Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2022 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:59:34

UKRAINE WAR DEBATE: Fuentes vs Counterpoints | America First Ep. 991UKRAINE WAR DEBATE: Fuentes vs Counterpoints | America First Ep. 991

Participants

Main voices

@counterpointspol

01:00:59

nick fuentes

46:48

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		natural inclination to resist China, should we be encouraging them towards liberalism?
		Should we be encouraging them towards mixed economy, capitalism, this, that, the other?
		Or do we just say, fuck it, you know, like you're in their sphere of influence, you're gonna win eventually anyways, and the material are gonna outweigh the moral, so fuck it.
		And here's my thing, dealing with your side, you know, just viewing some content, There, you know, there has been praise for China in the past, whereas some of these things I view as, like, absolutely contradictory to the United States.
		And by that, I mean, like, just look at the way that they're managing COVID.
		They're literally, like, basically locking down people into a tiny city.
		They're killing their animals in order to have zero COVID.
		You know, they're basically, they have, like, what do you call it?
		Like the surveillance state?
		You think the surveillance states of the United States is fucking bad.
		They basically don't even give a shit.
		They're just like, yep, this is what we're doing.
		Fuck you.
		Social credit.
		So that's where, from my perspective, with the acknowledgement of the tripolar world, or the quadpolar world, okay, fine.
		That's the bent of history.
		But does it matter what we advocate for?
		And is liberalism the best system to advocate for globally?
		And I suspect that you would say no.
		And that's kind of the real contestation.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so then I guess the question, the problem is this, the problem is I am ultimately a realist, and I think that we can talk about We can compare the systems and say, you know, liberal democracy versus whatever the Chinese have, if you want to call that a mixed economy, a market socialist or state capitalist or something.
		But the reality is Chinese power.
		The reality is Russian and Chinese power.
		And China will not be a liberal country anytime soon.
		Russia will not be a liberal country anytime soon.
		It's just not in the character of that nation.
		It's interesting to hear you say that.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking you what you want.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What do I want?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I want a Christian empire, is what I want.
		I would like to see the United States continue.
		I would like to see American primacy, but I would like to see, you talk about moral, I would like to see real morality which proceeds from God and which proceeds from Christianity.
		So I would like to see something like U.S.
		primacy, an alliance with Europe, an alliance with Russia.
		You called out a posse.
		That's Richard Haass coined that term in Watchful Sheriff, I believe.
		A posse between, yeah, Christendom, the Russian, and Sam Huntington, when he broke down Clash of Civilizations.
		He said, you have the Orthodox civilization, you have the so-called Western civilization.
		I think the natural alliance would be between the Orthodox and the Western civilization against Sinaic and Muslim civilization, or you could use the Richard Haass lingo and say that's a posse, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United States, AUKUS, you know.
		So I would like to see them pushing Christianity.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So, okay, so let's just assume this for a second, because I'm going to try to understand your worldview, and then I'm going to try to come up with the challenges that face it, okay?
		So I would basically say that there's a lot of things going for it, which is Central America, South America, and North America are Christian-descended colonial states that all have a history of Christendom.
		So they all have that history.
		Europe as a whole has that history, and Russia as a whole has that history, if you're talking about an alliance between the Orthodox and the Catholic, and God help me, Protestants, right?
		The problem is that at the core of this imperium is the story of Christ, and it seems like with every passing decade we're getting more secular, more hedonistic, more nihilistic, moving away from the message, and it seems that with technology and mass culture and internationalism or globalism, whatever you want to call it,
		It seems like the opportunity for this kind of national or identifiable revival, for it to be literally like an L-shaped empire on top of the world, is... I don't know how you would achieve a Christian revival in the United States, a Christian revival in Europe, get people to see this as a cooperative opportunity, and recreate the Christendom empire.
		I just...
		Do you see the, if I, if you're a doomer about liberalists or liberal empire, how can you be optimistic about Christian empire?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think the case of the Soviet Union is instructive.
		The Soviet Union was an atheistic pariah state for nearly a century.
		And they promulgated atheism and communism throughout the world, Bolshevism for, you know, the better part of the last century.
		And what has emerged is not... I'm under no illusions about Russia.
		You know, some people have wrongly attributed this idea to me that I support Putin because Russia's based and trad, and I recognize that it's not really those things.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Have you seen their sweet military church?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Because it's pretty cool looking.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I have.
		It is very cool.
		I do like the Orthodox churches.
		But when you look at Vladimir Putin, who is, you could say, the new emperor, I mean, just like they had a czar and then they had a general secretary, now they've got their president.
		We all know functionally what that is.
		It's the old Cesaro papism, right?
		It's the old, not perfectly, but it's the old sort of strongman leader.
		He is bringing back the Orthodox Christian Church.
		And certainly that is supplanting, if the mythology of communism is what animated the Soviet Union, if that was their sort of Founding idea.
		Orthodox Christianity and sort of Russian Empire is the new mythology of the federal Russian state.
		And so I actually don't think it's so outlandish to say that there would be a Christian revival in America and that that would not form the basis.
		Because here's the thing.
		I think that the liberal premise of America is really the thing that's falling apart in the wake of multiracialism, in the wake of technology and wealth inequality.
		I think it's actually liberalism which is the ideology that's failing.
		If I were to look at the systems, if we were to look at it morally between China and the United States and Russia, Which system would have the most longevity?
		When I look at the BLM, Tranny, you know, nightmare country run by Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, compared to China, which has Confucianism and has this idea of like Chinese Han ethnic supremacy, and again the Russian Orthodox Church, I would definitely put it on the latter two things, as opposed to our fledgling system.
		I think that Um, there isn't even really a, uh, there's not even really like a Western canon anymore.
		What's the canon?
		Malcolm X?
		And, uh, Elie Wiesel?
		I mean, this is not, this is not a canon that forms the basis of a great empire.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So, um... The, uh, yeah, so this is interesting.
		Uh, the, this...
		Part of the structural problem with liberalism is that it doesn't have a lot of like moral prescriptions, right?
		It's like a syncretist worldview in which you can incorporate anybody under their belief structure as long as they adhere to liberalism, as long as they pay their taxes, as long as they agree to like the little charter of human rights that we have.
		But I do agree, not only do I agree with this charter of human rights, but I actually think it's quite powerful.
		If you look at the cultural narrative of, I think you could just as easily say Germany.
		They had a strong core.
		They had fascism.
		They had Christianity co-opted by the state.
		They had political corporatism and a narrative that allowed them to reach out into their world and create their imperial state.
		We can get into like the historical whatever, but basically what happened is a bunch of disparate, disunified, broken, culturally bankrupt, whatever the fuck you want to call them, countries didn't want to get pushed around.
		They came together under a single banner of fuck Germany and they kicked them right in the teeth.
		And that's also what I kind of see in Russia right now, where you have countries that were previously completely anti-NATO that are getting ready.
		Germany is actually funding its military.
		Sweden and Finland are actually like thinking about joining NATO and taking votes and considering it.
		And this was something that wasn't even considered a few years ago.
		Also, when it comes to Ukraine, you can say this negatively or positively.
		The amount of money and weapons that poured into Ukraine from Western Europe and from the Western world, I.
		I think that that really sustained the Ukrainian Armed Forces to fight battles that we didn't expect them to fight.
		I think we expected, I expected them to capitulate.
		I thought that they were going to fall apart in two weeks and they're still fighting right now.
		So that's where I'm saying like the Western Empire, while disunified narratively, and that's something that I want to kind of like challenge and fix, the actual Material wealth is there, and then it seems like when there's a crisis, we come together.
		And so that's where, for me, the cultural unity doesn't mean much if it's a dogshit culture.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I would say that I would disagree about your characterization of World War II, that everybody got together to kick the shit nuggets out of the Nazis.
		I don't think that's actually how it happened, because you had Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy, and you had, was it Austria-Hungary was with them?
		They actually had a lot going for them, I think.
		Germany took over the entire continent.
		They took over Africa.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		And if they just... Then what happened?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, then, of course, they attacked the Soviet Union.
		And that was their mistake.
		And they got their nightmare coalition of Russia, France, the UK, America.
		But, if Japan... Well, because remember, the United States declares war on Japan, and Nazi Germany declares war on the United States.
		If the United States was kept out of the war, and if the Soviet Union were kept out of the war, we would have had a German, fascist Europe.
		We would have had an imperial, Japanese Asia.
		It would have been a totally different world, but there were a couple of key things that happened there.
		And not that that would be a good thing, that would be a horrible thing.
unidentified		I'm not saying that like I want that.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I don't want that.
		I wanted Moscow and London to win.
		I love the Jews and Moscow.
		Rob Childs in London!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I can tell, yeah.
		Okay.
		Alright, so let me ask you a real question, because this is something that's been, like, fucking crawled in the back of my head for a really long time.
		Alright, based...
		Orthodox, Western, Christian, Imperium, across the Western world, etc, etc.
		We follow our own cultural narrative, maybe because race isn't nothing but it's not everything.
		There's a bunch of parallel European colonialist societies in the Americas that all have their distinct cultures and parallel moves going forward, but they're all unified into this broader Christian and Imperium or whatever.
		Let's say this is the ideal.
		Then, so I think, okay, whatever, Christian monarchism or Christian, not even really like theocracy, because, I mean, obviously you could achieve these things within, like, a republic that was just heavily Christian that had Christian values.
		So you wouldn't have to completely overturn the system.
		But there is a, what I would say, if I was to boil fascism down, which we all know is bad, you know, disavow, disavow, blah, blah, blah.
		Yeah, so political, so I view fascism as two key tenets, which is political corporatism and flexible authoritarianism.
