Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 13, 2019 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:25:03

Fake MAGA Hate Crime EXPOSED | America First Ep. 331

Participants

Main voices

nick fuentes

01:07:08

Appearances

Clips

alex jones

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		music
		music Wall music
		music music music music music music music music music music music
		Thank you.
		outro music Wall.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
		I'm going to let you know.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to let you know.
unidentified		I'm going to let you know.
		It's going to be only America first.
		America first.
		The American people will come first once again.
		With respect, the respect that we deserve.
		From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
		America First!
		Good evening, everybody. everybody.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You're watching America First.
		My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		We have a great show for you this evening.
		Very excited.
		Very well rested.
		Wow!
		I am so well rested for the show tonight.
		Have to say the pre-show nap, it ran a little bit A little bit later than usual, alright, if you'll pardon my tardiness here, but that's alright!
		But that's alright, I know you guys are just sitting there with bated breath for the number one political show in America, and we've got a great show for you tonight.
		Pat's show, lots to discuss, lots to talk about.
		We're going to be getting into, of course, the border deal.
		This is the story.
		This is the story of the week, and we are keeping a close eye on the White House, on the administration.
		What's going to be done?
		Of course, we went over this in great detail last night, so we're not going to spend too much time Going over the specifics in the background tonight, we will give you a little update, but of course there is this deal in the works proposed to the president by Senator Shelby, and it is a bipartisan deal to avoid a government shutdown on Friday.
		Remember the money from the three-week continuing resolution passed in January to end the last government shutdown?
		That money runs out Friday at midnight.
		So in order to avert a government shutdown, a second one, second on 2019 by Friday, they're trying to pass this deal which will fully fund that one-third of the government which remains unfunded until September.
		And it will provide a pretty paltry, pretty sad $1.37 billion for 55 miles of wall.
		And so we'll get into where that stands with the President, what his other options are.
		I'm going to go over in this show in pretty great detail, with some specificity, what his other options are to fund the border wall outside of Congress.
		Because, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time.
		I think in not too great a detail, you know, maybe this possibility that if the Congress doesn't allocate enough money, or a significant amount of money, or a sufficient amount of money, well then maybe he could pull funds from elsewhere as the President.
		You know, even though the House of Representatives does have the power of the purse, they say, well, he has certain emergency powers, or certain non-emergency powers also.
		To pull money from the Treasury, to pull money from the Pentagon, to pull money from all kinds of other different sources.
		So we'll go into...
		Fully what his different options are and evaluate how likely they are to succeed.
		You know, what the probability is that that would work out and achieve their intended effect because some are better than others.
		We're going to get into the Jussie Smollett hoax once again.
		We were waiting for this one.
		We've been waiting a long time for this one.
		But I believe we did a show about this last month, maybe like three weeks ago.
		Or something.
		This was that fake hate crime in my hometown of Chicago.
		It happened in the North Side.
		And again, we talked about this briefly yesterday, because we intended to talk about it, I think, yesterday or Monday, but obviously other things have come up.
		But the story went that there was this hate crime committed against a black homosexual actor from the show Empire in the North Side of Chicago.
		Apparently this guy gets off of a train at like 2 or 3 a.m.
		He gets assaulted by two white guys wearing MAGA hats with some sort of like Neo KKK intimidation tactic and it sounds about it is as about preposterous as it sounds and we'll get into some of the latest evidence and the latest scrutiny about the attack and He is going on an interview tomorrow on Good Morning America, so that ought to be interesting.
		We'll keep our eyes peeled for that one.
		And then lastly, we'll be talking about the Green New Deal, which will be headed for a vote in the Senate, thanks to Mitch McConnell.
		We'll explain why that's happening, why that's kind of an epic move, but also why it's a little bit insulting to the GOP.
		There's a good reason for why we shouldn't be too thrilled about that.
		This Mitch McConnell guy, he puts the Green New Deal up for a vote in the Senate.
		Which I guess will be happening soon.
		And of course, the reason they do that is not because there's any chance of it passing, because of course it's a Republican-controlled Senate, but the reason being that he'll have Democrats going on record as what they say about this ridiculous Green New Deal that would hurt very important industries and sectors of the economy.
		And the reason they do this is to force Democrats to sort of come to grips with reality.
		They either have to vote for it, and they win the support of their progressive base, and they alienate donors, they alienate people in the middle.
		It's going to be a big liability for them in an election, or they don't vote for it, and it's not a liability for them in the election, And they can say, oh, we're for common sense climate change reform.
		But they alienate people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others.
		But we'll get into why that's a little bit insulting.
		Why do you use that tactic only some of the time?
		And some people who pay attention, they might know what I'm talking about there.
		But I think we'll dive right in here.
		There's not a whole lot else going on.
		We just have to get into the immigration deal.
		To me, this is This is big stuff what's going on.
		This is a real inflection point for the administration.
		There's a big opportunity to turn things around and make things good, make America great again.
		But if we don't take that opportunity it could be a very big disaster for the administration.
		Perhaps some say a disaster which the administration could not recover from.
		That is to say if we don't put our foot down here We don't stop kicking the can down the road here and actually finally begin to construct a real physical barrier on the border, then it's dubious that Trump will win support from his base in 2020.
		And so the latest news is from CNN on the deal.
		And I'll give you a little background.
	Like I said, it's $1.37 billion for 55 miles of fence.
	That's a deal that Republicans and Democrats came together on to fund the government.
	And remember, we reopened the government three weeks ago.
	That was Donald Trump who did that.
	Getting no money for the border wall in doing so, but with the intention that there would be this grand bargain coming together after they had done all this bloodshed, all this bleeding, with a 35-day shutdown, federal workers being hurt, everybody's favorability ratings going down.
	They said, all right, enough is enough.
	Let's end the shutdown.
	Let's get people their back pay, and we will figure out some sort of settlement, some sort of compromise here.
	And to me this was a little bit confusing because the president laid out a pretty good compromise from the beginning during the shutdown.
	If you recall he said that he would have the 5.7 billion dollars for the border wall but he would also have a temporary three-year pause for DACA amnesty and for temporary protected status immigrants.
	Remember he made that opening, he initiated that compromise process by offering Pretty significant concessions to the Democrats in the way of, not amnesty per se, but in protecting so-called undocumented people.
	I guess it comes in gradients.
	You've got everybody from illegals who are violent criminals all the way to children of illegals who, you know, have to apply and there's some, there are some standards for those programs.
	So they were not insignificant concessions that were made, but the Democrats said, nope, We're not giving anything substantial on the border.
	So it's pretty interesting why we came down from that and how we arrived here.
	Republicans basically caved.
	They said we will no longer seek 5.7 or anything approaching that.
	We will no longer seek money for a border wall.
	We will be happy to have just any amount of money, no matter how sad, no matter how small, for any kind of physical barrier.
	And the Democrats said, well, okay, I guess we could do that.
	And again, to put it in perspective, the $1.37 billion, that funds 55 miles.
	55 miles out of 1,000!
	The President said, okay, we've got a 2,000 mile border with Mexico.
	1,000 of that is natural barriers like the Rio Grande and mountains and hills.
	And things like that.
	And the other 1,000 miles, we're going to secure that with steel bollard fence or concrete wall or something.
	55 out of 1,000.
	This funds the government through to September.
	So the next opportunity that we'll have, the next opportunity we will have to leverage the House of Representatives, and I think really there are a few opportunities outside of these fiscal battles, outside of the appropriations process, where the Senate and the White House is able to exert leverage over the House of Representatives, which if you know anything where the Senate and the White House is able to exert leverage over the House of Representatives, which if you know anything about the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 of the They have the power of the purse.
	So that's the only time when we can really pressure and leverage them, is when the government shutdown is looming, when federal workers are going to start hurting their welfare recipients and so on.
	So, hypothetically speaking, if the deal passes, there are few opportunities where we'll have really a lot of leverage to make the House pass anything with border money until September.
	Until September.
