it.
	Thank you very much.
	I haven't talked about that in a while, but I don't think everyone's golden retriever develops monkeypox and a latex allergy.
	So I remember that with that gay couple.
	And you're like, oh, oh, we're getting more news in here, aren't we?
	Oh, my gosh.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you again.
	Thank you.
	Where's the best place for people to find you, Jillian, before you go off for Christmas?
	She's honestly just go to jillianmichaels.com.
	Everything I do exists out of there.
	Okay.
	Jillian, Merry Christmas.
	I appreciate it.
	And I'm sure we'll talk with you.
	Back out there.
	Thank you again.
	Have a good one.
	Thank you very much.
	Jillian Michaels, everybody.
	All right, guys.
	Sorry, that went over time and it even went over Rumble Premium time.
	Hopefully you guys, do you want to, Daryl?
	Should we take a couple of chats on premium?
	Do you think we should do that?
	What's that?
	Just a few, yes.
	Just a few?
	All right.
	Okay.
	Come on.
	Hit us to Rumble Premium there.
	If you're not a member, click there, join.
	Otherwise, you're going to watch someone.
	I don't know who's broadcasting right now because we went late.
	And hey, you get to see Crowder Gives back tomorrow where we do our Christmas episode and none of it happens if you don't give.
	So I don't know why you hate poor families or the families of veterans wounded in service.
	That's for you to take up with God.

▲