		What I mean by political corporatism is just treating the nation as a body, identifying the parts that are hurting, identify the parts that feel good, basically using the parts that feel good in order to heal the parts that are weak, and to try to create a healthy, happy, regenerative society over time.
		I actually have no problem with political corporatism.
		I think that it's how most nation states operated throughout history.
		And I think it's a useful tool to evaluate the health of a society and try to fix social ills.
		So I'm completely cool with political corporatism.
		Where I get lost is the flexible authoritarianism basically saying, like, the rules that we create for ourselves, republicanism, principles, maybe what you see as a myth of liberalism, all that kind of stuff, these things don't matter.
		And whatever rules or organizations or institutions that stand in our way, we need to push past because our broader goals are more important than the laws that our forefathers kind of enshrined for us or the institutions that came before us.
		We have a vision.
		We have to achieve it.
		Whatever we need to do in order to achieve that goal is necessary.
		So for me, I'll wrap it up.
		But how do you view yourself on that spectrum as far as like respect for the Constitution or respect for Republicanism or the liberal enlightenment project and what you would be willing to do to transform it to achieve this broader ideological goal?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would say that maybe what would differentiate a so-called reactionary from a liberal, I'm a believer in the Constitution, I'm a believer in the Bill of Rights and these things, but I guess maybe the departure is that we believe that the The government should not be cultivating things that will undo itself.
		And so I think that's a key distinction, is where somebody like myself would depart from a regular conservative, where I would say that if we're doing something that is in principle the liberal thing to do, but yet it's going to give us what we know to be a bad outcome, I would not want the bad outcome.
		And I understand this idea that we need to be a nation of laws and there needs to be norms and things like that.
		But Schmidt writes about this, that the government has to protect the established order, even if that means compromising the principles under which the established order is founded.
		So yeah, I don't call myself a fascist.
		I honestly think that fascism is a little bit of a spook.
		Because you look at the kinds of fascism, and it's all sort of, you've got National Socialism, you've got Falangism, you've got what Mussolini had, and those are really the three fascist countries, and National Socialism and Falangism are sort of exceptional.
		There's really only one general fascism that you've ever had, so I don't really think it's I don't know how real it even is.
		I think it's really just a sort of, um, it's this filler word for, like, the way how things used to be.
		I feel like that, you know, under certain definition you could say that, like, George Washington was a fascist.
		I feel like you could say that, uh, a lot of... Abraham Lincoln?
		Yeah, Abraham Lincoln, Stalin.
		Um, I think that fascism is just so, it's sort of like this flavor of authoritarianism that, like, leftists don't like.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, okay, so would you and people who follow you or whatever, like if I was talking about Nick Fuentes with somebody else, and I just say Christian Nationalist, is there any objection or do you feel like that word doesn't encompass any particular part of your worldview?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Or do you think it's sufficiently summarizing your view?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I would say that that's sufficient.
		I would say, though, that I'm a reactionary, too, because Christian nationalism could be somewhat vague, and nationalism could even be vague.
		I would say I'm a reactionary.
unidentified		So what do you mean by reactionary?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I mean to say that I am illiberal.
		I'm reactionary, meaning as the antithesis of revolutionary, meaning I'm sort of against the outcome of the Enlightenment.
		I'm against the triumph of liberalism, which is a little bit deeper, because Christian nationalism, you could take that to mean a lot of things.
		You could have a very liberal definition of what that would look like.
		You could kind of call what we had in America ten years ago Christian nationalism, if you were being sort of charitable.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so that's kind of where I think we're historically opposed.
		So if I was in Rome at the time of Rome, I would want to defend Rome and the Republic and the system of laws and all that kind of stuff because I would see the fruits of Rome as It was amazing, like Imperium, syncretic cultures working together for common ends, the material wealth that was distributed by them, the rule of law, the professional military, all of these things I would view as the fruits of Roman Imperium.
		In the same way I view American liberalism, I view our fruits, which is like out of an $84 trillion global economy, we're $65 trillion of it if you consider like America and American-aligned governments.
		We're like easily two-thirds, 75% of the global economy is reliant on America, and even our enemies have to trade with us because we're just so big as a bloc.
		Then when it comes to liberalism, I think there's things that are powerful and good, like freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, right to self-defense, limited government.
		And I don't mean limited government like a libertarian where it's like, oh, like if you tax me, I have to shoot you because like roads are for pussies or some shit.
		That's not what I mean.
		I just mean like a government that follows its own laws.
		And so I see these fruits.
		I see this foundation.
		And I think it's pretty easily modifiable into what I want, because what I want is... the thing that's preventing what I want is a spiritual decay.
		It's a crushing of what we used to be, but that's because liberalism doesn't in and of itself have any moral prescriptions about the spiritual lives of its adherents.
		Just pay your taxes.
		Like, I don't care if you're a nihilist or a hedonist or a Christian or a Muslim, just pay your fucking taxes and allow the empire to continue, but when you have an entire generation that's demoralized and basically on the verge of killing themselves and they're addicted to so many things and they can't have kids, that's a fucking problem, because basically you're destroying the empire from within from rot.
		Now, my prescription I feel like Christian nationalism or Christendom is jumping back too far back.
		And the reason why is because I don't believe in the resurrection.
		I don't think that's a core through which you could build out the Western Imperium.
		Whereas, I think that liberalism through syncretism, material power, all that kind of stuff, you could come up with a unifying narrative of multiple peoples, languages, ethnicities, and all that kind of stuff that could be sustainable In the long term.
		And I think that's an easier project than, I don't know, Christendom.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I just think that the real problem of modernity is the nihilism.
		I think that's the real problem, is the nihilism.
		And there's no answer to that.
		The problem you're talking about has been around for a long time.
		Which is, you get rid of God, and you get rid of the moral law, and you get rid of the supernatural and the idea of the spirit, and you're left with this sort of, well, why?
		Why do I care?
		Why do I get out of bed?
		Fuck people and do drugs.
		Yeah.
		Or kill yourself, or go kill other people.
unidentified		For fun.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You know, without those other things, you have a real, it's a real problem of dread and a crisis of why, a crisis of meaning.
		And I think that the fruits of what you see here is not the result of a liberal system, it's the result of Christendom.
		It's the result of, ultimately, everything that we have here is a product of two things.
		It's a product of the European race and of Christendom.
		Not really so much from democracy, because of course, You know, the technology, all these kinds of things.
		That's a consequence of human ingenuity.
		You could say that there's a certain kind of, like, political culture that allows people to get together in university and thrive and so on, but it rests on the foundations of truth and rationality.
		And it's really, when you look at, like, where do the universities come from?
		Where do these things come from?
		It really came from the church.
		And now that in the universities you've got sort of liberalism turned in against itself, And it's, uh, it's just anti-white stuff and everything and irrationality and... Also...
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Undermining itself.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Well, so I'm a Gnostic, okay?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if there's an afterlife, but I believe in, you know, basically a god, right?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What's the big idea going to be?
		What's the thing you're talking about where all the people get together for liberalism?
		Why, what's the why?
		For why are we going to create a national revival and care about our will?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Oh, so we don't kill each other because the alternatives are infinitely worse.
		Right.
		That's, yeah, like, so maybe, maybe, maybe I haven't, It's framed sufficient of a narrative, but if you're asking for the carrot, it's like I might have a couple of baby carrots to, you know, throw your way.
		But if you're asking about the stick, I feel like the stick is pretty fucking huge, which is basically like the, I don't know, material and physical and political collapse of the Western world.
		I think that should be a big enough stick to beat people into cooperation.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but why should anyone care?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Because it'll literally kill you.
unidentified		Why should anyone care, though?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We're all gonna die anyway!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Oh man!
		No, I do love this, because I do think that there's a logical nihilism that people can work themselves into, and I think that we've worked ourselves into in the culture.
		I think that that logical nihilism doesn't stand up to actual suffering.
		Uh, so for instance, if somebody's like, well, why should I care?
		Uh, you know, you should, you could just kill me now and I wouldn't give a shit because in a cosmic sense, you know, who gives a fuck?
		If you pull out a knife and start chasing that person around the room, they're still going to run.
		And so that's kind of my thing is like, we can start making observations about human behavior in the natural world.
		And one of the things that you said that, uh, you're like, what is the foundation?
		I think the way that you saw the foundation as Logos, you know, truth, like undeniable truth, that is the foundation.
		And what I think is interesting, I don't racialize it.
		Because I think these ideas could be universal.
		I mean, you can see Japanese and Chinese Christians and all that kind of stuff.
		For me, I think culture is memeable and transferable.
		So I don't think that these things are set in stone, basically.
		But the idea, at least as far as I understand it for Logos, is that the truth is the truth whether you like it or not.
		So, Christians, Christian nationalists or whatever will say like, okay, well that means the Bible is true regardless of whether or not you like it or not, therefore you have to follow our worldview.
		For me, it's a little bit crueler than that, which is the truth is the truth regardless of whether or not you like it or not, meaning that if God isn't real, if Christianity isn't real, Then there's still a foundation there, because the truth is the truth, regardless of whether you like it or not.
		And so for me, that's God.
		That's Logos.
		That's the foundation.
		That's what you can build.
		And if you do have a truth-centered society, you can extrapolate out logical paradigms.
		I agree with you that existentialism, nihilism, postmodernism, it's a self-eating monster.
		Where it's like, oh, well, your narrative is as good as my narrative, so why not child sacrifice?
		Because fuck it, it's just your worldview, bro.
		Whereas, if you did have logos, which is the truth is the truth no matter what, you could extrapolate out a logic frame which is like, All creatures are living.
		Most creatures don't want to die, with a few exceptions.
		You can create suffering by hurting and harming other living creatures.
