Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 19, 2019 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:34:05

Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek Debate Recap | America First Ep. 370

Participants

Main voices

nick fuentes

01:19:20

Appearances

Clips

alex jones

00:28

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		music Wall
		music music
		music music music music
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		music music music music
unidentified		music music music
		Thank you.
		wall.
		We'll be right back.
		We'll be right back.
		We'll be right back.
		We'll be right back.
		We'll be right back.
		We'll be right back.
		Bye.
		Thank you.
		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.
		With respect, the respect that we deserve.
		From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
		America first.
		The End
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Good evening everybody.
		You're watching America First.
		My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		We have a great show for you tonight.
		Very excited to be with you here on Friday.
		And wow, thank God it is Friday and the end of a long week.
		The end of a very long, slow news week.
		It has finally arrived.
		And also I should say the end of Holy Week, so I hope you're having a blessed Good Friday and hopefully a great Easter weekend or the beginning of Easter weekend.
		We are here at a later time tonight on Unordinary, out of the ordinary for us on the show, doing a show closer to 10 o'clock.
		Normally we're at 7 o'clock, but tonight we are recapping the debate between Slavoj Žižek and Jordan B. Peterson.
		You know, and I was a little bit conflicted about tonight's show.
		I was planning on just doing a regular show like I do Monday through Friday, right?
		Just the standard 7 o'clock current events sort of thing, but there's really nothing going on in the news and it dawned on me that this debate was happening tonight.
		It's been something that's been talked about for a long time.
		I feel like it's a couple of years in the making at this point.
		Pay-per-view event.
		So I figured if we can't do live commentary because it is a pay-per-view situation, then at the very least we could do a recap.
		I didn't anticipate it would have gone on for this long.
		Maybe I wouldn't have even decided to do a recap if I knew it was going to entail 150 minutes of Zizek and Peterson.
		You know, because wow, that was a lot.
		That was a lot to handle, a lot to watch.
		And I gotta tell you, like the last Half hour, 45 minutes.
		I'm just zoned out.
		I'm just bored.
		I want to get out of there.
		I want to get on with the show.
		But that is our topic for tonight, the big debate this evening.
		And I will start out just by saying how pretentious that they make it a pay-per-view event.
		I mean, understand, they sold tickets to the event to be there live, so they sell out the whole theater, wherever it's being held.
		I don't know what country it's being held in, I don't know what theater, but they sell out the whole theater Tickets to see it live.
		And that's not enough.
		Then the live stream of the debate, they have to have pay-per-view as well.
		They're asking people to pay $15 to watch it on this independent site, which doesn't even work!
		Which doesn't even work!
		I'm watching the debate.
		I paid my $15 and people say, Nick, why do you pay for these things?
		What are you some kind of nerd?
		You want to fund Jordan Peterson?
		Look, Number one, I like to pay for these things because if you can pay for it, I just feel like it's good and proper to do that.
		I appreciate order.
		If I want to commit to watching the stream, I want to watch it with no problems, no interruptions, no quality issues.
		You know, if it costs $15 to just be guaranteed that I'm watching the debate, I'll pay the $15.
		But aside from that, if I have to do the recap of the show, I have to make sure that I'm able to watch it, right?
		So I can't rely on, you know, a third party to host it because maybe they take the stream down or rely on...
		You know, whatever other unethical or illegal way you're trying to stream the debate, I have to know that I'm gonna be guaranteed that I can watch the whole thing uninterrupted, the highest quality, what everybody else is getting.
		Well, at least I thought that's why I'm paying for it, but I pay the $15 and it doesn't even work!
		I'm like 15 minutes into the debate and I have to refresh the page because it starts buffering a little bit.
		And then it's telling me 503 not found.
		So the whole website has crashed.
		And they sent me an email like 45 minutes into it.
		Oh, we've resolved the issue.
		Well, that really doesn't help me.
		Fortunately, I had some friends.
		They sent me a YouTube link.
		I was able to watch it illegally.
		And there was actually 13,000 people watching the illegal stream on YouTube as opposed to the not illegal.
		You understand, illicit.
		stream than the 7,500 or so people who actually paid the money.
		So I did end up watching it on YouTube, but I did just have to point out from the outset what a pretentious thing it is that they are even charging in the first place.
		Not to mention that it doesn't work, but that they're charging.
		Because you know that neither of these people need it.
		Zizek says he's donating his proceeds of the debate, not even just the live stream, but also the live debate, the ticket sales.
		He says he's donating his portion of charity, and Peterson, I guess, is just taking it with both hands.
	He doesn't have enough money, right?
	He was getting what?
	$60,000 a month on Patreon.
	It's just not enough.
	We got to sell pillows and t-shirts and carpets and books and self-authorship suites and personality tests and gee, you know, it really makes you think.
	Are you doing it?
unidentified		Hey man, are you doing it for the individual and the six million?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Are you doing it because you could sell the sound or you know, the image of music on a throw pillow and a carpet for a $300 markup because it's Jordan B Peterson website, right?
		So they're charging for the live stream.
		All right.
		So I pay the $15 and what we get is just, to me, really a disappointing display.
		This is where the interest is.
		This is what everybody's so excited about.
		This is the big intellectual sparring that people pay money to see and thousands of people watching.
		I will point out though, it is interesting.
		If you looked at the live audience for this debate, The bootleg stream that I was watching had 13,000 people.
		That was the max concurrent live audience.
		The live debate on their website had, I think, a max of about 7,500 concurrent viewers.
		So you put those two together, I imagine those are the two biggest Streams that are watching it.
		You had JF who had about a thousand viewers and I think there was another stream another thousand.
		So let's say you had the 2,000 plus the 7,000 plus the 13,000.
		What do you get?
		22,000 total concurrent viewers.
		The streams I'm aware of.
		The debate that I was on on TrainwrecksTV on Twitch had 28,000 views.
		28,000 views live concurrent the maximum at any given time so I just thought that was a little bit interesting you know that I guess with this one it was pay-per-view so maybe that makes it more substantial but just a little interesting nevertheless Peterson's obviously one of the biggest voices in the right right now G Žižek, one of the bigger voices in the left, or one of the most, I guess, idiosyncratic thinkers on the left, and maybe one of the most original.
		Definitely not the most famous, obviously, I don't think.
		So it's Žižek versus Peterson, and the debate was about happiness.
		Peterson coming from a capitalist perspective, and Žižek coming from a Marxist perspective.
		And right out of the gate, I have to tell you, the conversation is just totally misplaced.
		In 2019, what they talked about, the subject and what they actually ended up talking about, just to me seemed totally irrelevant to sort of arcane, out-of-step economic systems in the year 2019.
		It just felt totally out of place.
		The topics that were discussed, the dialectic that went on, I think was a little bit of a mismatch, but regardless, I didn't hear any issues that actually matter in this year.
		I didn't hear any Perspectives that are really fresh in this year.
		Zizek, there was some things which I think were a little bit closer to where we need to be, but there was no talk about demographics, no talk about populations, about peoples, about cultures, about Anything like that.
		The conversation was a very abstract academic debate about, you know, again, these economic systems, and Zizek was a little better than Peterson, but particularly listening to Peterson, it just struck me as totally, like, I felt like I was in a time machine going back to maybe five years ago, when the most important debate we could be having is about capitalism versus communism, and we're trotting out the talking points about how Well, the Millennium Development Goals from the United Nations shows that capitalism is making us richer.
		And we're talking about the Communist Manifesto and breaking down point by point, refuting axiomatic presuppositions of Marx and Engels.
		I feel like it's five years ago.
		It feels like it's 2011 before Black Lives Matter, before 2015, the immigration crisis in Europe, before The rise of Donald Trump!
		I felt like, you know, 2016 stuff is stale these days.
		2015-16 debate about libertarianism, Gamergate, culture downstream from politics, that feels stale now.
		And somehow this dialectic felt like it preceded even that.
		Felt like we were going back like 10 years.
		You know?
		So those are some of my original, or my initial thoughts to the debate, my general thoughts.
		But I'll go over And we'll review what was said, the format, some of the characters.
		So, for a little bit of background, this debate has been in the works for a long time.
		Jordan B. Peterson, he makes his money talking about Neo-Marxism.
		Postmodern Neo-Marxists.
		This is the boogeyman that Jordan Peterson likes to focus on.
		Postmodern Neo-Marxists in academia.
		And he explains this in the debate.
		He says that What has replaced the old school Marxists, the classical Marxists who believe in class struggle, is now this new, the neo-Marxists, intellectuals, academics, who have swapped out proletariat and bourgeoisie of an economic and class stripe.
		Now it's oppressor and oppressed of a cultural stripe.
		The cultural Marxists.
		The Neo-Marxists.
		Post-modern Neo-Marxists.
		And so I guess that's the genesis of this debate is Peterson taking aim at the modern left.