	And by that time, it's September 2019, how much time do you have left before the 2020 election?
	You've got Just over a year?
	And so it really makes you think.
	At that rate of 55 miles per every government shutdown, at that rate of 55 miles per every opportunity that we take to force the issue, you're not going to get this thing done until 2060.
	You're not going to get this thing done until a century later.
	So while some people say, This is a good start.
	This is a down payment.
	It's a good thing that he got any money at all because some say, well, the Democrats and their base are saying that it's a betrayal by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, that they would allow a single dollar to go towards border security.
	And while there might be some truth in that, that really is little consolation for us because we need the border wall completed.
	We need the whole thing.
	We want the whole thing.
	And we want it sometime before we die and sometime within our lifetimes.
	So that's where we're at right now.
	CNN has reported today, and this is the latest that we have as of about three hours ago, the report reads, quote, President Donald Trump intends to sign the border security deal to avoid another partial government shutdown, according to two sources who have spoken directly with the president.
	So, I don't know.
	To me, it looks like he's going to sign the deal.
	It sounded like that at the rally on Monday.
	He addressed it very briefly.
	I don't know if you heard this.
	He kind of glossed over it.
	He said, oh well, these congress people, they've put together a deal.
	He said, which, I don't know, we'll look at it, this is called setting the table.
	That's what he said.
	He didn't say, I'm gonna reject this.
	He didn't say, this is a terrible deal.
	He didn't say anything like that, I have to look at it.
	He said, this is what we call setting the table.
	He said, we may have to do some things, this is what we call setting the table.
	He said that on Monday.
	Even though he was saying a lot of great things about immigration on Monday, You know, we saw that same kind of rhetoric that he used during the government shutdown make an appearance again in El Paso on Monday.
	But when it came to talking about the deal, which again, paltry, sad money.
	He demanded 5.7, which is a third of what he needs.
	We got 1.6 last year in March.
	We ended up with 1.3.
	We were offering $2 billion before the shutdown in December.
unidentified		1.3.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And he didn't say, I'm not going to take it, this is insulting, anything like that.
		He said, this is setting the table.
		So, note the rhetoric there.
		Yesterday he said he's not thrilled about the deal, but it looked like he was coming around to it.
		Everybody who talked to him in the White House yesterday said they felt like he was coming around.
		People like Lindsey Graham, people like Shelby, Mitch McConnell, they all said it seems like they're getting him to yes.
		At this point, it's kind of up in the air.
		I think it really is uncertain.
		My guess, my prediction is he'll probably sign it, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that he actually doesn't sign it, because we've seen a lot of scenarios basically exactly like this, almost identical to this scenario as recently as December.
		We saw this last year in January.
		We saw this in 2017 in the fall.
		Where it came out that he was going to sign some terrible, asymmetrical, one-sided deal and then he just didn't and it turned out it was a total lie.
		We saw that, I believe it was in September or October of 2017.
		There was a report that came out from the office of Chuck Schumer after he and Nancy Pelosi and Trump had a private meeting.
		There was this memorandum that came down that said Trump is going to protect DACA amnesty through congressional legislation, even though it was a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and he was seeking nothing in exchange for that.
		That's what this memorandum said.
		This is fall 2017.
		He's going to completely cave on DACA, even though he just rescinded it about a month earlier.
		He's going to protect that with congressional law, and he expects no wall money, no immigration reform, and it turned out to be a total lie.
		Within 48 hours, they said, oh, that's just simply not true.
		In January last year, when there was a government shutdown for, I think, two or three days, it took place over the weekend.
		shutdown happened on a Friday, reopened by Monday.
		He had a bipartisan meeting, very similar to the structure of a few of the different meetings that he had in the last government shutdown.
		He had a bipartisan meeting at the White House, and they had Republicans and Democrats there, leadership, and some other more fresh faces.
		And he said, look, I'll sign anything.
		As long as it has money, I'll sign it.
		$1.6, $2 billion, I'll sign anything.
		And everybody said, oh, Amnesty Don, he's going to give away total DACA amnesty and all this other stuff for just $1.6 billion in wall And that turned out to be not true.
		He ended up not signing it.
		In December, two days before the shutdown, the Washington Post, if you remember this, if you have a good memory like I do, the Washington Post ran a headline saying Trump is offering $2 billion to avert a government shutdown.
		And he ended up not signing that, even though they put that bill on his desk.
		It got all the way through to the Senate.
		So we'll see.
		I think this time is a little bit different.
		I think this time it's probably more likely that he signs it because it appears that the White House and the Congress, both parties, don't want another government shutdown.
		So I imagine he'll sign it.
		But now what remains to be seen is if he signs it or if he doesn't sign it, what is he going to do to supplement the money?
		Or if there is no money, what is he going to do to take action independently from Congress?
		And he has a number of options here and I'll read them off to you here.
		There is one element of the law called USC 2808 where he would be able to gain access to military construction funds and he would be able to access 3.6 billion dollars.
		Uh, from the military, from the Department of Defense.
		That is using Section 2808 of the law.
		And so, that would be a sizable amount of money.
		3.6 in addition to 1.375.
		What does that get you up to?
		Almost 5 billion dollars.
		So, that's almost what he was asking for.
		The trick with that money, though, is that you need to declare a national emergency.
		So, that's one route that he could go.
		Another area where he could use money is to use Army Corps civil works funds using USC 2293.
		He'd be able to access $3 billion.
		That would also require emergency funds.
		So these two places where he could pull money, USC 2293 and 2808, he would be able to pull a combined $6.6 billion from military construction and from U.S. Army civil works.
		The trick with these two options though are that he would have to declare a state of emergency.
		And I've talked about this at length.
		I don't know if that's really viable at this point.
		I mean, it's not like it would hurt to try, but it's questionable if this would end up working.
		You know, and I've talked about this for the last two years.
		People like Ann Coulter and others have hit him very hard.
		And they've said, you've got to declare a state of emergency.
		You know, you've got to do this and so on and so forth.
		And to me, the question was always, well, it was really so simple.
		If it was really that easy, you just declare a state of emergency.
		And he gets the money, no question.
	And it's just a matter of people are not telling him about what he can do.
	I don't know if I buy that.
	I would imagine that if that were the case, if he could really do that, and it was so clean and so easy, he would have done that from the get-go.
	Why go through Congress?
	Why battle with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell?
	Why battle with Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?
	If he could just do it yourself from the beginning.
	I don't think that's the case.
	And Darren Beatty said as much, and he was in the White House, he tweeted out today that, you know, a lot of people have been talking about the military emergency option, the national emergency option, but that would probably go nowhere.
	And I've heard similar stories from other White House officials that say, yeah.
	The legal challenges from everywhere, from the Democrats, from the judiciary, from property owners on the border, it would be so obstructive that you probably wouldn't have a good shot of getting the wall built with this money anyway.
	So there's 6.6 billion dollars in a national emergency declaration, again using those two laws, but it's dubious if that would ever be able to get built, if that would see the light of day.
	Now the two measures that he could use that are not using a state of emergency Or that he could use U.S.
	Section 284.
	This is what Darren Beattie prescribed.
	Many others have prescribed this also, by the way.
	Section 284, which diverts Pentagon funds from counter-narcotics.
	And he could allocate $2 billion for that.
	So, I guess because this is more of a homeland security issue as opposed to a military emergency.
	It's domestic as opposed to trying to concoct this foreign defense narrative or foreign defense case It says, well, no, it's about counter-narcotics instead.
	That's probably a stronger case anyway, but also there's more maneuverability for the president to act there.
	He could allocate $2 billion with that, so 2 plus the 1.375.
	You get 3.375.
	I mean, that's not great, but it is better.
	You'd probably be able to build, what, about 150 miles with that if you're just using, you know, if you're multiplying So that would be nice.
	And then the last option that he could use is Axis Treasury forfeiture funds, which would be $680 million.
	And again, no national emergency for that either.
	So you round all that together, you'd probably end up with something like $4.5 billion with non-emergency.