		Therefore, you should minimize that as much as possible.
		Therefore, if you should minimize that as much as possible, you should refrain from things like rape or murder or things that are deemed to be emotionally traumatic.
		So that's where, for me, The extrapolation is still there, and rebuilding it on Christianity is actually, I know that you're not going to concede that it's shaky ground, but for me, it's shaky ground on which to rest the world, because not everybody is going to believe in Christ, but everybody could believe in the truth.
		And so that's where I have a problem with your foundation.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But Christ is the truth.
		That's the thing.
		And the problem with Gnosticism is, where is the concreteness?
		Where is the specificity?
		This sort of vapid idea and truth itself without the flesh, without a real Savior and a real doctrine and a real church and all those things.
		It really does us no good.
		I don't know that anybody, I don't know that a civilizational revival is going to be animated by this sort of ambiguous attachment to the truth or something.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		My project is harder than yours, for sure.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think it's impossible.
		I think it's impossible, and I think that what you'll get instead is the triumph of something far more cruel.
		I think that society is looking back, and it's looking back to its ancient ways, and its sort of wicked nature.
		And so where you don't find Christianity, you'll find people wearing rocks around their neck, you know, they're wearing crystals, and they're looking into astrology and witchcraft.
		And they're looking back into these sort of primitive things and my fear is that even in an ideological sense you look at like the Russian Empire is a good example of this because you know the original debate was about Russia but it's also a good example.
		You had the autocracy, which was brutal.
		You know, the autocracy had a secret police, and the autocracy was sort of trying to cleanse the ethnicities on the periphery of the empire.
		And then what came next was far worse.
		You know, the communists that came next were absolute butchers.
		And that's the kind of thing that I fear, is that Without, and Fulton Sheen has a good quote about this, about the West versus the Soviet Union.
		He said that the Russians have the cross without the Christ, and the West has the Christ without the cross.
		The West has the love and the compassion and forgiveness and all this without the sacrifice and the obligation and all this.
		And the Russians have the sacrifice and the brutality.
		and all of that without the uh without the love without the the christ on the cross and i think that what you're going to get in the absence of christianity what if you could call liberalism if you call it the chinese system whatever it's going to be it's going to be it's going to be brutal um because it turns out that people are people are twisted and people are wicked uh The flesh is wicked.
		The world is wicked.
		And before Christ, it was a wicked and brutal and savage place.
		And after Christ, I feel like it's going to go the same way.
		I feel like people are not going to settle for this kind of therapeutic, liberal, managerial thing that you're talking about.
		Like, we just want the truth!
		I think they're going to turn to, like, we need to kill people.
		We need to sacrifice people for injustice.
		There's evil in the world, there's suffering in the world, and someone's got to pay, and we need to put up a scapegoat and sacrifice them.
		I think that's really where the world is headed in the absence of Christianity, because that's the only thing that's powerful.
		It's a moral war going on.
		It's a spiritual war.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but if I was to boil down, so for instance, like if you were to take the story, or if you were to take logos like, truth is the truth no matter what, or if you were to take the, you know, the message of Christ, like you could take, pick, I'm not trying to pick one, I'm trying to pick many of them, okay?
		So, if you were trying to pick the message of Christ, like, you know, love thy neighbor as thyself, or whatever, or, for instance, like, I'm trying to think of another one that's not all soft and pussified, because I know the soft and pussified ones more than the hardcore ones.
		But basically, I'm saying that there is a certain amount of, oh, like a strikos.
		The meek shall inherit the earth.
		Meek doesn't mean somebody who's weak, it means somebody who has discipline, strength, and restraint, and the ability to control strength.
		So, for instance, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of moral lessons that are baked into Christianity.
		That I think are worthy, not only worthy of learning, but necessary to create a healthy and happy society.
		But I think what happens is a lot of secular people, because it comes through religion, and a lot of them are traumatized by religion, they don't believe in the mythology, this, that, the other, you know, they're gay, or they were persecuted as kids, or somebody threw rock at them or called them a fabot.
		You know, these kinds of things basically turn people off from religion, and as a result, when they turn away from it completely, they got nothing.
		And for me, you know, they're kind of trying to rebuild the wheel where they create their own morality, but they do it by themselves.
		Because our society has nothing to tell young people except for, like, liberal tolerance.
		They make almost no moral prescriptions through the system itself.
		But it doesn't have to be that way.
		So, for instance, there's no reason why education can't include some level of moral education.
		There's no reason why we can't talk about why truth or not cheating or anything like that is important.
		And if anything, what we're viewing here through the corruption of our institutions like public school, for instance, is a lack of spine When it comes to the liberal establishment to make moral prescriptions, but there are moral prescriptions that most people believe in like telling the truth, not stealing, not lying, you know, not being a dick, not fighting, not killing, not murdering, not raping.
		These are relatively universal and could be promoted and educated.
		So, you know, I know that we're in contrary projects.
		You're saying that it needs to be rooted in Christianity, and as a result, that would strengthen your position.
		And I'm saying it doesn't need to be rooted in Christianity, so that strengthens my position.
		But that's my point, is you're going to catch more people into the moral system if you're not saying it has to be nested within Christianity.
unidentified		Yeah, I just, again... Run different projects?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's this idea of like, don't be an asshole.
		It's like, you cannot build a civilization on saying, don't be an asshole!
		It's like, because the necessary answer to that is like, okay, why not?
		Don't steal, why?
		Don't kill, why?
		Because it causes suffering.
		Okay, why do I care?
		Uh, because we're all people and we should be empathetic.
		Okay, why, why ought we be empathetic?
		Well, because what if someone did that to you?
		Why would that matter?
		You know, why would it matter if we're, if we're, if there's no soul and if there's no, if there's no meaning.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Consequence.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We have to attach significance to our existence here, and this idea that we're like on this blue rock, and like, don't take anything too seriously, bro, like, it's like, yeah, I mean, why would anyone take anything?
		Why would anyone sacrifice?
		Because here's the thing, and this is really the foundation of the Christian worldview, is that We, our nature is wicked.
		The nature of our flesh is wicked.
		And so if we're going to become good, if we're going to be christened and brought closer to God, we have got to resist sin.
		We've got to resist temptation.
		We've got to resist the sort of natural tendency of the flesh and like why would anyone do that if there wasn't a clear directive from a higher power with a judgment with the consequence for anybody to do that?
		I just don't think that it's reasonable to ask out of people without that.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I understand, and if anything, you perfectly articulated why I hate nihilist anti-theists, why I hate people who are anti-religion, because they will be like, oh, well, we can just obliterate it all and it won't fucking matter.
		And it's like, nah, people are going to suffer seriously as a result of your worldview.
		And when people ask, why?
		Why should I care that I suffer?
		I only live once, and on top of that, I might as well just ride this, you know, ride this toilet bowl down into the fucking existential drain.
		Plenty of people do that.
		I used to be in law enforcement, I saw that all the time.
		People literally, you'd be like, hey bro, you're doing fucking meth, you're doing heroin, you're fucking up, you're stealing from your family, everybody hates you, you know, society hates you, you're a fucking piece of shit, you need to get your shit together.
		And they'd be like, well that's too hard, and on top of that, why should I care?
		Plenty of people actually, literally, will tell you that while they're circling the drain.
		Dealing with people, though, who are in more left-wing spaces, who are more sympathetic to those people, this, that, the other, they will say that they don't need the meta-narrative of Christ or God in order to save themselves, this, that, the other.
		I don't fucking believe them.
		I do think that you need something bigger than yourself, and maybe international, global humanism isn't enough to save humanity from itself.
		I do understand that.
		My point, though, is that I literally lived the life of the prodigal son.
		I'm not kidding.
		Raised religious, went to church every single Sunday, basically was raised both in the Protestant church and the Catholic church, went to Europe, this, that, the other.
		When I was 17, I was like, oh, this is all myths and bullshit.
		I'm gonna go do drugs and, you know, try to finger fuck women and all this bullshit, right?
		So I went and did that for five years, and I was in the military and did some violent shit as well.
		And when I got back out, I was fucking miserable.
		Miserable.
		Couldn't tell you why.
		I was like, I'm doing everything I want.
		I'm chasing women.
		I'm drinking.
		I'm smoking pot.
		Like, I'm doing all this shit.
		Why am I so fucking miserable?
		And, you know, I was figuring it out on my own that maybe my parents were right about some shit.
		Maybe the Bible was right about some shit.
		Maybe religion was right about some shit.
		But one of the most important phrases, or most important concepts that I learned was, happiness is not the same as desire.
		And getting what you want doesn't always make you happy.
		That's a huge lesson for a young person to learn.
		And then the other one is basically sense of purpose and responsibility are correlated.
		They're not causative, but they're correlated.
		So if you feel listless, anchorless, feel like you're dying, feel like you're this, that, the other, feel like your life isn't amounting to shit, adopting responsibility for yourself and others can basically be an anchor that roots your life through which you can extrapolate other things that are important to you.
		The reason why I'm bringing this up is these lessons were rooted in religion and they were communicated to me in religion and I rejected them because they came to me in religion, but But just through trial and error, I found these things to be true.
		And so that's where for me, telling suffering people, listless people, depressed people, that basically what you want and what makes you happy are two separate things, and don't mistake the two, and also telling people that responsibility and purpose are correlated, that's like a fucking cheat sheet for human life.
		And so like I'm saying, boil it down to a cheat sheet.
		Don't make it dogmatic.
		Don't make it authoritative in a religious sense.
		And you're saying it has to be or else it doesn't matter.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying that none of that is sufficient.
		None of that is sufficient.