		I guess it's kind of antiquated, though, because the leftists that he's talking about are like 1970s leftists or, you know, 50s, 60s leftists.
		And Zizek, I suppose, has taken offense to this or has challenged this.
		Somebody who identifies as a contemporary Marxist.
		And so this has been in the works for a long time.
		They've been trying to set this up.
		They finally did it, obviously.
		And here we are today.
		And as I said, it's Peterson vs. Žižek.
		The moderator was Stephen Blackwood, who is some lame academic.
		He didn't really play a part in the debate, so I don't really feel like talking about him at all.
		He just kind of sat there and watched this whole thing.
		Žižek, for background, he's a little bit lesser known than Peterson.
		He's a Slovenian philosopher.
	He's got a doctorate in philosophy from Ljubljana University and a doctorate in psychoanalysis from the University of Paris.
	He's published more than three dozen books.
	He's done a documentary, I think, on Netflix.
	And he's best known for some of his idiosyncratic mannerisms.
	The sniffling, some expressions, and so on and so forth.
	Things like this.
	A very thick accent and speech impediment.
	So they sit down for a debate.
	The format goes... And the format was a disaster, I have to tell you.
	I think this is really why it was so problematic.
	They set out that Peterson and Zizek first get an introductory statement, an opening statement, which is 30 minutes long each!
	30 minutes long each!
	So they do that, and then there's room for a 10 minute rebuttal for each, and then they take questions.
	Questions, it's like a crosstalk, you know?
	Peterson asking Zizek questions, and Zizek asking Peterson questions, and then they field questions from the audience.
	They didn't actually get to any audience questions.
	It ended up being like, the opening statements, I guess they lasted 30 minutes.
	It felt like much longer to me.
	And then the rebuttals were about 10 minutes and then it was just this back and forth which is just totally disorganized and all over the place.
	The opening statements to me just felt like a total waste of time.
	Peterson's opening statement to me, I mean it was just every bit of a disaster that you could imagine.
	Number one, He's all over the place.
	He says, well, I came to this debate and how did I prepare?
	I read the Communist Manifesto.
	And I'm thinking already we're off the rails here.
	I mean, this is just totally not the conversation we need to be having.
	You know, if it's about happiness and it's capitalism versus communism, that's like the formal subject of the debate.
	I'm thinking like, Okay, maybe?
	I mean, even hearing these topics, I'm like, hello, 2011 department, we'd like our dialectic back, or maybe... I mean, even then, it was a little bit dated, right?
	I mean, I thought that was settled after the Cold War ended, so... But I'm thinking even then, you know, Peterson brings a little bit something new to the table, talking about cultural Marxism, and Zizek is, like I said, he's not totally a classical Marxist, he's more contemporary and...
	You know, we'll get into what he said and why that is.
	But then you got Peterson who says, well how did I prepare?
	I read the Communist Manifesto.
unidentified		Wow!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Fantastic!
		So it's gonna be one of those nights, right?
		It's gonna be another night basically with Charlie Kirk.
		It's gonna be a night with Milton Friedman or Ben Shapiro.
		You know, we're going all the way back.
		And so he says, I've got ten presuppositions in the Communist Manifesto that are made by Marx and Engels that I need to debunk.
		And I don't really want to go over all of them.
		It's pretty standard stuff, pretty conventional.
		A lot of people in live chat were saying this is like a sophomore in Poli Sci 101 deconstructing the Communist Manifesto.
		It's basically true.
		And people have pointed out, and if you're going to critique contemporary Marxism, you know, even if you're critiquing classical Marxism, you're probably going to want to look at Capital as opposed to the Communist Manifesto, which is more of a polemical work.
		You're going to want to read Capital.
		You're going to want to read, if it's a debate with Zizek, some more contemporary things.
		If the debate's about postmodern neo-Marxists, maybe you're going to read the cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School, or maybe postmodernists.
		So that we're critiquing the Communist Manifesto already, I'm like, wait a second, where are we?
		What are we doing here?
		What are we doing here?
		It just felt like a total waste of time.
		So, okay, we're sentenced to 30 minutes of talking about the Communist Manifesto.
		Peterson points out that Marx's claim that history is the history of class struggle and economic struggle is wrong for a variety of reasons.
		People are motivated by things other than class.
		Very profound.
		Hierarchical conflict is permanent, but it does not derive from capitalism or any economic system.
		It's intrinsic to our nature.
		Really groundbreaking stuff here.
		He says the class struggle is not binary.
		It's not simply between proletariats and bourgeoisie, but it's also, you know, it's complicated by the fact that the communists persecuted kulaks, who could not be defined neatly into one group or the other, because they were peasants, but they also had things, and they persecuted intellectuals and others, so it's more complicated than just these two groups.
		And then he goes into, this is my favorite, this is when I realized like it's gonna be a long night, is he starts talking about profit.
		Well Marx and Engels say that profit is theft, but actually profit is good, because profit is a great thing to economize on scarce resources.
		And I'm summarizing here, I'm sort of condensing it.
		But at this point I'm thinking like, so we're really not even engaging with Marxism really not even engaging with leftism.
		It's just this like Consequentialist idea of okay.
		Well, you're saying profit is theft but actually profit is good because it creates televisions and other things and and then I feel like okay, it really is just the worst possible amalgamation of The American right in the past three decades.
		It is just trotting out and retreading all the same neoliberal type stuff.
		We're not really engaging here.
		Marx admits that capitalism is very efficient and produces a lot of wealth.
unidentified		Wow!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Like wow!
		We are really reaching here.
		I'm so glad we're really pushing ourselves.
		I feel like a smart person watching this.
		Jordan Peterson is using big words and I am a smart person who understands the big words.
		We're all so smart.
		We're all sitting here, oh wow, and this, they're selling the tickets for this intellectual debate for more money than the sports contest.
		Aren't we so smart?
unidentified		We're so smart, everybody, and we're talking about big ideas.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I'm just like, please just spare me.
		Can we just end it already, you know?
		So 30 minutes of this kind of stuff, he finishes off with his Really, you know, earth-shattering critique of the Communist Manifesto, finally then to transition then to a defensive capitalism.
		He says, okay, the debate is about communism, happiness and capitalism, how they're all interacting with one another.
		He says, okay.
		So, I've basically relegated communism to the dustbin of history because, uh, did you know the class struggle?
		There's other struggles in life, too.
		Game over, Marxists!
		And look, not like I'm a Marxist, but it's kind of flimsy, right?
		So he says, alright, I've finished off Karl Marx.
		That's finished.
		Now I'm going to defend capitalism.
		How does he defend the free market?
		Well, he trots out the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.
		And he talks about, well, if you look at the absolute standard of poverty that the United Nations sets in the year 2000, the people living in absolute poverty has been halved in just 12 years.
		Three years ahead of schedule.
		People are getting richer.
		Things are being produced.
		And, you know, isn't that great?
		Which, you know, this may seem like, I don't know, Like it's trite or whatever, but of course the problem with this analysis of capitalism is nobody is critiquing capitalism from the perspective of material abundance.
		That's not the critique, right?
		So, and it's funny because at once he even acknowledges, he himself even acknowledges, that Karl Marx 150 years ago, 170 years ago, Admits in Communist Manifesto.
		Yes, capitalism produces the most material abundance out of any other economic system.
		But yet he feels the need anyway to say, well, my defense for capitalism is that it creates material abundance.
		Well, nobody's really disputing that.
		You know, even myself, I guess I identify as a capitalist.
		I believe there should be capital privately held and there should be markets, right?
		So, I guess that makes me a capitalist.
		But even as somebody who's critical of capitalism as a capitalist, it does not come from the perspective of there's the shortage of goods, right?
		It doesn't come from the perspective of in absolute terms it produces the greatest volume of material wealth.
		The critique is, of course, about social considerations, cultural considerations, even political considerations.
		We're talking about stability.
		You know, economic inequality might not be bad in itself as an example, but it is a political problem.
		You know, in theory, there's nothing wrong with that.
		But in practice, it can create a lot of problems.
		Which you could say, well, economic inequality is justified because it's all the free market rewards merit.
		Well, why don't you explain that to people when, you know, they're poor and Jeff Bezos, like, owns the moon or whatever, and people decide to start killing rich people.
		And then, you know, the whole society turns upside down.
		It really doesn't matter if it's merit or it's justified or whatever.
		You understand if he gets political problems.
		That's the critique.
		So Jordan Peterson going into this and the opening statement is bashing the Communist Manifesto and then trotting out the UN Millennium Development Goals.
		It just feels like if that's the consideration, if that's the topic, we've all already lost a debate.
		Like, understand, if we're talking about who won the debate, was it Zizek?
		Was it Peterson?
		It doesn't really matter.
		We all lost, if in 2019, the most at the American rider, the West East Canadian.
		The most that the Anglo right-wing, the Anglosphere's right-wing can offer up is this milquetoast bashing of classical communism and a defense of capitalism on these very material grounds.