	Altogether, something like $10.5 billion with non-emergency, emergency and the deal.
	Uh, but it would probably look closer to that 4.5 because they say the emergency money wouldn't go anywhere.
	And I have to say, look, if we get 1.375 from the Congress, and, and as I said yesterday, if it is signed tomorrow into law, or, you know, by the deadline, by Friday, I don't know if it'll happen tomorrow, or if it'll happen Friday, or if it'll shut down briefly like it did last February,
	But if it is signed into law one after the other, okay, I'm signing 1.375 and I know this isn't what we wanted, but here I've got these other supplemental measures and maybe he does the emergency funds just as a smokescreen, just as, you know, something additional, just so, you know, it gives the appearance that more is happening than there is.
	I'd be fine with that.
	Then I would say this is an acceptable deal.
	I would say, by all means, sign the bill, get as much money as you can.
	But the problem for me is in the event that he signs a bill and we just kick the can down the road with the state of emergency or the other funds because the executive action many many times throughout the last two and a half years and it never materializes.
	I expressed a lot of doubt about this last night and I stand by my position.
	The president in the administration does not suggest that there's a strong likelihood that the president is really going to come out there strongly with executive action.
	It's been promised.
	It was promised before the midterms.
	It was promised after the inauguration.
	It just never materialized.
	And who could say why that is?
	Is it because there's subversion in the White House?
	Very well could be the case.
	Is it because they're afraid of legal challenges and they're anticipating, you know, a court like the Ninth Circuit just shutting it down and it getting delayed in court for a year?
	That could also be the case.
	Also, would be a great reason for that.
	But, you know, what I sort of figured out in the past week or so is there's no excuse not to try anymore.
	You know, it would be one thing if the Congress shut him down, and you can't blame him for the Congress shutting him down.
	I mean, they're co-equal branches of government, right?
	Or the courts shutting him down.
	You can't blame him for that.
	But it would be one thing if he was getting shut down by the other branches, and he was coming out every day and saying, you know what?
	We're going to fight the courts, and we're going to fight the Congress, and we're going to pass executive orders.
	I dare them to shut them down, and so on.
	And he was actually putting up some sort of a fight using his presidential powers.
	But that's not what's happening.
	What's happening instead is that Congress is giving us a bad deal.
	They're ruining it for us.
	And again, that's out of Trump's control.
	But instead of him fighting them, instead of even any kind of fight being put up, he's trying to just sort of finesse definitions and, you know, make all these semantic arguments about, oh, the wall's actually being built and fences wall and we'll just completely liberalize what our definition of a wall is.
	And that we cannot abide.
	Look, go ahead.
	Try the executive action.
	If it doesn't work, I think everybody would understand.
unidentified		Right?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I think we would be far more amenable to him trying but failing with executive action.
		We'd say, look, you know, he tried everything that he could.
		He used every tool in his arsenal to try to get the border wall constructed, but, you know, it just couldn't happen.
		I don't think anybody would blame him because he can't control the House of Representatives.
		He can't control the Senate.
		You see that Mitch McConnell completely betrayed him on this issue.
		You can't even trust the courts on this.
		Look at Kavanaugh, look at Gorsuch.
		Their record hasn't been really stellar, I gotta be honest, since those two have been put on the court.
		So I don't think anybody would blame him for that if there was some effort being made in the way of presidential action, but it just isn't.
		So that's what's gotta happen for us to continue to be satisfied, because those excuses only go so far.
		Okay, you know, the Congress don't give you the money, but at a certain point, we have to put our foot down.
		No more whining.
		You can't go on Twitter and just complain, oh, they're not giving me money, and so on.
		You're the President!
		Do something!
		It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, just try!
		So, that's what we hope happens.
		We hope that... I think the best case scenario...
		is that Friday rolls around, he signs the bill, and then he signs with it this $10 billion in extra money.
		I guess maybe the best, best scenario is that he gets the $23 billion in border security.
		Somehow he's able to finesse that.
		Remember, this deal not only allocates $1.375 billion for actual physical barriers, but an additional $22 billion for border security.
		Typically, that money is sort of off-limits for the physical barriers like it was last year in the Omnibus.
		But if he's able to finesse that in addition to this other money, then we're in great shape.
		Then we're totally solid.
		I don't know if that's in the works or not.
		I don't know if we can expect that, though.
		I would say that if we're being practical the best case scenario is 10 billion and maybe five of that doesn't actually work out or six because the emergency funds don't go anywhere but at least we get four right and at least there's you know if we get four billion dollars to put up wall.
		Then we've got a pretty substantial amount.
		It's not the full 1,000.
		It's not even 250, but it's hundreds of miles of wall.
		I think that would be sufficient to run on in 2020 and say, well, I got something done.
		In spite of all this opposition, in spite of Republicans, Democrats, the courts, I was able to secure a significant portion.
		Now, that's not obviously ideal.
		We would like all 1,000, but there are practical considerations.
		If he gets that much, I would say that's a win.
		You know, I think as long as he breaks ground before 2020, as long as he can say there's hundreds of miles, I think we're in good shape, right?
		So that's where we're at with the border deal.
		We'll have to see what happens.
		We don't even know if they'll sign the bill, let alone if there'll be all this other action.
		So that's the bill.
		The big story of the day, though, however, to me, or the big story of the week, And this has been kind of fun.
		The last week it's sort of the border wall and then it's race, right?
		And then it's what's happening in our country in the absence of immigration control.
		It kind of complements... One issue complements the other nicely.
		So of course we're talking about this Jussie Smollett hoax.
		Jussie Smollett is a gay actor in the show Empire.
		This is a show for black people so I don't watch it.
		I don't think anybody watches it.
		That's to me the most ridiculous part of the whole story because the crux of his story, and again he says, this is according to, I believe this is according to the New York Post, Smollett told police on January 29th that he was walking in the 300 block of East North Water Street at about 2 a.m.
		when two people walked up to him, yelled slurs like anti-gay slurs, anti-black slurs, hit him in the face, poured what is suspected to be bleach on him, and then put a thin light rope around his neck and they yelled, this is MAGA country.
		And to me, the crux of the story, the most ridiculous part is You've got white people and they know what the show Empire is, they know who Jussie Smollett is.
		That's the most ridiculous part to me.
		Maybe, you know, Chicago, okay, it's a city that's pretty segregated, but you've got some racists there.
		Certainly, you've got some based in Redfield people out there, as we like to say in the business.
		So maybe, maybe we'll entertain this idea that you've got, you know, this gang of MAGA terrorists, racial terrorists roaming the streets looking for people to beat up at 2 a.m.
		And remember, this is also a week where it was like sub-zero temperatures the whole time, so what are they doing hanging out at night on a weekday?
		This was a Tuesday also.
		But to me, the crux of the story is, it's 2 a.m.
		and they're like, oh hey, there's Jussie Smollett from Empire!
		Hey, there's that gay actor from that show Empire, from the hit CBS, I don't know what network it's on, from that hit network television show Empire.
		That's the part that, to me, I just don't buy.
		If I'm walking down the street, I don't recognize Jussie Smollett.
	Does anybody who voted for Donald Trump watch the show Empire except for like Diamond and Silk?
	Or, you know, that pastor that always seems to be hanging around, or Sheriff Michael, whatever.
	I don't think anybody else is watching that show.
	So to me, that's the most outrageous part.
	They're yelling, hey, faggot!
	Hey, there's that guy from Empire!
	I don't see that happening.
	But then, of course, obviously, then you start asking more questions.
	What are two white guys doing in this part of Chicago at 2 a.m.?
	It's sub-zero, and what, they've got rope and bleach on them looking to commit hate crimes?
	Doesn't make any sense.
	And we said that from the beginning.
	We did a show about this in January.
	I think I was the first person, one of the only people to put content out about this being a hoax.
	Because at this point, when anybody reports a hate crime, my immediate assumption is that it's a hoax.