		It probably isn't.
unidentified		It is!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not probably.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		But it's probably true.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		It's neither true nor is it sufficient.
		You cannot build a civilization on a spark notes of biblical lessons because I think that inherent in maybe This disposition is, and it's sort of interesting because you're a police officer, a former cop, former soldier, so you've seen violence, and so you've seen what people are capable of.
		At least I imagine you've seen violence.
		And so, when there are these sort of edge cases, you know, why does anybody kill anybody?
		Do you think anybody kills somebody because they think they don't have a good reason?
		People kill people because they think they have a really good reason and they feel, sometimes it's emotional, sometimes they feel justified.
		People go to war because they think they feel justified.
		People rape or, you know, do adultery or other terrible things.
		And they'll think it's the right thing or they'll justify it to themselves.
		And so this is like nice for like, you know, most of the time if you're just kind of like, Riding the bus and going to work, it's like, hey, I'm gonna pay my fare on the bus.
		But it's like, what is the true foundations and roots of the civilization?
		What is the true moral law?
		And there has to be something about the moral law that it's absolute and it's specific.
		And it has to have consequences for it to matter, because otherwise, if everything you're saying is true, like, let's create a cheat sheet of biblical lessons, it's like, okay, but what if I really, really want to break the moral law, and I have, like, a really good reason?
		Then why would I not do that?
		Why would I not?
unidentified		Well, what about abortion, for example?
unidentified		Because I saw you talk about abortion, Roe v. Wade.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Why, is he pro-choice?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Are you pro-choice?
unidentified		Well, seemingly.
unidentified		Well, there was this bill, I guess, I saw you talking about.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Centrist as always.
unidentified		The Louisiana bill that criminalized, I guess, abortion, made it infanticide.
		Now some people who are really religious would say there's no compromise on something like that, right?
		Like it's anti-abortion.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		But there obviously are.
		So I'll give you... Are there?
		I'll give you... I think so.
		Yeah, so in ectopic pregnancy, having a fertilized egg inside the fallopian tube, it's just going to kill the mom.
		It's not going to do anything.
		It's not going to develop a fetus.
		So basically, just to explain my position so we don't have to poke around at it.
		Um, I think that at 18 weeks from observable fact, uh, the central nervous system goes into, uh, the fetus.
		As a result, it's capable of feeling pain.
		Inflicting pain on a fucking, on a fetus is, you know, basically morally incorrect.
		Abortion under 18 weeks is morally incorrect.
		After 18 weeks, it should probably be legal, uh, legally prohibited.
		Unless there's those, like, health exceptions.
		Like ectopic or serious deformity or whatever the fuck.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, can we, um, can we talk about, like, Russia?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, that is, uh... Hey, listen, we were talking about the core of Christendom!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Hey, he took it!
unidentified		Don't get me wrong, this is good stuff, but we're sort of, like, we started... Okay, next time.
		It has completely I mean you hey you guys are talking for like an hour.
		I look I agree You know what I thought it was about now you put out a tweet I thought this was what it was originally about you know saying Russia was basically committing war crimes, and it was a barbaric regime If you want to if you want to get autistic and fight about specific shit we can like you can't Well that's what I mean a debate is!
		Let's debate about this topic.
		Oh, well, if you want to get autistic about it, alright.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay, so my issue, okay, so I'm not gonna lie.
		Jackson Hinkle is a fucking dumbass.
		And he basically, like, cheerleads the shit.
		And the shit that you do that pisses me off is, like, Sar Putin!
		I salute our boys in the white, blue, and red or whatever the fuck.
		Dude, if I, if I didn't, if you didn't have things that were shitposty that I know pissed off people way more, I would have fucking come in here like autistic screeching about that shit.
		But, For me, I think that your rhetoric is rooted in a deeper game, and I like talking about the deeper game.
		I don't like autistically freaking out over the fucking rhetoric, the shitty rhetoric you use.
		If I'm like, oh, did you make a Nazi Holocaust joke fucking three years ago?
		Is that what anybody wants to see?
		Do we want to fucking relitigate that shit for the 50th fucking time?
		Fuck that.
		You're playing a deeper game, and I know you're playing a deeper game.
		I would rather talk about the deeper game, because there's obviously something that you think is achievable, or even if it's not achievable, you think it's worthy of pursuing, and I think it's not achievable, and I'm worried about the factionalism that it creates, but you're not worried about that, because my...
		Civilizational foundation is probably too broad for you to give a shit about, and you nest your civilizational foundation within religion, and you know it to be correct.
		So how the fuck am I supposed to fight that?
		You know?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, yeah, I am, of course, I do have an agenda, and I do have a deeper worldview, but the reason why I cheerlead Putin is because I like Putin.
		I mean, it is provocative, but I do support Putin.
		I think that Putin is brilliant and my hero.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Okay, if this war was achievable, specifically with like throwing artillery shells into civilian areas, if all of the things that could be or needed to be achieved were able to be achieved without artillery shells going into fucking civilian areas, would you prefer that artillery fucking strikes don't happen in civilian areas?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Uh, yeah.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So what's the argue about?
		Like you want me to call you a bad person for the next 45 minutes?
		No, I don't want you to call me a bad... No, it's clearly... There is a real... Because you could also call me a bad person because I'm basically cheerleading American hegemony and look at how many people it's killed over the past 30 years.
		But my thing is I don't deny that.
		If I see that the Rigel Report says that we provided the weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in the 70s and 80s, that we then impugned him for 20 years later, I'm not going to deny that.
		I'm just acknowledging the bigger game.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but I think there is a real debate to be had about the war in Ukraine and who's at fault here.
		I think that's part of the bigger conversation about American hegemony.
		It's part of the bigger story.
		Because there's one story, and you seem to be at sort of a difference, you have this sort of liberalist, this liberalist vent, where you say we need a liberalist American global empire for the purpose, which is a very unique position.
unidentified		There's not a lot of people that defend that.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But there is a position out there where people are saying democracy is under attack by autocrats like Putin, and this represents aggression by the so-called dictators and the enemies of democracy.
		And then, of course, there's the Russian side, which is that it's the democratic globalist empire, which is the true pariah.
		And so where would you fall in that?
		I think that's a legitimate debate.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I side with liberals, but I think liberals are fucking children.
		And what I mean by that is like, so for instance, if we were going to morally impugn Russia for being autocratic, then we just as equally have to impugn 30% of our global coalition for similar crimes.
		So when you hear, like we can say like, okay, Well, these people allied with us materially, and we're pushing them culturally through trade ties and cultural ties.
		I think that can be a real argument, defending, like, the liberal establishment.
		It's like, we don't want to go to war with everybody.
		We want to, you know, so for instance, like, McDonald's, God help me, is part of the American empire, and now in fucking Kuwait, the fucking, you know, they're basically getting fat as shit, because instead of drinking alcohol, they go to McDonald's instead.
		So, you know, I don't know if that's based in Red Pill or not.
		But the point being, you can go to war with everybody, but you're going to fucking lose.
		Or you can go to war with your opponents when it suits you, and then have cultural and economic warfare.
		And if anything, I view Russia's actions in this event a moral failure, because I think that they could have achieved the same goals through economic and diplomatic aggression.
		I think they could have kept the Black Sea.
		I think they could have kept Donbass, Luhansk, Donetsk.
		I think they just prefer force.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You think they prefer aggression?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		See, and that's I think where, that's I think where the argument lies, is this idea that it was, do you think it's out of malice and cruelty that Russia invaded?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		No, it's desperation, but it's also a misalignment of priority.
		So, for instance, I think they could have kept the Black Sea, I think they could have kept Donetsk, Luhansk, I think they could have kept these things, or at least kept those populations protected, and they probably could have kept their right to travel to these areas.
		I don't think that they needed violence in order to achieve the same goal.
		Just because Ukraine goes into the EU, or even got, well, I guess NATO really would be The line for Ukraine.
		Because I'm assuming you can't have Russian military assets traveling freely through a NATO country.
		That's probably the biggest thing.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so do you think though that it was unreasonable for the United States to pursue NATO expansion in Ukraine?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		At what time?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Because I thought we rejected them back in the day.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, no we did not.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Throughout, from 2008 to 2014, do you think that was unreasonable?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Uh, without consulting Russia on how they're going to get access to the Black Sea?
		Yeah.
		Fuck yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, then debate.
		Okay.
		That's, that's the debate, I think.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		No, but, but I mean, like, just to concede if people are like, oh, you just gave up the point.
		Um, there's only, there's only like three.
		I think there might only be two, uh, Russian warm water ports.
		One of them is in Crimea, one of them is in Syria, and I want to say the only other one is like a coal- oh, it might be on like the far east coast or some shit like that.
		It might be on like a... I don't fucking remember the names.
		But it literally might be over by Japan.
		So, the...
		I got frustrated with Sitchin, Adam, and Sargon, and you, and Destiny, because I think you can concede the geopolitical reality while still impugning the morality.
		I think that the fact that this wasn't worked at as a diplomatic solution of, Russia's going to want to keep the eastern part of Ukraine, and they're going to want to keep access to the Black Sea.
		If we're going to get Ukraine and NATO, we have to figure out how to get the Russians what they want, or they're going to attack.
		If that wasn't a conversation in the room, that's a complete and utter fucking failure.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But that's the thing, though.
		The Russians did pursue diplomacy.
		The Russians, like, for example, Trump pulled the United States out of the INF Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and put the theater support missiles back in the U.S.
		military doctrine in Europe.
		Very provocative action.
		And this is in the Russian military doctrine.
		They say that This is a problem because in the event of a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia, NATO is going to be sending missiles into Russia that may be conventional missiles, but they also may be nuclear missiles, and they call that warhead ambiguity.