		It's like we're all already doomed.
		We're not asking the right questions, let alone answering them.
		I'm already blackmailed.
		I'm already checked out.
		I was talking about the Communist Manifesto when I was in 7th grade.
		I was trying to grapple with that stuff.
		Okay, so that's Peterson.
		Very disappointing, but not at all surprising.
		Zizek comes up.
		He's reading from a script, which was unfortunate.
		It's already difficult to understand him.
		He is a smart person, so it's dense what he's saying.
		There's the thick accent, and then we're reading from the script, so it's very fast.
		But it just seemed to me to be all over the place.
		Very unfocused about the actual debate here.
		Not really.
	Maybe I'm just a mindless consumer that the introductory statement, which is 30 minutes long, is not neatly organized and sort of drawing clean conclusions.
	It seemed to me a little bit all over the place.
	He talked about initially China talking about how the marriage of the authoritarian state and the free market is actually a very scary thing because it's very effective.
	There's no real sign of it stopping and it's basically producing misery.
	Even though people are doing better, they're not really happy.
	He says, and this is one of the most important aspects of Zizek's argument, and to me, I think this is probably a lot closer to where we need to be than Peterson is, he attacks the concept of happiness itself.
	If the debate is about what generates happiness, is it communism or capitalism, and this is the critique for Peterson, when Peterson says, well, capitalism produces happiness because look at all the stuff it produces, Zizek comes at it and attacks the axiom of happiness being desirable in itself.
	He says, well, what is the nature of happiness?
	What we think we want.
	He says, as a psychoanalyst, I know that what we think we want or what we tell ourselves we want is often the opposite of what we want.
	It's something that we don't really want.
	And maybe the worst thing that could happen to people is they get what they think they desire.
	And so maybe we have to attack that fundamental premise to maybe understand why capitalism, although it produces material things, might not be producing this byproduct of Satisfaction or happiness or whatever.
	So I thought that was a very important point to make.
	It's something we talk about a lot on this show and again addresses the more fundamental question of the future, which is not what is the institution or the system that's gonna make the most gadgets and trinkets and widgets, but what's gonna make people feel fulfilled.
	So I thought that was important.
	He talked about the burden of modernity being freedom itself, saying that, well, maybe people are miserable because they have choice, which is, again, sort of a reactionary point, actually, something that I tend to agree with, something we tend to talk about in the show.
	You know, the idea that maybe freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.
	From his perspective, though, it sounded like he was actually, he kind of did like freedom.
	He said that In the real quest for happiness, what we need is not necessarily pleasure, but a cause, a struggle.
	And in modern times, our struggle is the freedom itself.
	We do away with authoritarians who tell us what to do.
	That's not coming back.
	So now our burden, now our cause, is to decide what our duty, what our obligation is, what we're actually going to do with our choices, and I couldn't really interpret whether he said this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is an important question, and it is something that we talk about in this show, so I thought that was good.
	He then got into some Fedora-tier stuff about Dostoevsky saying, without God everything is permitted, and he goes, Doesn't nod to Sam Harris and says, well 9-11 happened and that means that God says everything is permitted.
	You know, it's sort of turning the old expression on its head.
	so I thought that was a little bit cringe and maybe reminds us why Zizek is funny and likable and charming and has some good ideas in contrast to progressives you know normal conventional left liberals or people like Jordan Peterson but why not really gonna get us to the promised land right and he talks about some other things then and this was sort of interesting he did bring up immigration and actually brought up Hitler and the Jewish question and some other things
	the first time we're talking about these issues and Zizek is the one to bring it up and he says that in terms of the modern crisis of immigration he says that yes I will fully acknowledge that immigrants bring problems but the real problems are being caused by capitalism and And we're just projecting onto immigrants because it is clashing with our narrative.
	It's basically causing dissonance with the story we tell ourselves about ourselves.
	And he compared it to Hitler.
	The problem is not necessarily the Nazi ideology of blaming Jews in the sense that if you're looking at what their reasons are, you're already missing the point.
	The real problem is the pathological need for a scapegoat, an outsider, to blame for internal divisions, which contradicts their conception of the German Volk as unified.
	You understand why you're kind of putting the cart before the horse when you're talking about the manifestations of it as opposed to the pathological need for that character in the story, comparing that to immigrants today, which is, again, very blue-pilled.
	Again, very blue-pilled.
	I don't know how one can at once acknowledge the problems of immigrants, but at the same time say, well, no, but the real problems are caused by capitalism.
	I suppose he fleshes that out a little bit more towards the end, which we'll get to, which is actually sort of interesting and fresh.
	And I think that's why people like Zizek more than Peterson.
	Not necessarily that they agree with his conclusions, but at the very least, it seems like a more realistic, a more fresh engagement with what's actually happening as opposed to talking points from Free to Choose from 1980, right?
	So he talks about that.
	He discusses the cultural Marxism myth, which he's actually correct about.
	He says that people like Jordan Peterson talk about the Cultural Marxists.
	And this is not just Jordan Peterson, by the way.
	There's a lot of people.
	People like Benjamin Shapiro, among others.
	What is a scapegoat for why America has degenerated morally and why all these things have gone awry?
	It's because of the Frankfurt School.
unidentified		You see?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And this is a myth that they tell everybody.
		is in the Frankfurt School.
		There were all these Jewish social theorists.
		They got chased out of Nazi Germany because they were communists and they were Jewish.
		They came to Columbia University in America, where they were informally called the Frankfurt School, but they were actually the School of Social Research or something like that.
		And this is where they divorced Marxism from economics and married it to culture.
		And so all this intersectional stuff about feminism, indigenous rights, and anti-racism, and so on and so forth.
		Palestinian?
		Interesting how that fits in there, right?
		Very important asterisk for people that know the relevant facts.
		All these different movements, all these intersectional attacks on traditional American society are part of this grand cultural Marxist conspiracy theory.
		It all originates from, you know, these postmodern intellectuals.
		And Jizhek makes a very good point that this is sort of a scapegoat here.
		If you look at how America's morals have degenerated, it actually has a lot more to do with capitalism than it has to do with a bunch of Jewish intellectuals in New York City, which is 100% correct.
		That's what people like Charlie Kirk want to avoid.
		Which is the fact that they at once preach conservative traditional family values, but at the same time embrace a system which is the most disruptive, destructive, transformative force in the history of mankind, which is the free market and technological progress.
		So N'Jijic didn't exactly get all the way there on that, but you know, that's basically correct and it's an important point to make.
		He said, a very insightful point as well, that Donald Trump is the ultimate postmodern president because he's somebody who He'll tell you the story about the traditional values, but he's a very vulgar and obscene person.
		And people at once buy into this story, this narrative of, we are for traditional values, sort of, like, in theory.
		We pretend that we are for this.
		But at the same time, the embrace of it is just simply not there if we're electing somebody who has all these personal contradictions with it, right?
		In his manners, in his personal life, and so on.
		So that was good.
		That was interesting.
		He talks about how in the society today if the question is capitalism versus communism and where we are on that spectrum in terms of hierarchy versus egalitarianism, in terms of structure versus equality.
		He says, you know, are we really concerned that we're drifting too far towards egalitarianism today?
		And, you know, people are laughing in the audience.
		Kind of true.
		He says even somebody like Bernie Sanders gets out there, who's relatively moderate compared to Zizek, with some of the more conventional left-wing proposals like free health care, free education, and so on.
		And he's decried as a communist, and there's this big reaction to him in the media.
		And he's even a pariah in his own party until very recently.
		So a valid point.
		And then finally gets to some of the bigger problems with capitalism, which is this new world order, which is sort of dystopian where, I know you've got, he gives the example of what's happening in the Congo, or what's happening in Yemen, where we can live like we live in America, because somewhere else in the world it's where we can live like we live in America, because somewhere else in the world it's very regressive, And the capitalist system is basically outsourcing the misery and these problems to other countries.
		And beyond that, we're sort of headed for this apocalyptic future, where we'll be destroyed by ecological disaster, or transhumanism and technology sort of causing problems with humanity, or corporations getting too much power.
		Basically, there are a variety of challenges we face, which are global, which are sort of, I guess, existential in nature as human beings, which the market cannot regulate.
		And that's the final pitch, which is he's really not even a communist.
		I'm really not even a Marxist.
		What he's saying is we need a regulated market.
		We need more government power.
		We need to oversee what's happening here because it's sort of gone out of control.
		And so with Zizek's introduction, you know, you have a lot of points there, which I don't think we necessarily agree with all the way.
		The conclusions, the stuff about God, some of the other things.
		But at the very least, there is this engagement, like, okay, we're living in the same planet here.