	Because every, I think just about every single time you see a hate crime in this country, for the most part, I'm not going to say it's every time because there are some legitimate ones, but just about every single time it turns out to be A member of that group, which they purport to be a victim of a hate crime, committing the hate crime in an attempt to solicit sympathy, or money, or attention, or they want to get on television.
	We saw in, I think it was 2017 or 2018, there was a string of bomb threats that were called in.
	Do you remember this?
	To Jewish schools, Jewish daycares, Jewish hospitals.
	Oh no!
	It's another holocaust happening!
	It's a rise in anti-semitic attacks!
	And it was like, it was no small number either.
	It was like hundreds of bomb threats.
	And this is the talking point, that this was Trump country, that Holocaust memorials were being desecrated and defaced, and Jewish cemeteries were being attacked, and then they found out that the people placing all these calls, calling in bomb threats to the Jewish daycares and community centers and whatever, was actually a Jewish guy in Israel!
	It was actually a Jewish guy in Israel calling all these in.
	You can look it up, totally true.
	The Jewish cemetery smashed to pieces.
	Another case, Jewish people who did it.
	You know, they talk about swastikas being spray-painted on buildings or synagogues.
	It's always Jewish people, it's always blacks, or you know, whatever group it is.
	There was a report of a hate crime, I think it was in Minnesota, or maybe it was in Canada, but the hate crime was that this girl was wearing a hijab, and two white Trump supporters ran up to her, ripped her hijab off, and they yelled, MAGA!
	You know, of course, it's always MAGA, it's always Trump supporters.
	Turned out, it was a total lie.
	She actually got charged for lying about it.
	So every time, I don't give these people the benefit of the doubt anymore.
	I don't believe there's hate crimes happening.
	Because all the hate crimes that are being committed are against white people.
	Have you ever noticed that?
	And you can look at the FBI data on this also.
	The amount of interracial crime that happens, murders, rapes, burglaries, I don't think it's exactly a surprise.
	It's far more, disproportionately, non-whites going after whites.
	And that's true of hate crimes also.
	It's far more disproportionate.
	And it's disproportionate in general.
	You know, what is 13% but also half?
	I think that's sort of the moral of the story.
	But it's also hate crimes.
	It's also interracial crimes.
	And it's astronomically disproportionate in favor of non-whites.
	So I never believed this stuff.
	But then you've got this ridiculous story and I said, this is BS.
	And the details are now starting to come out.
	There was a report by the New York Daily Post.
	They went around interviewing his neighbors.
	And they interviewed a man by the name of Agin Mohammed who said, quote, I've been in this neighborhood for five years.
	I don't believe it.
	Not around here.
	Half the people are gay and the other half are black.
	A patron at Lizzie McNeil's Irish Pub, which is about a block away from the scene of the incident, said Smollett's story, quote, doesn't really make sense.
	It's a lie because Chicago is the most liberal city around, said the man.
	They have cameras everywhere.
	Why can't they find the attack?
	And that's to me another piece of the puzzle here.
	This is something that came out even immediately after the attack.
	Chicago's got cameras everywhere, of course.
	And especially in the wealthier neighborhoods, especially in the downtown areas.
	If you've ever been there, they've got cameras everywhere.
	And the reason being is because they don't mess around when it comes to the rich people.
	You know, if people want to shoot and kill each other in the South Side or in the West Side, eh, well, okay.
	But if people are causing a ruckus on the Gold Coast, if people are causing a ruckus where there's high-rent real estate, where there's, you know...
	Big expensive shops and condominiums and things like that.
	They don't mess around.
	And if you know in Chicago, you know that.
	You know that, relatively speaking, if you don't hang around the L, anywhere where there's a transportation hub, because there still are people hanging around saying, Oh, could you buy me a train ticket or something?
	I've gotten shaken down a lot like that.
	But you know that they don't play around when it comes to the wealthier neighborhoods.
	So they've got cameras everywhere.
	They reviewed like thousands of hours of footage.
	They couldn't find anything.
	They couldn't find anything resembling what he described.
	So that's one piece of the puzzle.
	And all the people in the neighborhood said it didn't happen.
	And then the other piece of the puzzle, the other evidence, the only evidence that he had, aside from his own personal account, there's no footage, there's no anything else.
	But he said that he was on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack.
	And his manager said, oh, I heard the whole thing.
	I heard the MAGA country, and I heard the whole attack and everything.
	And the police said, oh, OK.
	Well, give us your phone, then.
	You know, if you say your only evidence, the only evidence outside of your personal account is that, well, oh, you're on the phone with somebody, and they heard the whole attack, well, that's great.
	That means that there are records that exist to corroborate your story.
	Give us your phone.
	And he refused.
	He said, no, I won't give you my phone.
	He wouldn't give the officers his phone at the scene when he called them to his apartment.
	He also told them to turn off their body cameras.
	Interesting also.
	So this is according to another source.
	It says, quote, the actor said he was on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack.
	His manager said that he could hear the attack and was able to hear the phrase, quote, MAGA country, the acronym for President Trump's Make America Great Again slogan.
	On Monday, he gave the police redacted phone records.
	He has declined to turn over his phone.
	So he gave the records, but no phone.
	And what did the police say?
	They said the phone records were so redacted that they were insufficient for a criminal investigation.
	So what's another lie?
	It's another rich black lie about white hate in America.
	But as I said the last month when we talked about this, this is part of a larger fabric.
	A larger narrative which has been constructed.
	It's the same thing we talked about yesterday with Esquire.
	Which is this narrative which at once, of course, non-whites have all the cultural and political power.
	And we know this.
	We know this when we look at people like Beto O'Rourke, Elizabeth Warren.
	Why do they pretend to be minorities?
	Why does Elizabeth Warren, if it's so good to be white in the country, if white privilege is so good?
	And that's what they say.
	Remember when I was reading about Esquire yesterday?
	They said that, oh, why do we need to hear from a 17-year-old white kid?
	It's all the same.
	Privilege that no non-white people are afforded.
	Okay.
	Well, if there's so much white privilege going around, why did Elizabeth Warren lie her whole life and say she was Native American?
	If she got all these benefits from being white, why did she hurt herself?
	Why did she take away from and detract from her opportunities, her privileges, the luxuries she could have of being white by identifying as Native American?
	Because, of course, it's not true.
	You get benefits by being Native American.
	In Canada, if you're Native American, it's basically like an apartheid state.
	You literally get a card.
	You're a card-carrying, indigenous Canadian, and you get all sorts of benefits.
	I was talking to Faith Goldie about this.
	It's outrageous.
	In America, you get all kinds of benefits.
	I think they pay for your college for free if you're Native American.
	I gotta go back to college and present my 23 in me and say, hey look, I'm Native American actually.
	I'm not just Mexican, it's actually Native American.
	Can I have college for free now?
	You know, white people don't really get that.
	It's actually the opposite.
	Beto O'Rourke, he's a white guy, he's an Irish guy.
	Why would he go around saying I'm Beto?
	Why would he campaign as Beto and not O'Rourke?
	You know, why did the sign say Beto and not O'Rourke?
	Why doesn't he just call himself Robert?
	If it's so good to be white in the country, oh it's so easy, you get so much privilege, why does he go around campaigning as Beto?
	Of course, to appeal to Mexicans.
	I mean, the reason he does that is to sound Mexican.
	He says, oh, well, if you're from El Paso, you know that people that are called Robert are called Beto.
	Really?
	In an Irish home?
	They were like, oh, hey, Beto.
	You know, my father was half Mexican.
	They didn't go around calling me Nico.
	They called me Nick.
	You know, and I live in an area 93% white.
	So, of course, the reason that he called himself that is because if you sound like a minority, you get certain privileges that other people don't.
	And look around on television, the way you could talk about white people.
	Versus the way you could talk about black people.
	It seems to me that black people are afforded all kinds of privileges that white people aren't.
	They get to say a certain word.
	Beyond that, you look at their culture.
	You look at black culture.
	The culture of rap music, the culture of gangs.
	And this is not critiqued by liberals at all.
	It's a culture that is masculine, that is misogynistic, that is violent.