		That if a missile is flying at Russia, if a short or medium-range missile is flying at Russia from an Eastern European country, the Russians really can't assume that that's not a missile carrying a nuclear warhead.
		It creates this great escalation, and so the Russians write about this.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		How is this not already true with Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		And also, how is this not already true for the fact that we can basically glass each other no matter what?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, the point is that this has nothing to do with Ukraine in particular.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		This is a provocative action, because this is about the entire European theater, and redeploying missiles to Europe.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I don't know, maybe this is because I actually was born at the end of the Cold War.
		I'm pretty sure everybody between 1945 and 1990 just accepted the fact that if there was a war between Russia and the United States, entire cities would be glassed, and as a result, we probably shouldn't fuck with that shit.
		And I don't understand how that perspective isn't prevailing right now.
		We're literally like, what's the flight time?
		For a short-range or medium-range missile launched from France, versus the flight time from a missile launched from Alaska, versus the flight time from a missile launched in fucking Ethiopia.
		Lithuania.
		Or Estonia.
		We're talking about a degree of minutes, and we're still talking about hundreds of thousands of dead.
		So this is where maybe Russia has autism.
		Okay, so what?
		We're fucked anyways.
		Now what do we want and how do we get it?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, the problem is that these are not necessarily nuclear missiles.
		These are conventional missiles that are being deployed to Europe, but that's the thing.
		When a missile is sent over, and a short or medium-range missile is sent over from Europe into Russia in a hypothetical conflict, that is where a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia then escalates into a nuclear conflict.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		The point is... Who would start a conventional conflict?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Either country.
		Of course, it's always ambiguous.
		It's always, whenever a war starts, it's always ambiguous.
		You have the fog of war, and it's always disputed what the real cause is, whether it's the beginning of every war is disputed, whether it's 9-11 or Gulf of Tonkin or the Lusitania or any of it.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		My contention would be it would be an escalation between the two powers, that you're right, that it would be ambiguous who started it or whatever, but the chances of NATO intentionally invading Russia without some kind of Russian propagation versus like fucking zero.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me finish my point, because it's really not important here.
		The point is, this is a very provocative action.
		Trump pulling out of the INF was very provocative, and the Russians said so.
		And even if you look at the neocons, even the DC foreign policy establishment wrote that this was extremely provocative to pull out of the INF.
		And if you read NPR, NPR said in the build-up to this, because this was one of the Russians' demands back in January, was Put a moratorium on the missiles in the European theater.
		And NPR, the mainstream liberal media, the foreign policy establishment, they all said that is one of the more reasonable things that, yeah, probably the United States should do.
		Now consider this.
		So Trump pulls out of the INF.
		And changes the military doctrine.
		I think this was in 2019.
		A month after he does this, Putin goes out there and says, this could lead to escalation, this could lead to problems.
		And he says, let's come together and let's create a moratorium on Russian and American missiles in Europe.
		They didn't respond.
		Putin comes back the next year with an even more thorough proposal and says, let's do a moratorium on missiles and let's even have inspections.
		Let's have mutual inspections.
		The Russians can inspect the American missiles and the Americans can inspect the Russian missiles.
		And again, the Americans don't even respond.
		To the proposal.
		Once again, this was part of the diplomacy in January.
		There were three days of diplomacy, if you remember, in Geneva at the beginning of this year, and that was on the table, and there's no give from the American side.
		And so the question is, you know, if Russia is unnecessarily Using force and violence and military means when you look at something like that what what really could they have done in that situation and that that's just like a taste but that goes it goes well beyond that because you could go back to 2008 when the Americans at the NATO conference said They recognized the aspirations of Ukraine to join NATO.
		And Putin said, that's not going to happen.
		But they plowed forward anyway.
		And the National Endowment for Democracy was giving them money.
		And they continued to support the resistance there.
		And that all culminated ultimately in the Maidan, which the United States had a hand in.
		And so, there's just like this persistent inability for the United States to concede the fact that Russia should have some right and some legitimate security interest in the future of Ukraine, and then Russia's back into a corner.
		And you can see the precipitating factors leading up to the conflict this year.
		You've got U.S.
		destroyers, or rather a British destroyer in the Black Sea, which is sailing along the disputed territory in Crimea.
		You've got American bombers flying along Crimea in Donbass.
		You've got Kiev buying drones from Turkey, a NATO country.
		and using them in the Civil War in Donbass, which represents a big escalation.
		And so – and it's part of this character.
		Yeah, go ahead.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, I was just going to ask.
		This is – okay, this is all great details, and, Ralph, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
		But this is – what do you want me to object to descriptively?
		That the United States is a bunch of dicks?
		That they threw their weight around where they didn't know what the consequences would be?
		That they risked other people's lives in their national global hegemonic project?
		I'm going to concede all of this.
		This is all true.
		It's descriptively true.
		The question is whether... Well, does that make Russia's actions unreasonable, I guess?
unidentified		The United States hubris, I guess, is what he's describing.
		And in light of that, is it really so crazy?
		And again, it's your take, yes or no, is it really so crazy for Russia to have done what they've done, I guess, is what he's...
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, actually, there's a shitload.
		Fuck, there's so many Russian failures.
		Yes, I think that this probably could have been diplomatically.
		If you want to point out examples of the Western hegemony throwing its weight around and not really knowing what it's getting itself into and risking other people's lives rather than their own, I don't think you have to look at Ukraine.
		I think you could just look at, like, I don't know, history and see similar patterns.
		But then the question kind of becomes, like, from a Russian perspective, was this necessary?
		No.
		It's not necessary to bomb Lviv in Western Ukraine in order to achieve a victory in Eastern Ukraine.
		It's not necessary to artillery strike Kiev in order to take Eastern Ukraine.
		It's not necessary to fucking take Odessa.
		The like one last port that's left for the fucking Ukrainians in order to gain access to the Black Sea along their own historical territory.
		It's not necessary for them to artillery strike civilian areas when basically we've all been developing counterinsurgency tactics and techniques for the better part of 30 fucking years that the United States is stupid enough to basically post online for free Our special forces literally go onto YouTube and say, hey, this is how you do counterinsurgency warfare, and this is how you clear rooms.
		And somehow, Russians, being the dumb fucks they are, are literally doing unsupported fucking air raids on goddamn airports and getting fucking slaughtered, artillery striking fucking civilian areas as negotiating ships within a war, And fucking doing unsupported fucking goddamn mechanized columns in the middle of Ukraine that then get attacked by counterinsurgents armed with Western weapons that get slaughtered.
		So no, while the geopolitical concessions are there and Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea, yeah, these are all realistically Russian territories that should have been negotiated by the Western world, you can't pretend to me that this is fucking 4D chess that the Russians are playing when they're literally sticking their dicks in a blender and No.
		And, also on top of that, here's another fucking thing.
		I know that Trump, MAGA, whatever, it's probably important to your brand, he's the God Emperor, this, that, the other, whatever.
		Is Trump playing 4D chess, or is he an idiot?
		Or is he doing both at the same time?
		Because literally, I don't even think that you can tell, let alone I can tell.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What is Trump?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What's the angle of Trump?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'm missing the... You were literally saying how despite him being the God Emperor who has fucking foresight and he's basically the leader of the Imperium of Man.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I see.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		He somehow stepped on his dick when it came to Russian diplomatic negotiations.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		If he's such a God Emperor, then how did he fuck this up?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I think that was a mistake.
		I think that was a mistake for him to escalate the conflict in Ukraine, because that's what he did.
		And what he ran on in 2016 was a rapprochement with Russia, famously.
		He said, wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?
		And that's why a lot of people supported him, because he was out there saying the Iraq War was a mistake, and Russia should be our friend, and we don't hate China, but we're going to compete with China.
		That was the America first.
		Foreign policy that everybody voted for and instead what we got was, and you can, we can quibble about who's ultimately responsible for that.
		Is that the Pentagon?
		Is that the State Department?
		Is that Trump himself?
		I'm willing to be, I'm willing to concede for the sake of the debate it was Trump himself.
		I think that Trump doesn't want war and I think that Trump, his instinct was rapprochement with Russia and it was people behind the scenes that wanted this war and it's the, It's a persistent influence of the deep state and military-industrial complex, that whole constellation of institutions.
		So I will agree with you that the Trump, it was not Fort H.S., I think the Trump foreign policy was not what it should have been.
		I'll agree with you on that.
		As far as the conduct, though, of the operation, I think we could get into, you know, should Russia have bombed this city?
		Should they have conducted it in that way?
		We can get into that.
		To me, it's less interesting.
		To me, that's a level of detail which is unnecessary because it's a war.
		You're either in the war or you're not in the war.
		And we could quibble about the conduct of the war and was this a tactical decision?
		Was this a justified strategic decision?
		Was using this kind of bomber against this particular city, is that cruel or is that part of the overall strategy?
		I mean, we could get into that, but I think the real basis of the debate is whether or not the war is justified to begin with.
		I think that it's basically unquestionable that Russia, because you said earlier, well, Russia should have pursued diplomatic means.
		They should have used their soft power in a word.
		You know, I think that's a good phrase for it.
		They should use their economic, political, diplomatic.
		I think they did that.
		I think they did that when they took Crimea.
		I think they did that when they backed the separatists.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Did they ask for too much?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Oops, sorry.
unidentified		You good?
unidentified		Did they ask for too much?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So for instance, in the most recent negotiations, they were asking that the Ukrainian army draw down to 65,000.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		What fucking country in the history of the world is going to agree to drawing down its army during an invasion?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But you understand that when Russia comes to the negotiating table, they're there to negotiate.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		What if I just inverted your logic?