		You've got this guy over here talking about a book that is 170 years old, which inspired a revolution
		60 years after was written that had seen its empire rise and then fall 30 years ago and like he's debunking that book So it's ancient basically in modern terms and then talking about how you know Oh, well China's GDP is through the roof India's GDP is through the roof So you're on another planet over here like you're living in academic world where that means anything and at least Zizek seems to have kind of a more realistic understanding of things so That was the introductions.
		I thought Zizek's was better than Peterson's.
		They get into the rebuttals and it gets very messy here with the rebuttals.
		Let me take a look here.
		I actually, I combined my notes from yesterday's show here.
		I have something about the special counsel.
		I was a little bit confusing.
		He talks about how capitalism is not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've discovered so far.
		This is Peterson's rebuttal.
		Like Churchill said, democracy is a terrible system, but it's the best one we've discovered so far.
		And to me, I find this logic sort of problematic because it tends to sort of overlook A lot of the problems that are intrinsic in it you know anybody that could look at this country today and say that just because certain economic indicators are looking up and very specific economic indicators very cherry-picked data has a green arrow upward things like the stock market or this like global poverty or whatever That everything's peaches and there's nothing wrong.
		There's nothing we do to solve it.
		Identity politics is bad and so on.
		You're kind of like missing the point there, right?
		So I look at something like that.
		It's just sort of tone-deaf, very out of touch.
		Well, yeah, capitalism sucks.
		Hey, you know, I hear you.
		You're poor and you're miserable and the entire interior of the country is being hollowed out and destroyed and literally killing itself and there's a drug epidemic worse than the Vietnam War.
		Yeah, that's pretty bad, but you know what?
	The rest of it's pretty damn good compared to what we had before.
	I don't know.
	I feel like we could go back 50 years and it was a little bit better.
	You know, minus some social things or cultural things.
	Technological progress wasn't where it was, but generally I think the society economically is better off back then than it is now, right?
	So, seems like a cop-out.
	He also says that Zizek isn't really advancing communism.
	He's only attacking capitalism and the definition of happiness.
	To me, that seems kind of fair.
	I think that seems kind of fair that that would be the rebuttal, right?
	Why is it problematic that we would attack capitalism, attack the definition of happiness when that is what is hegemonic at this point.
	Isn't it a little bit unfair to suggest that Zizek has to not only contend with this hegemonic power of this neoliberal new world order that Peterson is defending, but also now I have to offer this viable alternative?
	I think it's fair in itself to just say, hey, we've got some problems here.
	So the rebuttal wasn't very substantive in my opinion.
	Zizek comes back with some talk about how very interesting talk about how you look at a country like Czechoslovakia in the late Cold War where it was relatively, they had relative prosperity and relative freedom.
	And because of this was basically, it was basically happy, maybe more happy than a Western democracy because, you know, it was good enough, but there was also room for a reasonable amount of strife where you could blame the government for your problems, things like this.
	And And he really posits that his main concern, aside from that, is the marriage of the state and the markets, like he described in China.
	Now, after this debate, to me, just sort of degenerated into this just garbled, unfocused discussion, just a lot of babbling.
	You know, just a lot of babbling.
	Once it gets into the back and forth between Peterson and Zizek, it's just like, we're both really smart and we're talking about Chesterton on the cross and some of these other things and I just felt really unfocused and again, just not really getting at what the fundamental issues were.
	At that point, I'm basically tuning out.
	Nobody's really grappling with, again, like I said at the outset, the real problems of the society today, which really has nothing to do with economic systems.
	You know, I think the questions that are being asked are all wrong.
	And every time Zizek would come up with some sort of substantive idea or coherent worldview about happiness or who we are as people or, you know, greater meta-narrative about the civilization and where we are, I think Peterson would kind of degrade it and bring it back down to, you know, this tried neoliberalism, individualist-type talking points.
	So, I can't say that it was really a fantastic debate.
	Sparks really didn't fly so much, and it was actually interesting how much they had in common.
	Once they really started to talk to each other, we look at some of the most fundamental assumptions about, like, equality, for example, which were just totally agreed upon.
	Like, I feel like it's ironic that I'm considered, or, you know, people in the alt-right or whatever, the dissonant right, are considered, like, either extreme right or right-wing people say we're the extreme left.
	Excuse me.
	We would probably have less in common than Peterson and Zizek together.
	Because Zizek and Peterson together both agree basically that we like democracy, and we like material prosperity, and we like equality, and we believe everybody's basically biologically equal, and we believe that all groups can live together in harmony, and all this other stuff.
	Basically, they are 100% on the same page about secularism, about modernism, they're on the same page about equality, they're on the same page about multiculturalism.
	Like, they're on the same page about all the fundamental issues.
	What is really the difference?
	The degree to which the government should intervene in the economy?
	Is that even really a debate?
	It wasn't a debate.
	And Zizek said at the outset, well, I don't want this to be a competition.
	I don't want it to be, we're trying to discover truth.
	But really, where was the disagreement?
	I can't find it.
	It was just like, wow, you're really smart.
	No, you're really smart.
	And again, just disagreement on these fundamental premises.
	You could see somebody get up there who's maybe a traditionalist Catholic reactionary, somebody like myself, who obviously a lot less educated than people who are holding degrees and maybe with less sophisticated words and so on, but there's a lot more disagreement.
	Somebody who actually, actually believes in God.
	Somebody who actually believes in natural law.
	Somebody who maybe rejects modernism and post-modernism.
	Somebody who rejects this idea of fundamental equality or liberty as a concept or democracy So it's just sort of confusing that these are supposed to be, it was pitched as these diametric opposites.
	You know, this Slovenian who comes from Eastern Europe and he's a communist versus this classical right liberal Canadian guy and it's the battle of the century and so on.
	And it seemed like there was a lot more overlap and agreement than anything else.
	Even Zizek is sort of conceding, okay, capitalism's okay and all I really want is a little bit of regulation and maybe like universal or global government action or United Nations action.
	Didn't really seem like there was much contradiction.
	Whereas, you know, Peterson will have that debate with him, but not have that debate with somebody where there is fundamental disagreement on those core issues.
	Which, you know, I think you would see sparks flying and actual contentions as opposed to, you know, just sort of clarifying misconceptions and adjusting, you know, moving the goalposts and things.
	So overall the debate was Painful to listen to, frankly.
	You know, one more annoying than the other.
	Zizek is just... he's charming, but it's just hard to understand.
	And then Peterson, just annoying to no end with things we've all heard before.
	And the issue is just totally out of place for where we are in 2019.
	So...
	I want my $15 back.
	I wasn't even able to watch it on the correct website.
	I want my money back.
	I wasn't satisfied.
	And it just goes to show, like, we've got a long way to go.
	If that's where the Overton window is, if that's, and I think that they're not totally representative of it, but if that's our, like, headlining debate of all these yuppies and whatever, All getting excited about their little intellectual political discussion.
	It's like damn, we got a long way to go if that's still relevant and everything else.
	We can really use proper dissent against neoliberalism because I didn't really hear it from either side.
	I didn't really hear anything all that revolutionary, all that crazy.
	So, very disappointing.
	Very boring.
	These debates are very boring.
	You know, all this academic-type talk.
	But we're gonna take a look and we'll see what some of our Streamlabs and Superchats are.
	We'll see how you guys are reacting, what you guys thought.
	I wish I had more thoughts for you on this, but honestly, what more is there to be said on this debate which is about two ancient economic ideologies which are... just have no place in this century.
	You know, like I said, think about debating the Communist Manifesto in 2019.
	Communist Manifesto was written in what?
unidentified		1850? 1849?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		So it's written by a German intellectual who's on the fringe.
		It doesn't really make a dent where it's written, but it does 70 years later.
		So it's written in 1849, 1850.
		70 years later, it influences a political movement to the extent that you have a proper revolution, then you have a five-year civil war, then you have the installation of this ideology, becomes the governing ideology of one of the world's biggest countries, the world's biggest country.
		It turns into an empire.
		Eastern Europe, Central Asia, spreads across the globe.
		It rises to this great peak where it almost challenges America, and then falls, ultimately collapses.
		So that's the span of, what, 70 years?
		The rise and fall of the Soviet Union.
		And then from 1990 to 2019, where we are today, it's another 30 years.
		So think about all the time.
		Like, you've seen the entire lifespan of that ideology, and that's the book that we're Critiquing that's what we're I'm supposed to give like a really reason and like I just don't understand how that's the thing that we're focusing on.
		You know you see all these problems happening in the country today with immigration, trade, foreign policy, Donald Trump getting into office.
		What does that have to do with what Karl Marx said about the proletariat in 1850?
		And even Zizek wasn't even talking about that.
		So it's like you're dumb for thinking that we were gonna go in and talk about that and then Zizek coming in you know again I think he was a little bit closer to the point there but Again, no discussion about race.
unidentified		Hello?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No discussion about race.
		It's about capitalism?
		I just don't understand.
		The election of Donald Trump, the most significant political event to happen in the Western world, which is like the world, right?