	And I'm not going to say that that's a good thing.
	But, look, if I have to choose, I'm going to choose the culture of 50 Cent over the culture of James Charles.
	Right?
	But for white people, we don't really get allowed that.
	Whenever white people try to be masculine, whenever white men in particular try to capture those traditional masculine virtue strengths to some degree, a little bit of sexism, I think, is in order.
	It's toxic masculinity.
	You can't have it.
	And the people that are paraded around among white men are homosexuals, people that wear makeup, people that smoke pot, people that are stoned all the time, people that are like, oh, I'm just a stupid, fat, retarded white person.
	So you get all these different privileges they all come together and we've heard this all before we've heard all the the usual stuff the double standards for white people but of course this is just one other component in the larger narrative which is a total lie and and the other double standard here is not just the white versus black but that black people are at once The underdog, but at the same time, they're totally in power.
	So you'll have, for example, Kenan Thompson, and he'll go on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, and I like Kenan Thompson.
	He's funny on Saturday Night Live.
	He's less political than most other people.
	I don't know how many of you guys saw this.
	But this was the same week as the Jussie Smollett hoax, and this guy, Kenan Thompson, black actor on SNL, he goes on Jimmy Fallon, and before the interview gets started, he says, oh, I just want to say we're praying for Jussie Smollett.
	It's terrible that this is happening in America.
	And, oh, he gets an applause line.
	Nobody doubts it.
	Nobody questions it.
	This is what cultural hegemony looks like, when this is an obviously nonsensical story.
	If anybody made the analogous story on the right, like if a MAGA supporter said, You know, that they were in... I was in Louisville, Kentucky or, you know, I was in some rich white neighborhood and then this black guy in a Hillary Clinton t-shirt came up to me at 2 a.m.
	I guess it'd be more believable if you look at these statistics, but they ran up to me at 2 a.m.
	and they put me in shackles.
	They brought literal shackles.
	They put me in shackles.
	They started whipping me.
	You know, would anybody believe that?
	No.
	They would be called a retard.
	They would make fun of you on John Oliver.
	They would make fun of you on, you know, whatever show, Stephen Colbert.
	I was going to say Jon Stewart, but he's not around anymore.
	They would laugh at you.
	But this story is clearly a joke, and this guy gets to go on television and say, oh, we're really rooting for you.
	He gets the benefit of the doubt.
	They believe him because he's black, of course.
	Black people don't tell lies about this stuff.
	It's true until proven wrong.
	And he gets a standing ovation, and that betrays what's going on underneath, which is at once, oh, this is a terrible thing.
	Yeah, this is really a shame.
	Black people are still being targeted.
	Really?
	That's why you're on Saturday Night Live and you're able to peddle that nonsense without anybody asking any questions, right?
	So, to me, it's really a lot bigger than just the particular hoax.
	But, of course, the hoax is ridiculous in and of itself.
	I don't believe any of them anymore.
	Whenever I see a hate crime, I assume it's a lie, and that tends to be the case.
	And like I said, that doesn't mean they don't happen, but if they are happening, it is typically against white people.
	And they prescribe everything as a hate crime.
	I've had a lot of reporters come over And they've said my words constitute violence.
	They say that because what I say is a little bit aggressive, or it's provocative, or it's insensitive.
	They say that my words constitute violence.
	I literally had somebody in the America First studio and they're asking me, well don't you think your words constitute a form of violence?
	I said that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
	So I can commit a hate crime by, like, what, talking about FBI crime statistics?
	By black people, I mean, you see what goes on.
	You see what goes on with illegal immigrants.
	You see what goes on with Hispanics.
	You see this every day.
	You see in schools what happens.
	And nobody likes to talk about that.
	People pretend that doesn't happen.
	And even in Chicago, I guess it's even better that this so-called hate crime happened in Chicago, because they will totally sweep under the rug the obvious and legitimate real violence happening, which is being done by non-whites, and they will scrap that in favor of a narrative about one outstanding, exceptional issue, which is so fantastical it's obviously untrue, whereas a white person committing violence.
	And it wasn't even a murder!
	You know, black people, they're like executing toddlers in the South Side of Chicago.
	We prefer not to talk about that.
	We prefer not to notice the trends going on with that.
	You know, or what's causing that.
	But instead, we're going to take this and blow it out of proportion.
	It says it all.
	But so that's that.
	The last thing we're going to talk about here, and we're sort of running out of time, but we'll talk about this very briefly.
	Is the Green New Deal and I sort of alluded to what's going on at the top of the show.
	Mitch McConnell says he's going to introduce this into the Senate for a vote and of course the reason being the Green New Deal.
	This is AOC's climate change overhaul of the nation.
	It's a non-binding congressional resolution, so all it does is lay out goals and strategies that the White House would state as their mission statement, basically.
	It's sort of like the UN development goals, but more ambiguous in a way.
	And so Mitch McConnell says he's going to put this outlandish legislation to a vote in the Senate, even if it passed to be non-binding.
	It won't pass, but again, the angle here is to get people on record, and especially before the 2020 election, to say, are you going to support insane taxes, putting people out of jobs in all these important states, You know, it'll be difficult to win over Rust Belt states, states that are reliant on energy.
	You know, even places like Texas, if they hope to pull Texas, and they've been talking about that since 2016, when they said, oh, you know, Texas is a battleground state.
	It's gonna be tough to win Texas if you're talking about getting rid of oil and getting rid of coal and natural gas.
	And it'll be tough to win a lot of these states that Trump was able to flip in 2016.
	They're trying to get them on record for this, and I think that's a good maneuver.
	But to me, and I alluded to this again at the top of the show, what's insulting about this is obviously they know about this kind of a strategy.
	They know how this works.
	You put up a bill in front of the Senate, and the goal is maybe not necessarily to get it passed, but to pressure people to vote a certain way, to force them to make a tough decision, to alienate somebody.
	Now what they should have done was to do this with the wall money before the midterms.
	Does anybody remember this?
	Everybody was talking about this in September when we were running out of government money and everybody said put the wall to a vote before the midterms.
	Because what this does is it forces everybody in the Republican caucus to say, are you strong in immigration or are you not?
	Of course, what happens is, if they're strong on immigration, well then we get the border wall, right?
	We get significant legislation passed under that kind of pressure.
	If they don't, well then, they're gonna have a hard time in 2018.
	That means they're gonna get killed, they're gonna get attack ads run against them, the president will campaign against them, and they'll probably lose re-election.
	They go with the former, and they vote for it, even though their donors, even though the people behind them don't support it.
	But this just speaks to how profoundly corrupt the Congress is.
	Mitch McConnell would never put a bill like that to the floor, that actually was one of those votes where it showed where people stand on the issue, because he knows that nobody would pass the smell test on that one.
	He knows that it would be a very tough decision for a lot of these people to vote, either with the people or with the voters, or rather with the donors.
	He knows that probably most of them, people like Rubio, others, they would go with the donors.
	And so I think I see something like that, and it's like, yeah, that's really great, Mitch.
	That's really great.
	We're going to get everybody's opinion on the Green New Deal.
	Yeah, that'll really help Democrats, or really hurt Democrats.
	But why didn't we get that with the border wall in September?
	To me, that's what adds insult to injury with that maneuver.
	So I just wanted to talk about that very briefly.
	We're going to move into our Streamlabs and Super Chats, and we'll see what you guys are saying, what our forecast is.
	For the border wall deal.
	We'll see where you guys are at, because I know it's been sort of divisive.
	My more traditional white-pilled supporters, a lot of them say, Nick, you're getting black-pilled, Nick, you're, uh, whatever.
	You sound like Ann Coulter, and the black-pillers somehow at the same time are saying, oh, you sound like Bill Mitchell.
	So I'm curious to see.
	We've got Black Swan who says, Nick, what are your thoughts on compartmentalizing as in having strong opinions on a subject, but having tact when communicating with someone who exercises it?
	Hate the sinner, love the sinner.
	Rather, hate the sin, love the sinner.