		We're not, just as easily, while we're not in the battle, we're not in the war or whatever, we're not in these diplomatic negotiating rooms.
		Why do I have to assume good faith on your end and bad faith on mine?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We were in the negotiating room.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		You and me?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, no, America.
		America was.
		In Geneva.
		And, you know, so to say that Ukraine would not join NATO is not unreasonable.
		And, by the way, and the reason why we know that is because the United States essentially recommitted to this in, I want to say it was October.
		I have it in my notes, and I don't want to get autistic here, but you'll have to take my word for it.
		I could pull it up on my notes, but in October, somewhere in the fall of 2021, they recommitted to Essentially a security guarantee without NATO membership.
		They said we continue to acknowledge Ukraine's aspirations for NATO and they re-upped this like 10 year old security guarantee that they gave a long time ago.
		So like and that's really the crux of it is NATO membership for Ukraine.
		Everything proceeds from that.
		I don't know that Putin necessarily thought he was going to get all the troops out of Eastern Europe.
		I don't know that he necessarily thought there'd be a change in government in Kiev with diplomacy.
		But I think the crux of it was, is Ukraine going to be used as a forward operating base for NATO?
		Is it going to be used to deploy hypersonic missiles in Ukraine?
		Is there going to be a Black Sea fleet in Ukraine for NATO?
		That was really the issue at hand, and the United States was completely unwilling to negotiate on this, and the Russians were backed into a corner.
		And this is something that's happened over 14 years, and now people want to say, oh, well, I don't like the way the war's being conducted.
		Oh, well, that bombing they did was cruel.
		It's like, well...
		At some point, there's no choice.
		There were 200,000 troops on the border.
		They met in Geneva, and it's typical.
		The Westerners are so full of hubris, there's no off-ramp.
		They only know one language, and that's escalation, double down, talk tough, stand up, all this kind of stuff.
		And in my opinion, to even get back to the earlier conversation, that's a failure of American hegemony.
		I think that when America Which is so much more powerful than Russia, combined with NATO's power, even more powerful than Russia.
		I think when they have that kind of uncontested power for so long, they think that they don't have to listen to other countries.
		And then this is where these kinds of miscalculations and misunderstandings, I think that's where they all start to begin.
		It's all bound up in that.
		And I think that's an indictment of American hegemony in itself.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so I don't think we're going to disagree.
		I think that we could come to descriptively saying Russia's case for the war.
		I think just as easily you could descriptively come to Ukraine's description for the war, whether or not it's justified or some shit.
		So yeah, it kind of boils down to this core of what do we do now?
		Is liberal hegemony at its peak?
		Are we, do we have to accept tripolarity or multipolarity?
		Do we have to reframe the Western project into Christian nationalism or a liberal hegemonic project?
		Is there enough of a spine within liberalism to reconstitute whatever we created?
		And so, and so that's kind of like really the, this is actually the difference, it's not just the difference in this conflict, it's the difference between me and you.
		What path Do we pursue for the future of the Western world?
		And my argument is a civic nationalist, probably multi-ethnic, but not multi-linguistic.
		I think it should be a mono-language for each country.
		And it can be multi-religious, but there has to be a set of core foundational principles that basically unite us in our belief.
		And to be honest, when you ask me the question of why, Why not kill myself?
		Why not do heroin?
		Why not do coke?
		Why not, you know, fuck a bunch of women?
		Why not do strippers?
		Why not drink alcohol?
		Why not do this?
		Why not do that?
		I only have the logical appeal of you will suffer and you will experience suffering, but I already know that's not enough of information for most people.
		That's part of where Ideally, I would want to see it culturally.
		I would want to see it, like, pushed through education, like, hey, you fuck up this way, your life's gonna be fucked.
		And we actually have the balls to assert that there are good and bad things, and we don't have this, like, liberal spinelessness that we see in our current social establishments.
		But I don't know if it'll be enough.
		And when you ask me if it'll be enough, the answer is I don't know.
		So, yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I would say to counter all of that, I think that This entire conflict has laid the seeds for the American demise.
		I think this is the high watermark for the liberal hegemony because, you know, in spite of the fact that, you know, we talk this talk about how the whole world came together to stand up to Putin.
		I was going to get to this earlier when you made the analogy about everybody coming together to kick the Nazis' teeth in.
		I was going to make this, I was going to get into this, but I got sidetracked bashing, you know, the allies in World War II.
unidentified		It's actually not true that the whole world... Although they were based, right?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		They were based, they were good, they were cool.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Go G.I.
unidentified		Joe.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		The Allies?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Hell yeah!
unidentified		Oh yeah!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		They were so cool.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		G.I.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Joe, I love you.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Cherry pie.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		My grandfather fought in World War II.
unidentified		He fought in the... Worst mechanic the Luftwaffe ever had.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm not German, okay?
		He was...
		He was Italian.
		No, but he was on the good guy's side.
		He was on the good guy's side fighting for the USA, baby!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		You mean he switched sides halfway through when he saw the winds blowing at the other direction?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Something like that, yeah.
		So, no, he was an American.
		I'm fifth generation, all right?
		I'm fifth generation.
unidentified		Totally.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But anyway.
		But it's actually not true that, just like in World War II, it's not true that the whole world is standing up to Putler.
		It's not happening.
		When you look at the Sanchez regime, it's noticeable who's not participating in it.
		Yeah, the NATO countries are participating in it, of course.
		India's not participating in it.
		China's not participating in it.
		And if you don't have those countries, all of Africa's not participating in it, a lot of the Asian countries, a lot of the Middle Eastern.
		Okay, but the point is, like...
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		It's interesting because... Do you know what I like about this European conflict?
		Objection for autistic point real quick.
		Europeans are handling it.
		That's what I like about it.
		Are Ukrainians fucking fleeing to Africa or fleeing to India or China for fucking rent?
unidentified		No.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		It's fucking Europeans who are handling it.
		So you could call it material conditions, whatever.
		I don't have a fucking problem descriptively what you're saying.
		I'm talking about it like prescriptively because basically I already... If it seems like I'm not objecting a lot or calling you a piece of shit or this that the other, it's because I understand what you're trying to do.
		You described it to me.
		You described the project, what you're looking for out of the world.
		And I understand how my project is contrary to your project because I do want A liberalist hegemonic imperium that is capable of integrating humanity because I think that that's what's possible to propel us into like, I don't know, conquering the entire planet, but also potentially like space exploration as well.
		But the problem, I don't even have a fucking My problem with your worldview is I think it necessarily breeds conflict that will have to be resolved.
		So let's say that we created Christian nationalism.
		Nick Fuentes is, or his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson is the fucking emperor of the Western Christendom world, okay?
		He rules from someplace that isn't degenerate, the L-shape of the Americas and Europe, okay?
		And most people are Christian or they concede to Christian, like, cultural hegemony.
		So let's say that happens.
		I think, naturally, you will have, like you said, cultures that are based in Islam, cultures that are based in China, cultures that are based, well, I guess Russia's part of the Christendom, right?
		So, basically, Islam, West Africa, and China would all be your competitors, and as a result, that conflict also has to come to an end.
		Liberalism says we can incorporate all, Yours says, we're going to be in conflict, or at least competition, in perpetuity.
		What's Emperor Nicholas the fucking 15th going to do?
		Is it going to be convert or die?
		Is it going to be we just compete for the planet?
		What is it?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Uh, yeah.
		Yes!
		Well, here's the thing.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		And by the way, can you rant to the audience for a little bit?
		I'm super dehydrated, my neck's driving me fucking crazy.
		Can I grab some water and be right back?
unidentified		Yeah, go ahead, get you some water.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell the world about the plans for Nicholas XV and his Christian empire?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'm actually really excited.
unidentified		Go ahead, get some water.
unidentified		Yeah, go ahead.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, wow.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of the debates?
unidentified		Well, you know, it's kind of like, I don't know, tangentially related to Russia, Ukraine.
		You know my style, kind of just letting you guys go a little bit.
		But yeah, it's been a good discussion, a little spacey maybe.
		Yeah, maybe that's how I would describe it.
		But it's been cordial.
		Now, so we'll just, I mean, we can just wait.
		I don't know if he has his headset with him.
		Maybe we can just wait for him to get back.
		I'm talking a bunch if he's not here.
		He covered up his camera too, which maybe that's a cop thing.
		I don't know.
		It's a cop thing.
		It's a cop thing.
		I'm not sure.
		Somebody said he's been a... Yeah, I'd seen that he was a critic for a while.
		Somebody said that.
		I didn't know that before today, but I saw some people in chat.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		He's a what?
unidentified		He had been a critic of yours or something.
		Maybe he wanted to talk about other stuff from the start.
		I don't know.
		I don't know if that's true or not.
		That's what people in chat said.
		So we'll see once he gets back in here what his thoughts are.
		What are your thoughts?
		I mean, it's not here, it's a debate, so I guess just thoughts on the whole night so far.
		The big day on Cozy.
		Things are going great.
		I've got a ton of people watching right now, 7,000 people total watching this debate.
		Things running well.
		It's been a great ride on cozy.
		When was the start date?
		I think it was October, right?
		Somewhere around there.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think it was the beginning of October.
		So we're entering, it would be what?
		October, November, December, January, February, March, April, May.
		So we're entering our eighth month, I guess.
unidentified		Yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Going pretty well.
		I'm pretty pleased with it so far.
		I'm happy with it.
		I like the debates.
		I thought this was going to be a little bit more spicy.
		I thought it was going to be a little bit more contentious, but that's okay.
unidentified		Well, it's been more of a discussion, I guess you could say.
		There he is.
		That's one reason I kind of brought up the abortion thing, because that seemed like a real difference there, too.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Listen, if y'all want to rip some of the shreds, we can fucking do it on something.