		Maybe it's the most significant event to happen in the world, maybe since 9-11, or the 2008 recession, but maybe since 9-11.
		The most game-changing event.
		If you look at what it influenced and these greater trends that are happening, which is populism, which is happening across the globe, it's happening in India.
		It's happening in Japan, it's happening in Europe, it's happening in the Middle East in different forms, it's happening in Latin America, Lopez Obrador, Bolsonaro, and so on.
		So, the election of Trump, and what was that about?
		Was that about economics?
		I mean, to an extent, it played a part, but what was really the narrative behind Donald Trump?
		What was really the implicit messaging?
		Make America Great Again, the voter base, Hillary Clinton coming up against him.
		I mean, obviously, what's the elephant in the room here?
		And the same is true in Europe.
		What brought Salvini to power in Italy?
		Yeah, certainly some of it was economic discontent.
		And yeah, Brexit, sure, some of it was about economics.
		But what has been going on since 2015?
		The migrant crisis.
		The demographic transformation of these countries.
		The movement of peoples.
		And so yeah, Zizek makes an interesting point about how maybe that's, you know, refugees and immigration is caused by the economic structure.
		Well, that's an interesting point to be made, but not even to say about the very nature of race and where we are.
		I just felt like it was totally missing the point.
		Just very, very, very big wasted opportunity.
		So...
		Anyway, we're gonna take a look.
		Am I all the way up here?
		There we go.
		We're gonna take a look at our super chats and like I said, we'll see what you guys are saying about this.
		Mr. Who What says, what's good Nick?
		Grew up in Hinsdale.
		LT is trash.
		Disavow.
		High school rivalry stuff.
		That's a little bit of a throwback.
		Grew up in Hinsdale.
		Well, I'm surprised you survived.
		You're one of the lucky few didn't die of overdose or something.
		That's okay.
		I assume you're doing well because of your parents' money.
		That's fine.
		David Sperner says left-wingers be like iHeartMuslims.
		Neocons be like iHeartJews.
		Knickers be Pontius Pilate offered the Pharisees and the Jewish people to release Jesus multiple times, but they condemned him to death.
		That is what we say.
		That is what we say.
		Basketball says, Destiny, America is not a Christian country.
		Wall Street, we're closed for Good Friday.
		Nick, thank you for making content.
		Happy Easter, brother.
		Hey, thanks.
		Happy Easter to you, too.
		Nick Spence says, Christian Zionism is based in Judeo pills.
		Yeah, good comments.
		Samon says, uh, April 19th, 2018.
		Ethan Ralph says, we'll see who's doing better in a year.
		Gunt got knifed.
		I don't know what that means.
		Well, yeah, me and Ethan Ralph did make a wager last year.
		and we were not really friendly with one another about who would still be relevant one year from that date in 2018.
		And since then, I said it doesn't really matter because we're friends now, so who really cares?
		But I don't know.
	I have been paying attention so much.
	I don't watch his streams very often, so I don't even know who's got a bigger audience.
	Who's got more subscribers?
	It's not really matter.
	It doesn't really matter to me, rather.
	Denal says, Judeo-Christian.
	Yep.
	Nick Spence says, can I get a big Israel first?
	Knickers.
	It's so, I just, this will never get old.
	People coming into the chat and saying things like Judeo-Christian or Israel first.
	You know just and just saying that alone.
	It's still funny, and it's still hot.
	It's still edgy I love I could do this forever.
	I could hear the same things until the end of time you know for a hundred years Dan Dees is going through some tough times the show helps keep me sane and smiling on a nightly basis despite the chaos Thanks, big guy much appreciated keep fighting a good fight.
unidentified		Well.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, man.
		Glad to hear glad you're enjoying the content Hope everything is well.
		Oh, you're talking about, uh, is it Joe Biden, I think, who has the 420 birthday?
		Or maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.
		is a certain gamer's birthday.
		God bless.
		Oh, you're talking about, is it Joe Biden, I think, who has the 420 birthday?
		Or maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.
		But yeah, congratulations on the baptism.
		Very good to hear.
		Very good to hear.
		Yeah, both Zizek and Peterson talk about how Christ was an atheist on the cross.
		seems satanic and sacrilegious.
		Anyway, God bless you, Nick.
		Have a happy Easter.
		Yeah, Bolzizek and Peterson talk about how Christ was an atheist on the cross.
		That seems a little bit difficult to stomach, and especially on Good Friday, right?
		I mean son of God becomes an atheist I don't know who is also God himself.
		I don't know if that's the correct interpretation Primogen says no slipping out of this one Nick gun against your head.
		Who would you?
		Who would you?
		interact with britney pettibone or lauren southern probably lauren southern you want to know why because lauren southern didn't unfollow me during the trad thought wars okay so uh probably lauren southern and uh and i'll just leave it at that I don't wanna, I don't wanna get into it right now.
		Nick Spence says, uh, thank you big guy for bringing me closer to the Judeo-Christian truth.
		Please only spend this donation on Israeli imported products.
		Not to worry, my friend.
		Israeli only.
		Nothing but the most Jewish products with these SuperChad dollars.
		Beth Berry says, we appreciate your sacrifice, Nick.
		Happy Easter.
		Hey, thanks.
		Happy Easter to you too.
		Glad somebody appreciates.
		It's always, Nick, you're not doing this.
		Nick, you're not doing that.
		So I'm glad people are counting up the sacrifices that are being made.
		You know, Party Guy busting my balls.
		You didn't give up anything for Lent.
		I gave up my life for Lent, okay?
		How's that?
		How's that?
		I gave up my life for the movement.
		What else do I have to give?
		You want a kidney?
		You want my spleen?
		Then I'm gonna give up for Lent, right?
		A glass of Coke?
		I can't even have that?
		Lemmy says, hey Nick, I'm flying to South Africa shortly.
		How do I maximize my getting carjacked experience?
		It's it's still funny, dude.
		Omar says Zizek blamed global migration on capitalism.
		He touched on demographics.
		Peterson didn't touch it.
		Yeah, and I said that.
		He blames it on capitalism.
		So like I said, Zizek is a lot closer.
		He's engaging with the, you know, what's really happening in the world, even if we disagree at the conclusion.
		So I did appreciate that.
		Virtos is the third way, Knicker.
		Theocracy.
		Science.
		God.
		Ethno.
		Yeah, okay.
	Burger Fan says, just 10 minutes of listening to Saliva Guy.
	Excuse me, and I had a tummy ache.
	Still gotta respect these intellectual titans debating these controversial ideas.
	Yeah, very hot.
	I'm surprised they weren't shut down, you know, for debating communism.
	Surprised the government didn't break in and shut them down, right?
	It's a very controversial subject these days.
	George Henry says, Nick, you critique Jordan Peterson, you are a SJW.
unidentified		Yeah, big if true.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Doom Marine says, Big Nick, they usually play classic movies on TV on Easter like Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind, and Spartacus.
		Have you seen those?
		Uh, no.
		No, I think I saw Gone with the Wind when I was younger, but haven't seen Ben-Hur or Spartacus.
		Tyrone says, Nick, what would you tell someone who really wants to believe in God, but just can't get over scientific arguments?
		I'm trying hard, but I can't flip.
		What scientific arguments?
		Science is the dumbest thing in the world to me.
		All these people who believe in... Well, number one, they believe it's mutually exclusive.
		It's not mutually exclusive, right?
		You're just... Your thinking is all wrong.
		You know, there's the physical sciences and there's the science of metaphysics, which is just different.
		But people have come to regard the physical sciences as the only sciences, right?
		So, so that's problem number one.
		But beyond that, if it did come down to some sort of debate between the physical sciences and the metaphysical, where is the debate to be had?
		You know, look at, look at what, and this is not, I hope you don't interpret this as a God of the gaps argument, because it isn't.
		But look at how many things, simple things, and how many things science simply has no explanation for.
		And to say that you would put your faith in the scientific argument, like, what does that even mean?
		But what does that even mean?
		Science cannot explain consciousness.
		Science cannot explain the origin of life.
		I mean, the most fundamental questions, we're not even close to an answer there.
		So I don't know what, what arguments are you talking about?
		You know, as though it's the scientific explanation for these things versus the divine.
		I don't, I don't find a scientific explanation for those things.
		So, uh, you're not, you're not really trying, you know, and I've, uh, I've heard this a lot from atheists.
		I try to believe in God, but I just can't.
		Well, have you read Aquinas?
		Have you read Augustine?
		And that's not an appeal to authority.
		Just read Aquinas.
		But it is to say, if you're not reading the smartest people who have made the best arguments and have stood the test of time, can you say you're really trying to arrive at an understanding?
		Probably not.
		Moreover, if it's of a metaphysical nature, why would you try to find it in the physical sciences, right?
		C.S.
		Lewis creates the analogy of trying to find Shakespeare inside his plays.
		You know, trying to read Macbeth, for example, and where is William Shakespeare?