	Useful strategy or delusion slash cope?
	Thank you.
	Well, I don't think that's what compartmentalizing means.
	To me, compartmentalizing means, at least in politics, it means having sort of inconsistent positions on different issues.
	You know, if you compartmentalize one issue, it doesn't have ideological consistency with another.
	And a lot of people sort of form these hodgepodge opinions where they're like, well, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
	Or, you know, they support some positions that, you know, they think it's like, I just have this diverse opinion, I'm actually right down the middle, when in actuality it's just like, no, you just have no idea what you're talking about.
	You know, your opinion is based on a very cursory analysis of, you know, news articles that are probably three or four degrees of separation away from an actual scholar, philosopher, thinker, anything like that.
	But with regard to Using tact.
	Well, that's just a matter of persuasion.
	Of course, that's a necessity.
	Of course you do that.
	You can have strong opinions and use tact.
	That's not compartmentalizing.
	That's just tact.
	It's exactly what you said it is.
	It's persuasion.
	So I've done that a lot of times when I talk to People who are more liberal, people who are resistant to having their minds changed.
	You know, I'll start out very moderate and agree even on things that I don't agree with for the sake of, you know, getting people on board with the general principle as opposed to getting them 100% on everything.
	You know, for example, we look at Jewish power.
	This is a tough thing for a lot of people to talk about.
	If you get people on Israel, well that's a great thing to talk about because it's so obvious what's happening there.
	You don't have to get them to agree to understand what's happening everywhere else with the lobby that is not totally the Zionist lobby, but some might describe it as the Jewish lobby, but you get them started on Zionism and then, okay, at least we have a start there.
	At least that's, you know, we have a foundation there.
	So I'm a big believer in that.
	Brainsick says, hey Nick, he he, get on E. Michael Jones.
unidentified		Ha ha.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Why don't you like metal?
unidentified		Hoo hoo.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		See, I'm not an NPC like those other guys.
		I'm completely original and funny.
		Okay, now this is meta.
unidentified		LOL.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		PS, fart noise is brap.
		Great one from my friend Brainsick, from my rehabilitated friend Brainsick.
		Hi IQ, says Owen Benjamin would be a good guest on the show.
		You should check out his stuff.
		Thank you for the recommendation.
		I'll look into that.
		Nick Spapik says, Thomas Jefferson himself saw nothing wrong with state succession.
		We were not a nation, we were a union of states.
		Lincoln destroyed this founding concept of the U.S.
		You cannot understand such things.
		Your ancestors weren't even here in 1861.
		No, I completely understand it.
		And I reject it.
		I mean, that's because I understand it, I reject it.
		How could you be right-wing?
		How could you be right-wing conservative in any sense of the word if you believe in such a ridiculous governing principle that we are not a nation but a union of states?
		Who among us can say that they would prefer a loose confederation of independent localities as opposed to a strong nation?
		It's simply not right-wing.
		This is a left-wing position.
		This is what I mean when I say that the Confederates were libertarians.
unidentified		A lot of people are like, duh, duh, duh, Nick, Confederates are libertarians.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But, you know, some babbling, incoherent babbling noises.
		But of course, the Confederates, the Southerners, were anti-Federalists.
		Jefferson could be seen as the avatar of the South, of the farmer.
		Anti-the great cities of the Northeast, against urbanization, all that.
		he was a champion of the farmer, of the simple, rural, plain, natural life.
		He was a classical liberal, and he was the avatar of the South.
		And what was the Confederacy, what was the cause of secession?
		Some might say slavery.
		I would say states' rights.
		Some say, you know, it's sort of like broke, woke, and bespoke.
		Broke.
		The Confederacy broke apart because of slavery, and that was a really bad thing.
unidentified		Woke.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		The Confederacy broke away because of states' rights, and that was a good thing.
		Bespoke, the Confederacy broke away because of states' rights, and that was a bad thing.
		I'm sorry, but I believe in a strong central government.
		I'm a Federalist through and through.
		I believe in the philosophy of Hamilton, of John Adams, and not of the Anti-Federalists, not of these people who wanted a Confederacy.
		That didn't work.
		We tried that.
		So you say, Jefferson saw nothing wrong with state secession.
		Yeah, that's why he was dumb and gay.
		That's why he was a dumb libertarian.
		I'm not gonna say he's dumb.
		He was actually very smart.
		I cannot defame a founding father, but I don't agree with his philosophy.
		We were a nation.
		We were not a nation, but a union of states, as if that's a bad, as if that's a good thing.
		We were a union of states, not a nation.
		I want to be a nation.
		I think it's a good thing to be a nation.
		I think it's a good thing to have a strong central government, as opposed to what?
		You just have all these different people hanging around, and maybe one wants to break away one time, and maybe they don't.
		It's sort of a profoundly Fragile system if you have nullification happening where you know a state could just threaten to secede if they don't like something.
		That's not really a way to run a government.
		Uh, so, no, I think because of that, the Confederacy is blue-pilled.
		You know, and people are like, oh, Lincoln was a tyrant!
		Epic!
		Why is that a bad thing?
		I thought we were all about that.
		You know, all these Confederates, all these Confederates on the one hand, these Neo-Confederates are like, we love Hitler!
		Not all of them, but some of them say this kind of stuff.
		I'm talking about Wignatt people.
		Confederates will say, oh, Hitler was awesome, and then at the same time, the Confederacy was awesome.
		Well, how can you at once believe in a totalitarian, fascist country, but then at the same time believe in a Confederacy?
		It doesn't make any sense.
		And remember, what was Abraham Lincoln going to do after the Civil War?
		You know, whereas the Southerners wanted to hire foreign labor, Or not even higher, but enslave foreign labor.
		And there was this profound wealth inequality, and so on, and they could project no economic strength in the world.
		Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship them back.
		He wanted to ship them to Liberia, or to Central America, or somewhere.
		He didn't even want to free the slaves.
		And I'm not... I think slavery was a bad thing.
		I'm not saying that's a good thing.
		What I'm saying is, ultimately, a lot of the challenges we're seeing today are due to racial heterogeneity.
		You know, our problem with race relations dates back to the Civil War.
		We wouldn't have those problems if we just went our separate ways.
		Maybe they had their own state.
		Maybe they went to Africa.
		Maybe they went somewhere else.
		But I think that would be probably to work out integration.
		I think that's true.
		I think history has borne that out.
		And then John Wilkes Booth, a little guy by the name of John Wilkes Booth, said, Death to tyrants!
		Oh, how heroic.
		What a conservative message.
		And blew his brains out.
		And now here we are, right?
		So, he destroyed the Union of States.
		Good, good, good.
		We love the American nation.
		Dirkman says, hey Nick, great show tonight.
		You should see if Pope Francis and Pope Pius XII will come on your show to do a debate.
		I will reach out.
		Bill Ding says, what do you think about Jared Taylor and others ideas that we can fund the wall through taxing remittances?
		That way we can fund it with Mexico's money.
		Yeah, he should do that.
	He should do that.
	He should get the Congress to do that.
	But I don't think he has the power to do that unilaterally.
	I think that's the trick.
	I'm 99% sure that he would have to get that done through Congress.
	But if true, he should push for that.
	I don't know why he hasn't.
	Based One says, Hey Nick, looking back, how big of a loss for the Trump administration was Steve Bannon's firing?
	I think it was pretty substantial.
	I think people are starting to understand that because Steve Bannon, I think he understood the score about economic nationalism and about immigration.
	And we now just have one less fighter on the populist America First agenda in the White House.
	The only person we have really that I can think of is Stephen Miller.
	That's it.
	You know, Mulvaney, Kushner, all those guys.
	Even, what's-her-name, Nielsen.
	None of those people are fighting for a border wall.
	None of those people are fighting for immigration.
	So, I think it was a big loss.
	And I said that, everybody doubted.
	Everybody said, oh, Steve Bannon's a cuck.
	Steve Bannon is this.
	He didn't understand media.
	Granted, he was a little bit of a mess.