		But at the same time, my whole goal was to understand Nick, because I think it's actually super easy to snipe behind tweets and snipe behind fucking, oh, I'm going to do a two-hour video essay on what Nick believes without talking to him, and now I'm pretty sure I fucking understand it.
		I don't think you're a fascist, but I think that you see the value in right-wing dissident thought that can be useful.
		I think you're a Christian in the strictest sense, meaning you believe it to be the foundational cornerstone of the future of Western society.
		And even if it isn't, you would rather die implementing that vision or trying to implement that vision than basically implement a different vision of the world.
		And you're a nationalist where you basically view that, like, okay, we can have these parallel societies.
		I'm not going to lie.
		So it is really easy to just hear somebody talk about Jews for 30 seconds and be like, oh, he's a Nazi.
		But I think it's easier.
		The more complex view is saying, like, hey, we have cultural memes that are descended from certain narratives on the planet.
		I'm trying to propagate a narrative that I believe is important, and I want to solidify the culture and the society that will allow my narrative to continue to survive.
		I think that's a little bit more nuanced, and it's not... Even if there was like some 5,000 IQ fucking genocidal game that you're playing in your own fucking head, that doesn't mean that the...
		The philosophy itself necessarily has to be that way.
		So there could be like, I don't know what you call it, like integration or incorporation of the American value set as long as it paid deference to your vision of the future.
		And so I don't like it.
		We're on opposing perspectives.
		And if it came down to violence, we might actually fight.
		But I understand it.
		And I don't feel like we're Now, what's wrong with it, though?
unidentified		You said you don't like it.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		What's wrong with it?
		Yeah, I mean, you say you don't like it, so what is the... Actually, I was thinking about this while I was getting water.
		So, what happens to your... So, let's say that we're in... Tsar Nicholas XV is in intercontinental conflict with, you know, the Muslims and... or the UMA.
		And, uh, Sino-fucking-civilization-rebirthed-into-some-kind-of-weird, uh, Confucian-syncretic-fucking-Chinese-empire, okay?
		There's three empires left on the planet.
		And then, uh, aliens.
		Literally people from other fucking planets show up.
		And they're like, yo, all that Jesus stuff is bullshit.
		Your society is based off of a myth.
		Turns out that, like, liberal fabot from 500 years ago, that Connor guy, he was totally right about the universe.
		Here's all this lab coat science shit that verifies that he was totally right about everything.
		And Gnostic, liberal, syncretic humanism was the way to go.
		What happens then?
		Are you just like, fuck you, alien.
		Is that what happens?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		If Rick and Morty came out of the spaceship and said, Hey, Verp.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		That's an episode.
		Fucking Rick and Morty meet Nick Quintus.
		Dude, somebody fucking at Dan Harmon.
unidentified		He would fucking love that episode.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, if that happened, I would say the aliens are demons.
		I would say that's probably going to happen.
		I think they're setting up to do exactly that.
		It's called Project Bluebeam, or some other kind of simulated alien encounter, and I think it will be demonic.
unidentified		The thing is, though, is that... So you're going down with the ship?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's not about going down with the ship, it's about the basis of our religion is metaphysical.
		It's metaphysical and it's based on philosophy.
		Based on philosophy that I don't understand perfectly, I'll add.
		And it's also based on the truth of the resurrection, which I think there's...
		The trick is this, I think that the resurrection is a historical fact and I think it's provable historically, but I also think that if you're not religious, I also think that if you don't believe in the The metaphysical idea of Christianity.
		I think that you can come up with any reason why you would disbelieve that.
		Oh, the sources are incredible.
		Oh, they exaggerated.
		Oh, I've heard it all before.
		So, you know, according to my worldview, the aliens coming down, it's just, you know, it's something that's not going to happen.
		But I mean, I guess maybe the maybe the key difference is this.
		To me, I don't support my religion for utilitarian reason.
		I'm not promulgating Christianity because I think this is the... and some people accuse me of this, but it would make no sense.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Some people say, oh, you're... I think I actually do.
		So if you were talking about, like, my cultural support for Christianity, your Christian memes, it is from a utilitarian reason.
		I feel like there's a lot of good social prescriptions that have been nested within religion that are necessary.
		Sorry for interrupting.
unidentified		Go ahead.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		No, yeah, and that's just it.
		I think that there is utilitarian take on that.
		That's not my take, though.
		I think that Christianity is true, and I think that in terms of how the world is supposed to end, you know, probably it's not, you know, if you read any Catholic eschatology, it's going to be a pretty ugly affair.
		It's not going to be like everyone becomes Christian, and then we all just float up, and you know, it's going to be actually pretty horrible.
		So that we may be living in the end times, and this all may be very futile in terms of This is a political project based on Christianity.
		The goal for me is promulgating Christianity because it's true.
		And if there was going to be a sustainable government, it will be based in truth.
		It will be based in the moral law.
		And that is Christianity.
		So and actually, it's interesting.
		The reason I became religious, actually, in the first place, I was I was baptized Catholic.
		I was confirmed Catholic.
		But my my parents were always very religiously.
		They believed in God, but they weren't really good Catholics.
		Like, we went to church on Christmas and Easter.
		There was a period where we went to church every Sunday, and I did get confirmed and everything, but...
		Like a lot of Catholics, they were sort of lapsed.
		And so I went into college basically being a Christian, believing in God, but not really practicing it and not really fully understanding it even.
		And what I began to think a lot about is about this problem of authority, and this problem of meaning, and the problem of morality, which are all distinct problems.
		And I thought, You know, in terms of meaning, I thought, what gives my life meaning outside of the material?
		It's like, it's very difficult to persist in this life, suffering and going through the trials of life, if you're not suffering for a reason, if there's not a reason that actually matters.
		When I say actually matters, I mean, you could say, like, well, I'm suffering so that my kids could live a good life.
		That's actually just kind of like a secondary material interest, you know?
		And people don't consider it that way, but that is ultimately what it is.
		You know, I'm working hard so I can afford a boat.
		I'm working hard so my kids can have a comfortable life.
		I'm working hard so that civilization could be whatever.
		These are all material things.
		And so I thought that's really not sufficient.
		There's this big problem.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Is this why you fell out with the more materialist, racialist people?
		Because they only had a material motivation for what they were doing?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and I don't think that racialism is sufficient.
		I don't think that racialism Is a sufficient idea and I don't think it's an explainer and I don't know that I would like die for my race or something in a certain sense because race is material.
		You could say that race is a character that your soul may have a certain character because of your race.
		But you also might say that race is still something that's sort of an artifact of your flesh, and it's an artifact of the material self.
		And still, it's, you know, I'm not going to go out there and die for, you know, for something.
		Because ultimately, all the races will perish one day.
		The whole world will perish one day.
		And what will it all have been for?
		It's all a big LARP.
		And that's really what I'm getting at, is in the absence, without this grounding in something metaphysically real, We're all just LARPing, and it all doesn't matter, and there are no souls, and there is no judgment, and there is no moral law, and whenever we say, oh, America, or white, or any of these ideas, we're all really just role-playing, without that grounding in the supernatural reality.
		We're also sort of self-consciously, and that's really what post-modernism is, is the self-conscious sort of performance.
		Of what the human experience used to be, even though we know it kind of like doesn't matter.
		And that's why Christianity is the only answer to it, because Christianity is the only thing that says it matters.
		We're doing this for a reason.
		But there's other problems too.
		That's one of the problems.
		The other problem is morality.
		Why would we conduct ourselves in a moral way?
		And where does our conscience come from if not for God?
		And then there's also this problem of authority.
		And that goes to all of this.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Listen, I'm understanding your worldview better by the second, but I also want to play in a little bit.
		My neck's driving me fucking crazy, so I don't know how much longer I got left.
		I'm an old bastard, okay?
		So you guys got to deal with me.
		My frustration, so there's a certain amount of logic.
		That I follow down when we have these conversations about, like, Christianity, that being the meme that we're going to send our society around, and kind of, like, what the future of reality is, and whether or not, like, not-my-gnostic logos is sufficient.
		The problem that I have with Christianity is there's a certain illogic to it for me.
		And I know I'm not supposed to question the nature of God and this, that, the other, but I'm going to anyways, because otherwise, what's the fucking point of having this conversation if I'm not going to show you my logic?
		My, my logic is that human beings have been around for, okay, allegedly, okay, allegedly.
		I know we have some, I'll tell you how dinosaurs fucked this up.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		10,000 years?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You're about to say.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So, allegedly, our universe is 13.6 billion years old.
		Allegedly, humanity has been around for a few hundred thousand years.
		Allegedly, humanity has evolved and it's really only been like the past like, I don't know, 5,000, 10,000 that I've seen the material increases in humanity's capacity of understanding each other.
		We're kind of at the precipice of looking back through our history, whereas before people were probably so focused on surviving that they didn't even have the ability to understand the past because they just had to survive in the present.
		So, looking back, if we're to trust the lab coats, which I know is cringe, but if we're to trust the lab coats, basically the, sorry let me discard this, If we're to trust lab codes, basically humanity has been around for a really long time, and some of our moral nature pre-existed Christ, and pre-existed the Torah, and pre-existed Jewish people, and all that kind of stuff.
		And we can see the codification and moving of, like, morality.
		Over time.
		Like, so for instance, we're not gonna start observing, like, rabbinic, uh, rabbinic law when it comes to, like, the fucking temple or some shit when it comes to our ceremonies, because it was set for a different time in a different place, but for them that was like a morality.
		Same thing with, like, the consumption of pork or shellfish or something like that.