		William Shakespeare doesn't exist because he's not a character in this play.
		Well, he designed, he wrote the play, right?
		So it's a little bit different how you're supposed to find that.
		So the way that I think about it, is that it really wouldn't make a whole lot of sense without a creator.
		I just think about it in terms of design.
		I think about it in terms of meaning and morality.
		Like I said, I really didn't come to God because I read the Summa Theologica and I was just so moved by the logic of it that I was like, oh.
		And I never was touched by God or anything like that.
		But I just thought to myself, would it really make sense in the absence of a creator It just doesn't seem, you know, just seem very logical to me that we would be implanted with some sort of an appetite for spiritual communion or for meaning or for morality or for order or these things.
		If there wasn't something to satiate that, you know?
		Why would we be these rational beings who need that if it wasn't there, right?
		It just wouldn't... It just doesn't really make sense.
		I don't think you can make sense of the civilization outside of design, outside of that kind of...
		So I don't know if I'm articulating it well enough, but that's my advice to you.
		Ron Sun says, hey, bud, I really like capitalism.
		It's the only ideology that allows you to buy a TV, Blu-ray player, and all 17 seasons of Family Guy for only $300.
		Yeah, you're right.
		You're right about that.
		The meaning of happiness.
		I'm surprised Peterson didn't use that one, right?
		Kevin says, gay communist Puerto Rican who claims to be Italian.
		How are you not Bronx blogger again exactly?
		I'm not Puerto Rican communist or gay.
		What are you talking about?
		Are you talking about Bronx blogger?
		And anyway, Puerto Rican.
		Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are enemies.
	Puerto Rican.
	How dare you?
	I'm more offended you call me Puerto Rican than gay.
	Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are eternal enemies and everybody knows that.
	And I'm not a communist.
	So I don't know, I don't know where you're getting all of your information here.
	Dan D, maybe it's a Jordan Peterson stan coming at me.
	Dan D says, I went to a Mises event recently for a nostalgia sake and I like the Contra Krugman guys and the Mises Institute is becoming more anti-immigrant.
	Hopeful, but who knows?
	I don't know.
	you know i i used to be a big mises guy back when i was in like high school and i was very much into the austrian economics type stuff but um it's just i don't know the libertarian stuff isn't sufficient for what we need this autistic worship of the market and it's just not there right it's uh and i don't know All these questions about religion, libertarianism, do we really want to spend 20 minutes talking about why that's not sufficient?
	So yeah, it's good they're becoming more anti-immigrant, but I don't think that's going anywhere.
	Dallas says, Nick, you have been granted the access to a two-minute propaganda segment on a McDonald's restaurant TV.
	What would you say to the Mac masses?
	What would I say to the Mac masses?
	Hmm, that's a good question.
	I'd say watch America first, Monday through Friday, seven o'clock central time.
	YouTube Explorer says this guy gets it.
	It's true.
	Blue Force says, when can we expect President Blumpf outro to be changed?
	Very blue pilling, big fan of yours.
	And what will the future look like in 30 years?
	I don't know man, nobody knows.
	And when's the Blumpf outro gonna be changed?
	I don't know.
	You know, my music guy keeps shining me on, telling me, oh, design an outro, I'll design music for you.
	So, uh, maybe I gotta pay him.
	Maybe I gotta pay him or something.
	Donald Trump says, thank you, Nick.
	Very cool.
	Thanks, Donald.
	Blue Force says, very woke background there, Nick.
	Why pick that one?
	Uh, what are you talking about?
	Andrew Scott with a big super chat.
	Thank you very much.
	He says, I long for the day when evo-psych, evolutionary psychology, develops completely and communism eternally BTFO'd.
	The government will use complex mathematics and a perfect understanding of biological determinism to place us all in our destined role and we never have to hear these debates again.
	Yeah, that'll be the day, right?
	I can't wait until Neuralink happens and we're all just part of the hive mind, right?
	We're all just Transhuman consumption units.
	That'll be the day.
	I think that's the utopia we can look forward to, right?
	Thank you, Jordan Peterson.
	And thank you for the big super chat, Andrew.
	Kryptos is working out as gay and scientists are retarded.
	Agreed, 100%.
	Talk about somebody who gets it.
	Blue Force says, what's your opinion on Rouge V?
	He's trying to turn hoes into trad women.
	Red-pilled position.
	Also, I agree.
	Stay out of the gym.
	I like Rouge.
	I think he's funny, and I think he's red-pilled.
	So he's cool.
	He's, you know, obviously lives a very hedonistic lifestyle, but, you know, whatever.
	I know a lot of people live hedonistic lifestyles that I disagree with, so he's funny.
	He entertains me, and he's smart enough.
	He gets all the relevant facts.
	Now, turning whores into trad women, It seems to me like a fool's errand, but you know, very noble that he's trying.
	You know, God bless him.
	I would never try to do something like that.
	You know, getting married, could you imagine the stakes?
	No way, but hey, good for him.
	Omar says Ted saw the contradiction between capitalism and morality.
	Yeah, that's where I got it from as well.
	George Henry says, Nick, haven't read my super chat yet.
	Scared?
	Yeah.
	George Henry says, Nick, heard of the steamed ham's mean answer now?
	Yeah, I've heard of it.
	Blue4 says, do you eat much Italian food, Centurion, Roman, Nick?
	No, no, I don't.
	Really fantastic Super Chats by the way tonight.
	Really great content.
	John Doe says, I'd rather give this money to you than pay for the debate.
	Thanks for the recap and keep it up big guy.
	Well, would you rather give money because you gave me 10 and the debate costs 15?
	I'm just busting your chops.
	Thank you for the Super Chat.
	Thanks for the kind words.
	Elston says, can't believe you gave me the knife on Twitter.
	I'll miss your hot takes.
	Still a knicker at heart.
	What did I block ya?
	Well, you probably deserved it.
	But yeah, you can still watch the show and all that.
	So, you know, you're not totally missing out.
	Whoops, I scrolled down too far there.
	Unholy says, the most respected intellectual in the American right is a Jewish liberal academic.
	We are doomed.
unidentified		Yep.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Pack it up, folks.
		Game over.
		Edward Bernays says the conscious and intelligent manipulation of organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society.
		I'm Jewish, by the way.
		Have a great day, Nick.
		Hey, thanks.
		Good to know.
		Good little tidbit of information there.
		You know, I'm sure that is not a relevant fact in our day-to-day.
		Josh Sayre with a big super chat.
		Hey, thanks so much.
		He says happy Easter big guy.
		Hope you have a great one.
		God bless.
		Insert stale meme joke.
		Yeah.
		Well, thank you so much.
		Hope your Easter is blessed as well.
		He is risen, right?
		That's the reason for the season.
		That was the dumbest part of the whole debate.
		What was the closing statement even about?
		the power of conversations beep beep boop boop audience and moderator literally in hysteric tears and roaring applause that was the the dumbest part of the whole debate what was the closing statement even about it was you know conversations are good just to end me already Just end it already.
		Just the whole... I want nuclear war.
		I was praying that India and Pakistan would have just blown up the whole planet.
		You know, at the end of two and a half hours about communist manifestos...
unidentified		Talking to each other really means a lot, you guys.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, come on, man.
		I just want something to happen.
		I want something huge to happen just to prove that something still can happen.
		Do you know what I mean by that?
		Because it feels like every time something happens, nothing really happens.
		Every time we see a major event, major thing, it just never really plays out.
		It's just always the same.
		The house always wins.
		So every time there's a happening I'm just like rooting for it to just go as big and bad as possible.
		I'm like yes!
		Just crank it up 10 times higher and just let's just hope the dominoes can't start to fall because it feels like nothing can happen anymore.
		It feels like Obviously we're not in control, and whoever's in control has such a tight grip that nothing's really moving.
		You know, and when nothing's moving, nothing's changing.
		There's no opportunity.
		So, that's where I'm at.
		Oh, we're talking.
		We're having great conversations.
		Tell that to American Renaissance, right?
		Tell that to all the people that have been silenced and shut down talking about great conversations.
		Yeah, okay, Shabbos Goy.
		Makes me so mad.
		It's a planet, man.
		It's a planet.
		I'm not hopeful for it.
		I'm logistic.
		I'm pessimistic.
		Gotta get out of here.
		I'm gonna go live on an island somewhere.
		I don't know.
		Because it's, uh, you know.
		Maybe that's just the way things have always been.
		Who knows, right?
		SoCal Mike says JP is the authority on conservatism now.
		Chill.
		Okay, well this guy's just a retard.
		I see this guy on Twitter.
		I see this guy in the comments.
		You're just blocked.
		Did I say JP is the authority on conservatism, or did I say he's representative of where the Overton window is for a lot of people?
		Just... Look, if you're stupid, don't watch the show.
		Don't watch the show.
		I'll take your money, and then I'll ban you, but just don't watch the show.