	But I think, ultimately, it was a bit of a loss.
	David S. says, going to have to miss most of the show for movie night with the family.
	Ah, wholesome.
	Off topic question, but what do you think are some good tactics for anti-porn activism?
	I don't know, dude.
	Tactics for anti-porn?
	Why does everybody want to do activism?
	Why do you have to have activism?
	You know, I've never understood this, like, oh, what are we going to do, this great revolutionary struggle?
	Like, nobody's gonna do anything.
	Nobody's... Maybe that sounds defeatist, maybe that sounds nihilistic, but, you know, well, things have to change, things better... You know, people get online and they get real bent out of shape.
	They get real militant, posting online, this has got to stop!
	We are gonna turn this around!
	Yeah, okay.
	Okay, keep tweeting about it, right?
	So I don't mean to be, I don't mean to insult you, I don't mean to be, I don't mean to be rude, alright?
	I'm trying to, my New Year's resolution is to be nicer, okay?
	To be more patient, tolerant, all that, all that good stuff.
	But on the anti-porn activism, I don't know what you mean.
	I mean, do you want there to be a demonstration in like a city?
	Do you see that happening?
	I don't know.
	I guess.
	But getting the ball rolling on something like that is difficult.
	You need money.
	You need infrastructure.
	It's not so simple as just, let's just put something together.
	You know?
	I mean, you look at any activism that happens in the country that's successful, and it's really not grassroots.
	It comes from money.
	It comes from substantial planning and infrastructure.
	So, I don't know people that feel strongly about that have to put it together.
	But the problem is that Christians have basically totally conceded the battleground on social issues.
	They refuse to fight contraception.
	They refuse to fight abortion.
	They refuse to fight gay marriage.
	They refuse to fight pornography.
	They refuse to fight birth control.
	A lot of this stuff.
	They just have totally given up.
	And it's pretty pathetic.
	I don't know, probably something like the March for Life would be cool, but you need money, you need substantial organization.
	I don't see that happening anytime soon.
	There's just no anti-porn infrastructure in the country as far as I'm concerned, nothing that's substantial, so...
	What's a good idea for anti-porn?
	I don't know.
	Zoomer Nationalist says, well, you got to form a pack first.
	Zoomer Nationalist says, got a new job and a new girlfriend.
	A lot of white pills lately.
	IRL 2019 is truly the year of the knicker.
	Well, congratulations!
	Two great things.
	Zoomer says, opinion on the Mueller probe?
	I generally ignore it because it's kind of just a low IQ media distraction.
	Yeah, me too.
	It should come to an end.
	It's kind of ridiculous.
	They said it would come to an end before the election and then they said it would come to an end immediately after the election and now it's February and it's been going on now for well over two years and just when is it going to stop?
	How much money?
	How much time?
	How many resources are going to be expended?
	They already found in all the major reports have been compiled by the House Committee, by the Senate Committee, they found there was no evidence of collusion so what's the holdup?
	It's obviously political but We'll see.
	I think the longer it goes on, the better, because the more it gets delegitimized.
	A123 says, thoughts on the Jordan Peterson dismantled video?
	I don't know what video you're talking about.
	Name Jeff says, perhaps.
	Okay.
	Rick says, is that 55 consecutive miles?
	No, I don't believe it is.
	I believe it's areas identified as having priority by Border Patrol.
	So it won't even be... that's a good question.
	Won't even be consecutive, I don't believe.
	JP says, what's up with these Nicas wanting to meet for coffee in Chicago and asking about JLP and EMJ?
	Retards, I tell you.
	By the way, I am in Chicago.
	Let's do lunch and we can brainstorm questions for E. Michael Jones when he comes on.
	Love the show.
	Well, thanks.
	Yeah, you gotta love that.
	Well, and I love I always talk about that and people to this day shoot me the email the message.
	Hey Nick, let's let's hang out.
	I appreciate it.
	I'm sure it comes from a good place.
	I don't want to neg the fans.
	I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but you've just got to understand the kind of position I'm in.
	When strangers message me off the internet and they're just like, hey, let's hang out.
	Do you understand why I might say, well, is that a great idea?
	Is that the best thing for me to be doing?
	I come on the air and I talk about Israel and I talk about all this other stuff and people are like, wow, great points about the most powerful lobby.
	Great critique about the most powerful lobby in the history of America.
	Let's hang out.
	Hi, you know nothing about me, but let's meet in person.
	Come out into a public place, and I will meet you there.
	And tell me your location and the time, and I will meet you there.
	Oh, yeah, that sounds like something that will be good for me.
	That sounds like a safe, secure option for me to undertake.
	And some people I know, and I know people I meet with them, you know, if I've known them for a year or whatever, but...
	Generally, it's like, what are you thinking?
	Cyrus says, did you watch Andrew Yang on Joe Rogan?
	Thoughts?
	No, I did not.
	A lot of people, do you watch this YouTube?
	No, I didn't watch that video.
	I don't watch the Joe Rogan show.
	Joshua Larson says, years ago I used to enjoy late night shows.
	I thought Jimmy Kimmel was okay and Craig Ferguson was the best.
	Now it's all far left, new male, bug humor.
	Sad.
	So true.
	Yeah, I used to like Jimmy Fallon, okay.
	But yeah, they're all pretty bad.
	I thought Jay Leno was sort of the best.
	I didn't like him when I was a kid, because I thought he was kind of cheesy and lame, but now I miss him.
	Now I think he was really one of the last great ones, because he was just... I mean, he was political, but when he was political, he was fair.
	would hit both sides and it was not about a political agenda.
	When he made a political joke, it was about a joke.
	You know, it was a topical joke.
	That's okay.
	It's okay to make jokes about politics if it's good.
	But now they just come out every night and it's like Stephen Colbert, the show is he just runs out and he might as well just be red in the face already sweating.
	So drunk today.
	I mean, it's crazy the way these people do it.
	Every time I see it in the YouTube recommended, it's just like, DRUMPF does this.
	DRUMPF, can you believe it?
	DRUMPF at it again.
	And it's always the same stuff.
	He's dumb.
	He's orange.
	He's a buffoon.
	He's owned by Russia.
	It's, like, for three years.
	If it was funny, I would say okay.
	But it's just not funny anymore.
	JP says, prayer vigil for Jussie Smollett.
	We stand with him.
	Yeah, so true.
	What a tragedy.
	I prefer Asian women says.
	Admit it.
	It was you and Liam Neeson.
	MAGA country.
	All right.
	All right.
	Yeah, Liam Neeson.
	He emailed me.
	He said, hey, let's meet up in Chicago.
	The one time I took a stranger up on the offer ended up being Liam Neeson.
	We got carried away.
	All right.
	We met up.
	We had burgers at 1 a.m.
	We were walking around.
unidentified		We were full.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We had just eaten the, uh, what are they called?
		The, uh, The slinger.
		We had just had the slinger and we were so full and sort of delirious and then we saw this guy and we said, all right, Liam Neeson, you got the bleach.
		I got my shoelaces.
		No, that's a joke.
		Of course, that's a joke.
		It is a great tragedy.
		Cyrus says breaking footage identifies the attacker as an Illinois Latinx Zoomer.
		He reportedly said this is MAGA country.
		Big guy before the attack.
		Big if true.
		JP says, if Lauren Rose wants to go to med school, all she has to do is change her name to Lourdes Rosa.
		That's good.
		Very true.
		Or something Asian, maybe.
		Lauren Chong.
unidentified		Hello.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, that would give her a harder time.
		I guess it's sort of different.
		That wouldn't give her a higher IQ, you know.
		That's how the Asians propel themselves.
		So, not that she's not, that's not what I'm implying.
		You get what I'm implying there.
		Elsa Oppo says, Trump needs to pardon Ted Kaczynski and run in 2024.
		Yeah, that'd be a good one.
		Jen Zesus says, I will send you $100 if you... Excuse me.
		I will send you... What's going on?
		I'm losing my voice here.
		I told you I'm feeling under the weather.