		It just makes me angry.
unidentified		Oh, so Peterson's an authority on conservatism?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, you're a show.
		Oh, well you're obviously retarded, because you don't understand what's being said.
		Goofy.
		Just these people, man.
		This SoCal Mike guy, too, even on Twitter, he's always shucking and jiving for orange blumpf.
		Yeah, okay, you're the authority on true conservatism, right?
		Samos is happy Easter from the Chicago suburbs.
		Hey, all the same to you.
		Waffle says all human ideas are old.
		Oh, here we go.
		Even most of the baggaging, it may be new at a glance, but all that is also very old.
		For communism and Marxism, there was the politics of envy.
		Okay, but you understand the premise here, right?
		Was Peterson talking about the politics of envy, or was he talking about The presuppositions Marx and Engels are making in the Communist Manifesto.
		Because talking about the binary between bourgeoisie and proletariat doesn't strike me as getting at the fundamental nature of the politics of envy.
		It strikes me as deriving 100% from a 200 or 170 year old... What is the math on that?
		170 year old political text, which is totally irrelevant right now.
		And even still, it's irrelevant.
		When we're talking about rapid demographic change.
		Really?
		We're talking about Marxism?
		I don't think anybody's pushing classical Marxism.
		I think people are pushing socialism, a variety of other things.
		You're just dumb, dude.
		Just dumb.
		JP says you could have been a basketball player, a real good one, since you're 6'9 and 2% black, but you sacrificed to red pill us NICAs and put up with our obnoxious superchats.
		You're like that grumpy grandpa I never had.
		So thank you, love the show.
		Well thank you man, you're right.
		I could have been a big star, could have been a big basketball guy.
		With my height, with my frame, 6'9", 2% black.
		I mean, the opportunities were endless, making millions.
		But you're right, I gave it all up so I could be this cranky, this cranky, anti-social... What is the word?
		What is the word for somebody who doesn't like people?
		What's the word I'm thinking of?
		You know the word I'm thinking of.
		It's a...
unidentified		What's the word?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What is the word I'm thinking of?
		Somebody who does it, it's uh... I don't know, maybe it'll come to me.
		You know, when you try to think of it too hard, it just, it always evades you.
		Maybe I'll look in the live chat.
		Misanthrope!
		That's what I was thinking of.
		I'm a cranky, anti-social misanthrope.
		Is that how you pronounce it?
		You understand.
		So, uh, well yeah, I gave it all up to do this, right?
		Uh, let's see.
		Nick X says, the most important part of this was Zizek reminding us all of the forgotten wisdom of Heinrich Himmler.
		Disavow!
		Disavow.
		I disavow this.
		Uh, KC says, to me it seemed like Zizek showed up to try and explain his positions in the hopes of converting people, while JP actually wanted to debate.
		Accurate!
		I think you're right.
		Because his opening statement wasn't really about capitalism and communism and happiness.
		It was just kind of an overview of Zizekism.
		So I think you're right about that.
		Reshi says mulatto from Switzerland reporting in.
		Also got a bit of Italian DNA.
		We Afro-Italians have to stick together and stop Jewish people from building the third temple.
		That's true.
		That's true.
		Well, hey, thank you so much for the super chat.
		Mulatto, mulatto.
		Hello yikes department.
		No, I'm joking.
		That's all right.
		We love, we love mulattos.
		We love Swiss.
		And Italians as well.
		So glad to have you and we are working together to stop these people from ending the world, right?
		Devoured says Judeo-Christian never forget the Judeo Crusades.
		Yeah, very true.
		SV says peepee poopoo.
		Thank you.
		Flat Horizons says Nick is a fellow Chicago lander.
		What's your thoughts on the decline of Gary, Indiana and the white flight due to the decline in our steel mills?
		Uh, you think the white flight was due to the steel mills?
		I don't know, man.
		I don't know.
		I'm not a... I'm in the Chicagoland area.
		I'm not really in the city of Chicago.
		I'm in Gary, Indiana.
		I don't really know anything about that.
		What are my thoughts on the decline of... As a fellow Chicagolander, what are your thoughts on Gary, Indiana?
		What?
		I don't know.
		I've never even been to Gary, Indiana.
		And white flight due to the decline of the steel mills.
		Yeah, I don't know if that was the cause of it, frankly.
		So uh look Chicago is a great city it's just going downhill very quickly for obvious reasons we all know um and the good thing is there are still a lot of good neighborhoods you can live in it's very segregated so you know I think that's why you know in some places you're afforded even a A pretty nice standard of living.
		Architecture's great.
		The view from the lake is beautiful.
		It's a great city, but I don't think it's got very long.
		Waldor says, JC said, why have you forsaken me father?
		Yeah, but he wasn't an atheist, right?
		George Henry says, Nick, go into more detail with what you said at 4352.
unidentified		No.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		David Morse's my name is Nick pronounced with a umpty yo ladies oh how I like to hump thee and all the rappers in the tent please allow me to bump thee okay thank you for that uh blue four says got any white pills whoops scroll down too far there where was I Here he is.
		Got any white pills today, Nick?
		Can Trump salvage his presidency?
		Getting a bit torn between having kids and clown worlds or abstaining?
		Your thoughts?
		If you need white pills, don't have kids.
		You're not strong enough.
		If you need to be this little baby, please tell me it's gonna be okay.
		Don't have kids.
		You're not strong enough.
		We need strong people to rebuild the society, not little babies.
		What is this mentality?
		I would never in a million years go on a stream and be like, tell me it's good.
		Could you have any white pills?
		Can you tell me it's gonna be okay?
		Can't you just man up?
		Can't you just be a man?
		Can you just be a man?
		Give me white pills.
		You think anybody in history was like, you know, dying from plague or getting shot or stabbed or, you know, horrible things that go on and they go to this, can you give me a white pill, man?
		Can you tell me the sunny side of this?
		Like, just grow up, dude.
		Come on, the white pill is, you're a man, be a man, alright?
		There's no white pills in life.
		The white pill is, if you die, you get to go to heaven.
		That's the white pill.
		The white pill is, well, it's not the worst thing that can happen to you, but uh, you know, if we fail, or if we get to a certain point, we could die and go to heaven, and that's your white pill.
		That's a very good white pill.
		You get to meet God, you get to have the uh, What are they called?
		The beatific vision.
		Face to face with God.
		Eternal life at his right side.
		That's a pretty big white pill, right?
		So that's not to say, remember, if you kill yourself, you don't go there.
		Remember?
		If you kill yourself or you do bad things, you don't go there.
		That's the white pill.
		That's the only white pill in life.
		That's the only white pill in life.
		There are no other white pills.
		Everything else has an expiration date.
		Everything else has an expiration date, except for that.
		So, your white pill is the grace of God and eternal life.
		Everything else goes away, and it's very tragic.
		That's the nature of life here, right?
		So, this white pill, white pill.
		What kind of white pill do you want?
		We're all gonna die.
		Everything's gonna go away eventually.
		The white pill is, eventually, you know, you get to be somewhere else.
		So, there's your white pill.
		Are you happy?
		Are you happy for your Easter white pill?
		Okay.
		Jacob Seal says, Nicky Boy, do you want me to make you a Yang tune?
		I got somebody working on it.
		It's just taking a little longer than normal, but thank you.
		I do appreciate the offer.
		I got somebody commissioned to do it.
		It's just, uh, I had to make the original.
		So he's committed to doing it, but it's just, uh, it's just one of those things, I guess, you know.
		Francois says, have you heard about the Israeli-Chinese-American joint 5G project?
		No, I haven't heard of this.
		No, no, no, no, no.
	Happy Easter, I think you mean.
unidentified		No.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Not until just now, I guess.
		Is that what it is?
		I don't know.
		Yeah, okay.
		Hey, Nick, has anyone called you Salad Fingers?
		No, not until just now, I guess.
		What, because I have big hands?
		Is that what it is?
		I don't know.
		George Henry says, Nick had to block you on Twitter.
		Yeah, okay.
		Big loss.
		Temple Drake says, I love it when Fuentes slaps us around and talks dirty.
		It's what it is with the Super Chatters, really.
		They like that.
		No, but they like it.
		You know, people who aren't familiar with the dynamic I have with the Super Chatters, they would seize that and they'd be like, what are you doing?
		He's terrible.
		And I'm like, no, no.
		They like it.
		Nick, what are you doing?
		Raising your hand to the Super Chatters.
		Hey, relax.
		They like it.
		They like it, though.
		It's what it is.
		It's a dynamic.
		Everybody knows, you know.
		You like it, I like it.
		Let's not hold any illusions about what's going on here, right?
		No, joking!
		Joking, of course.
		It's all jokes.
		Epididymis says, hey gamers, here is a epic life hack for you.
		Stop buying products that have a barcode that starts with the number 729.
		This number is anti-gamer.
		I don't know what that means.
		Hokie says, I can't see my genitals anymore, but I really love McDonald's.