		People are abusing me in the comments and I'm sick.
		Do you understand the plight of the knicker?
		Jen Zesus says, I'll send you $100 if you tear down the green screen right now.
		Not gonna happen.
		Big guy.
		L Campion says, hey Zoomy, why don't you play a real game next stream?
		Quake.
		Now that was a classic, not the Zoomy Fortnite crap.
		Okay, so clearly some boomer has stumbled into the chat.
		Why don't you go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh on your radio, big guy?
		Why don't you go give your lesbian daughter a call and then listen to Rush Limbaugh on your recliner?
		How's that?
		How's that?
		Put that on for size, will ya?
		Nah, I'm joking.
		We love our boomers.
		I don't know Quake.
		I've never played Quake.
		But if you're counter-signaling Zoomers, you know what's gonna happen to you in 50 years when we take over.
		I prefer Asian women says why did Trump wait so long to start building the wall?
		I've talked about that at length.
		I think he tried to consolidate support in the party on the more establishment agenda items first and then pursue the more controversial ones later on.
		I think he was led to believe that'd be a good idea by the Congress and by his own personnel which was selected by the RNC during the transition in 2016 and 2017.
		That's my belief, why it took him so long.
		John Smith says, thoughts on Hungary's new pro-family laws.
		Let's see, I lost my place there.
		Women who are mothers who have four plus children are permanently tax-exempt based in Redfield.
		Yeah, very epic.
		Pro-NATO laws are great.
		We should have them in America.
		The only trouble is, if you passed a law that exempt mothers of four or more children from paying taxes, who do you think that would be?
		You think that would be a lot of white people?
unidentified		Do you think that would be a lot of people?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You know, or do you think that would be some of the new Americans?
		I think it'd be a lot of new Americans.
		I think they already get that.
		I think, I think there's a de facto, you know, no tax policy for people with four or more children.
		I think that already kind of exists, if you know what I'm saying.
		Wes Saxon says, yo Nicky, can I get an endorsement for Horrible History's nationalism?
		I don't know what that is.
		God's Plan says, wasn't Lincoln a pen pal of Marx?
		I don't know.
		But either way, you know, I don't know why all these people are So down on Marx, you know?
		Again, a lot of these same people say, oh, Marx was... Marx was actually epic, or were more Knosbel, or whatever, and then there's just, oh, Lincoln was a pen pal of Marx.
		I don't know.
		I mean, does that mean Lincoln was a Marxist?
		Clearly not, obviously.
		So I think it's a lot of... I think it's a lot of Dixie slander when people say that.
		You could say that the Rothschilds were bankrolling the Confederacy.
		I think that probably holds about the same amount of water as this other conspiracy crap.
		You know, the Confederacy was supported by foreign powers.
		Very interesting.
		James says, big guy, voting strategy for the primary?
		I don't know, the primaries don't start for another year, so we have no idea what it's gonna look like.
		So, we'll have to wait.
unidentified		True.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And yeah, things in the USA are going alright.
		They're going okay.
		Inner Heaven says, thoughts on Father Coughlin.
		Hope everything in the USA is going well.
		Father Coughlin, based in Red Pill.
		And yeah, things in the USA are going all right.
		They're going okay.
		We're living in Circus Planet, but that's all right.
		That guy with Pace says, thanks to you, I was able to rediscover my Catholic heritage.
		Found out that my grandma has a rosary for me that's been blessed by the Pope.
		So epic!
		Well, good to hear.
		Good to hear.
		Thanks for sharing.
		Future Gadget says, would love for you to read Father Dennis Fay's book, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, and discuss it on the show.
		from JMJ.
		Yes, send it to me.
		Send it to my P.O.
unidentified		box.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I'll check it out.
		John Smith says, Hungary's tax exempt laws for mothers also require a clean criminal record if you catch my drift.
		Oh, very good.
		Okay.
		Maybe if it was tied to marriage also, you have to be married.
		Then we could try it here.
		We got a few more.
		One from Zoomerage Mindset who says, Hey Nick, wanted to say that I grew up in a minority white area.
		My local high school is 20% white.
		I've seen 2050s America and it's not a good look.
		Lots of segregation and low social trust.
		Who would have thought?
		At least the tacos are good though.
		Yum.
		Yep.
		Yeah, people will be in for a rude awakening.
		They will wake up one day and it will not look like the country of their ancestors.
		And then they'll say, hey, maybe we were right.
		Or maybe not.
		not.
		Based1 says, hey Nick, who are your top five favorite rappers?
		Mine are Most Def, Andre 3000, Lupe Fiasco, Kanye and Kendrick Lamar.
		Blue Pill List.
		I would probably say my list would be Kanye West, of course, the greatest of all time.
		Then it would be...
		I guess you're talking about rappers as opposed to groups.
		So I would say it would be Kanye West.
		Then I would probably rank Buggin' Out from Tribe Called Quest.
		I don't think it really matters because I like all of them in Tribe Called Quest, but one of them, whether it be Fife or Buggin' Out, they would probably be up there.
		Uh, somebody from the Wu-Tang Clan, maybe a few from the Wu-Tang Clan.
		I think Jizza the Genius would be in there.
		I think, um, I think Raekwon would be in there, built for Cuban Lynx, part one and two, classic.
		No, I want a little bit of diversity in the list, so maybe, maybe one or two of those.
		Nas would be in there, uh, for certain.
		And then who would be number five?
		I guess there's only one from Wu-Tang, one from Tribe, Kanye, and then Nas.
		And then number five, I would say, would probably be... You know, I would have to say Chance the Rapper.
		I don't think he's a great rapper.
		I don't think he has a great discography yet.
		You know, he's not a great yet.
		But, you know, at a personal level, this is not, you know, the best of list.
		This is my personal favorites.
		I think maybe he would be in there.
		Because Acid Rap to me is just one of my favorite albums.
		Of all time.
		So, I think you would have to be in there.
		Because even like with Wu-Tang Clan, a lot of those guys, like Wu-Tang Clan as a group, they only really produced one classic album.
		And I know they all went on to produce their own classic albums in their own right.
		You know, you got a few good ones.
		You got Liquid Swords.
		You got, like I said, Built for Cuban Links.
		You know, so there's a few good ones.
		But a lot of the rap artists tend to be the one-hit wonders.
		Even with Nas, he had Illmatic.
		Did he really produce anything beyond that?
		Maybe, maybe Acid Rap is sufficient.
		Coloring Book was mediocre, but Acid Rap was really life-changing for me.
		Very solid album.
		I don't know though.
		Is there anybody I'm forgetting?
		I always tend to forget.
		You know, I'll tend to rediscover if I play my Spotify on Shuffle.
		If there's one I'm missing...
		I think Kendrick Lamar I like a lot.
	I don't know if I would put him in my top five.
	He would probably be number six, but he's right up there.
	But good question, good question.
	It looks like that's everything though.
	Or I'm sorry, there's one more.
	Inner Heaven says, by the way, watching The Young Pope on HBO.
	Highly recommend.
	I'll check that out.
	But it looks like that's everything.
	That's our show.
	Remember to check us out on nicholasjfwentys.com slash membership.
	Five bucks a month to become a premium subscriber.
	You get one additional show every week.
	So if you like the show, you want more of it.
	You get one more show per week if you're a premium member on Sunday.
	And everybody says that's their favorite episode of the week.
	So be sure to check that out.
	Only five dollars a month.
	And it's a great way to support the show.
	Subscribe to the channel.
	Give us a big thumbs up.
	Leave a comment below.
	Click the notification bell to be notified every time I go live.
	I'm on the air Monday through Friday, 7 p.m.
	Central, 8 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time.
	I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.
	As always, this is America First.
	Thank you guys for watching.
	Thanks to our Streamlabbers, Superchatters, Premium Members, everybody who watches the show, we love you folks, and we will see you tomorrow.
	Until then, have a great rest of your evening.
unidentified		Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo!
		It's going to be only America first.
		America first.
		The American people will come first once again.

▲