		What should I do?
		Is this anti-McDonald's propaganda?
		Because that's what it sounds like.
		Just eat less.
		Dippets says, how can we flush out the dual citizens in Congress?
		It's not going to happen.
		So, uh, you know, who cares?
		Unholy says, by the way, Nick, thank you for working hard and putting on a great show every night.
		Plus extra really brightens my life.
		Keep it up.
		Much love, big guy.
		Hey, thank.
		Hey, thank you.
		Much love to you, too.
		Finally, some words of appreciation.
		It's always pee pee poo poo this and all this other crap.
		So, thank you for a little appreciation posting.
		Finally, I get... the devil gets his due, huh?
		Finally, I get a little credit here, right?
		All this free money and, you know, finally somebody give me a little credit for once.
		Onflove says, wish you would have been able to pass over that debate.
		Yeah, that's a good one.
		True.
		WestSaxon says, mashallah, the Islamo-white juche revolution will rid the world of these dumb intellectuals.
		Happy Easter!
		Saturday, as well, from an Aussie knicker.
	Hey, happy Saturday to you as well.
	Yeah, Islamo Juche White Revolution.
	I think that's the last hope, right?
	EcoFash says, should we start calling you Grandpa Nick Crotchety?
	Nah, I don't know about that.
	I'm a Zoomer.
	I'm young.
	I'm not Grandpa.
	I'm just, I'm just antisocial.
	Denal says, aggressive... Oh, yikes, Devarman.
	He says, aggressive Moulin Yan genes are showing themselves tonight.
	Hey, we don't use that word.
	All right, relax.
	We don't use that word anymore.
	Disavow.
	Disavow.
	That's the M word for us Italians.
	Can't say mullignan on the show.
	It's bad.
	Disavow.
	I'm not a mullignan anyway, so... 2% mullignan.
	I'm joking!
	Charlie says, I need your help with an NYT crossword puzzle.
	Clue is phrase on Nick Fuentes show.
	Twelve letters, second and third are both E. Eighth and ninth letters are both O. I'm not, I'm not, I can't do it.
	PA says, uh, how to convince the average simple person about complex arguments for God's existence.
	Why would you try and convince an average person about God's existence?
	I don't understand.
	It just seems futile.
	Like, in what context is that, like, an appropriate thing to do, you know?
	I don't know, I guess if you're an evangelist or something, but I can't imagine going up to my friends and being like, let's have a serious conversation about God.
	It feels like today if you're not on our team, there's just not a lot of hope for bringing people over, right?
	So I don't think anybody's gonna make the arguments.
	It's like you turn on people who can make the arguments, which is books, content, whatever.
	But it just seems like if you're not getting it in 2019, you're just not getting it.
	I don't know if that's, maybe I'm too black-pilled on that, but How do you convince a simple person about complex arguments for God's existence?
	Why would you need to convince them of complex arguments?
	Convince them of simple arguments.
	If they're average and simple, why would you go complex?
	Come on, man.
	Use your head.
	Use your head.
	Hey, simple person.
	I'm gonna... Well, you simplify it, obviously.
	Right?
	Or you just use a simple argument.
	Elsie says, Greetings from one of the few Catholic Zoomers up in Iceland.
	My husband introduced me to you and I'm finally catching it live to donate.
	I hope the best for America and our people.
	Happy Easter.
	Well, thanks so much.
	Glad you could catch it live.
	And good to hear from a Catholic Zoomer.
unidentified		Wow.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Based in Redpill.
		Hanging out in Iceland.
		I have been thinking about maybe moving to Iceland once a Democrat gets into office because you don't have an extradition treaty with America, but I hear that you guys help out America lately, so I don't know.
		So I don't know, maybe that's not in the cards.
		I'll have to settle for Libya or Venezuela or something, but hoping the best for Iceland as well.
		Happy Easter to you too.
		John Doe says, went to church today, really wholesome day.
		Quick reminder that Jewish people killed Jesus Christ.
		Well, good to hear that you went to church.
		Factually, I cannot disagree with what you just said.
		You know, people might say that's problematic, but I don't know.
		I'm reading the same gospel everybody else is.
		It's kind of clear what went down.
		So factually, it's hard to disagree with this.
		Free helicopter rides as we live in a society.
		That's true.
		Very, very profound point there.
		Count Dracula, do you think white people in Europe will ever chimp out?
		They already are.
		Yellow vests, hello?
		Samantha says, would you ever move to LA?
		I would literally never move to LA no matter what because California is going into the ocean as punishment for homosexuality and degeneracy and everybody knows that.
		Megaquake is coming.
		Everyone says I'm crazy now.
		They're not gonna think I'm crazy when they're in a pile of rubble or they're drowning in the ocean or they're on fire or something because it is going into the ocean.
		How many earthquakes have we seen in the last two years?
		A lot more than usual.
		So I don't trust it.
		I don't trust it one second.
		I don't want to spend any more time in LA for that very reason.
		And I never wanted to go to LA.
		I've been there a few times.
		I've been there twice on vacation.
		Once a long time ago and once a couple years ago, but I you know, I would never move there for a variety of reasons, but that's a big one.
		You know, you've got the diversity, you've got the traffic, high cost of living, parking, there's a lot of problems there.
		But chief among them is the fact that it's built on a fault line.
		Hello?
		So, no way.
		King of All Trades says, I'm sick.
		I'm a sick man.
		A mean man.
		There's nothing attractive about me.
		I think there's something wrong with my liver.
		Yeah, yeah.
		Very relatable.
		Very relatable.
		That's from... I know what that's from.
		George Henry says, Nick, live chatters are making fun of me.
		Ban them.
		No way, dude.
		Anon says, Superchatters need a firm hand to discipline us.
		Yeah, it's true.
		SoCal Mike is back.
		He says, I meant JP was a shill in general.
		Comments.
		Sorry, bro.
		All right.
		No, my apologies to you.
		I'm sorry, actually.
		I will issue a rare apology.
		I'm sorry.
		I misinterpreted what you said.
		He said, Jordan Peterson's a spokesman for conservatism.
		What a shill.
	I thought you were talking about me.
	Okay, that's my bad.
	Little hot tonight.
	I'm a little hot today.
	It was a heated gamer moment.
	My apologies.
	My apologies.
	Didn't mean to get all riled up there for no reason, but I jumped to conclusions, so I hope you do accept.
	George Henry says, Nick, join forces with me or you are my rival.
	Okay, this is just garbage.
	You're just polluting the show with this garbage.
	George Henry says, Nick, ban this guy.
	Okay.
	Anon says Jesus was referencing Psalm 22.
	Chat is stupid.
	True.
	I'm not gonna wade into the theological debate.
	But it looks like that's all our Super Chats and we've been live for an hour and a half.
	Wow.
	So I think that's gonna do it for us tonight.
	That's our show.
	Oh we got one more actually.
	KCM says I'm gonna take my load to the border road.
	I'm gonna drive till I can't no more.
	I got the illegals in the back.
	Ice team's been dispatched.
	Got my smugglers hat and a fat wall to match.
	That's hilarious dude.
unidentified		He took the song lyrics and he made him based in Redfield.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Whoa!
		No, thank you though.
		We appreciate that.
		Very clever.
		That's the only thing that's going to stop neocons, by the way.
		Neocons, Trotskyites.
		What has to be the answer?
		Stalinist reactionaries, of course.
		I always knew Stalin was based.
		George Henry says, Nick, why do you think I'm stupid?
		Answer, okay.
		All right, that's our last Super Chat.
		That's gonna do it for us tonight on the show.
		I'm tired.
		It's 11 o'clock.
		I gotta get to bed.
		So that's gonna do it for us.
		Remember to check out nicholasjfuences.com slash membership to get your premium membership.
		This show is 100% viewer funded.
		We don't get sponsorships.
		We don't get advertisers, anything like that.
		I've turned people down because we want to keep it independent and strong.
		No outside foreign influence.
		So be sure to subscribe to our premium membership.
		It's the best way to support the show.
		And you get one additional show every week on Sunday.
		The Sunday show, which everybody loves.
		And it's always on time.
		That's the best part about it.
		So be sure to check that out.
		The link is down below.
		Remember to subscribe to the channel.
		Give us a big thumbs up.
		Leave a comment down below.
		Click the notification bell to get notified every time I go live.
		Remember, we're on the air Monday through Friday, 7 p.m.
		Central, 8 p.m.
		Eastern Standard Time.
		I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		As always, thank you guys for watching.
		Thanks to our Super Chatters.
		Thanks to our Premium Members.
		Everybody who watches the show, we love you folks, and we will see you tomorrow.
		No, I'm sorry.
		Tomorrow's Saturday.
		We will see you on Monday.
		Until then, have a great weekend, have a great Easter, and have a great rest of your evening.
		We will see you Monday.
		Take it easy.
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.
		America first!

▲