		If you want my real answer on why people don't consume pork and shellfish, It's probably because they saw a bunch of pigs who were fucking rolling around and shit, and then Tom, their neighbor, ate pig, and then he died because he had a bug bacteria, and they're like, oh, God doesn't want you to eat pig because Tom, the pig eater, fucking died last week.
		Same thing with shellfish.
		They probably saw some dickhead with a fucking allergic reaction to shellfish, and they're like, oh, fucking Ted died from shellfish.
		God doesn't want you to eat shellfish.
		So, from there, if I was to extrapolate that logic in codification morality, like, over time, I think there's, like, social observations that we made as a species, like, telling the truth is better than lying, killing should only be done in justified circumstances, fucking your neighbor's wife is a really good way to get yourself killed, if you want to know who your kids are, you should probably be faithful to your partner, If you don't want your dick to rot off because of diseases, then you should probably be faithful to your partner.
		If you want your kids to be happy and healthy and productive human beings, then you should be around for them and raise them and teach them to be moral in the ways that you believe morality are important.
		Nihilist antitheists I get so frustrated with because they don't even concede that this morality is evolutionarily advantageous.
		They just say, oh, even to have social prescriptions is bigoted.
		Even to have social prescriptions is fucked up.
		Whereas for me, it's obvious that a lot of these social prescriptions actually do lead to better human life on average.
		And you can come to me with a thousand exceptions, but the reality is that these rules were put in place for a reason.
		So for me, I'm appealing to Christianity.
		You were saying that you weren't appealing from a utilitarian standpoint.
		I am appealing from a utilitarian standpoint.
		I don't literally believe in the resurrection of Christ because I have 10,000 logical lab coat fucking reasons to not, but I do believe in the moral utility of Christian beliefs because I see their impact on human beings.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and that's what I'm saying, is that's where I think we diverge, is I'm not pushing it for you.
		And here's my issue though with the utilitarian is, and this is really the crux of it, I think that you cannot get the fruits of the religion Without believing it.
		I think that that's really the fundamental misstep of the Nietzscheans and the New Pagans and even people who say they're cultural Christians.
		Because I hear this a lot.
		I hear people say, you know, Christian civilization produced all this.
		Let's sort of act out Christianity without believing in it.
		And I think that There is something that changes when something is done self-consciously.
		There is, and I think maybe you would agree with this, that if I really believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, if I really believe that I'm going to burn in hell if I sin and I'll be rewarded if I don't, I really believe that will be my destiny.
		Maybe not as my body, but my soul, my eternal soul.
		There's a huge difference between Earnest, sincere faith, and a sort of self-conscious performance of faith for the sake of these kinds of benefits, essentially.
		And that, I think that's the real problem, which has been unresolved, is there isn't anything else, there's no alternative to believe in, and I think that trying to simulate that belief, I also think that you don't get the benefits.
		Because, again, it really only works if people believe that there's That there's a consequence for it.
		I think it really only works with people.
		And also because it's true!
		And also because it's true.
		It's not because people are not eating pork or whatever that they're doing great.
		They're doing good because they're doing the right thing.
		And I also think that it's no coincidence that Things that God prescribes are good for you.
		I think that, you know, when you look at the Bible, one way to look at it is like, this is just this collected tradition, and there's a so-called Burkean way to look at it.
		There's like a Burkean heuristic, where you say, like you said, oh, people aren't eating shellfish, so they put it in the religious text, and, you know, something like this.
		But I think that it's no coincidence that It's not even just about STDs and how to build a functioning society.
		I also think it's about how to live a fulfilling life.
		I think it's how to navigate.
		In other words, it's not just good in purely material terms.
		In things that ancient people would understand, it's good in terms of... When you read the wisdom books, it's not just about Like solving your little problems, it's about how are you going to live a life that's really consistent with what you were kind of created to get.
		And it's written, in other words, like an author's manual, not like a field manual, if that makes sense.
		It's written like the owner wrote the manual, rather than we're sort of like figuring these things out.
		Because there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that is, in my opinion, maybe counterintuitive, But it's true, and there's a lot of things in the canon of Catholicism where you might say, well, there's not actually a really simple evolutionary psychology explanation for it, but yet it works, and it's true.
		And so to me, that shows, and then you've got, of course, the prophecies.
		The prophecies are an unignorable part of this.
		How could the prophecies predict the crucifixion?
		You know, how could the prophecies predict the time and the manner and the nature of the coming of the Messiah, if it was just supposed to be this field manual of collected wisdom?
		And why would there be this sort of arcane, esoteric things in there?
unidentified		Numbers and all this, 7 times 70.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I think it's clear that it's a transcendental, otherworldly owner's manual, essentially, as opposed to this... I think that the evolutionary psychology thing just...
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I think it's sense of rationalization.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly, yeah.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but I kind of, I land in between these two.
		And I joke about it.
		I joke about it with plenty of people.
		But I think that there's... I think, you're gonna hate this, but I'm gonna tell you anyways.
		I think contemplating the nature of existence and marijuana or mushrooms or any of that kind of stuff, it fucks with you on a level that's ultimately undeniable.
		And the thoughts and revelations that you'll achieve when you kind of get into these spaces are undeniable because they alter your pattern of behavior.
		And so that's where for me, I think that contemplation, meditation, seeking, you know, God, like I said, I'm a gnostic, you know, not a specific religious person, I just believe in a fundamental creative force and an order to the universe.
		The, and I think that you can know that universe through revelation that's both like personal and also cultural and over time and all that kind of stuff.
		So I do think that the Bible is revelation, but I also think that it's revelation through a flawed filter.
		And that filter is humanity.
		And so for me, everything that we're scratching at, whether it's, you know, Taoism or Confucianism or Christianity or Islam or something like that, we're all scratching at the same thing, which is God and existence and morality and meaning and all that kind of stuff.
		And it's the flawed translations.
unidentified		It's us dancing on the face of God.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		It's us trying to scratch at the logos to understand it.
		But I don't think that we have a final answer yet.
		I don't think that, uh, you know, Bible, that's it.
		That's all that we can understand about God and the universe.
		I don't believe that.
		Maybe that's very lab-cody of me to do so, but I do want to share something with you as well.
		So, I didn't believe that dinosaurs existed or make sense, okay?
		They're too fucking big, alright?
		And, uh, you know, basically, they don't, uh, you know, them fucking doesn't make sense, right?
unidentified		You know?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		They're like, how does a stegosaurus fuck?
unidentified		The two, the two things... We talked about this last week with, with Wang Lin, by the way.
		Just out of the blue, you happen to bring this up.
		Anyway, sorry.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		And then I got a bird.
		And the way that birds have sex is they basically rub their buttholes together.
		So all they do is they lift up their feathers and they rub their buttholes together.
		And I was like, oh, OK.
		Maybe a T-Rex could do this.
		Maybe a stegosaurus could do this.
		So I just wanted to throw that in the back of your head in case the dinosaurs aren't real fucking thing is still in the back of your head.
		I think dinosaur sex is possible.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if they're real.
		That's the thing.
		I don't know.
		Have you seen the fossil records?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I haven't seen them.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I find it hard to believe.
unidentified		I find it hard to believe.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Listen, here's the thing.
		I've argued with people about this my entire life.
		Here's the difference.
		Lab coats are out there saying, uh, T-Rex?
		Yeah, sure!
		Serapod or sauropod?
		Yeah, totally!
		And a guy comes along and says, hey guys, I don't know about all this.
		It just seems hard to believe.
		And they go, crucify him!
		Crucify him!
		He doesn't believe in the giant lizard!
		It's like, all I said is, I find it a little bit hard to believe.
		I find evolution... I'm not this... I'm not a... I'm a paleoconservative, not a paleontologist.
		So I don't, you know, I don't know the fossil record here.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Uh, but it just seemed unsceptical.
		Okay, my, my running theory was that dinosaurs were, uh, they were created to sell children's toys, okay?
		They were like, let's make cool-looking, weird animals.
unidentified		Source Lucas came up with dinosaurs, yeah.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		And then, and then we'll fucking, and then we'll sell them to kids, and then when fucking ultra-giga-chad fucking Christian nationalist geniuses figure out that we're lying, we'll just fucking browbeat them into shutting their mouths about, uh, the, the existence of dinosaurs.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I think that's what happened.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Possible.
		Possible.
		Well, then there's, uh...
		There's a big... I don't even know what the conspiracy theory is, but it says, like, oil people created the fossil myth.
		I don't know.
		I'm not really up to date on that one.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		But why does everyone care that I believe in... That's... I have a problem with the snarky... No, I was saying that I had similar doubts, and then I saw birds fuck, and I was like, okay, maybe dinosaurs are real.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think it's possible.
		I think it's possible.
		I think that the Bible describes dinosaurs.
		I think that the Bible Oh, for sure.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I think historical descriptions of dragons and sea monsters and all that kind of shit were probably, like, Leviathan creatures in human prehistory that were absolutely fucking monstrous to deal with.
		We probably, like, We think it's all fucking fun and games to deal with, like, mountain lions and grizzly bears and all that kind of shit.
		Could you imagine, like, actually dealing with a fucking squid that's capable of killing people?
		Or fucking, uh, like, like, uh, goddamn... Imagine, imagine dealing with a, uh, what is it?
		A Komodo dragon.
		Like, that's, like, full-sized.
		And then walking away and being like, Frank got eaten by a Komodo dragon.
		And it's like, go write a story about that shit.
		Tell me that, uh, dinosaurs or, uh, dragons don't pop up in your lore, in your literature.
		But anyways, I listen I'm okay, so I'm not gonna lie.
		I'm gonna tell you exactly where I'm at I don't give a fuck about Ukraine because I understand like I give a fuck on a personal level I'm still gonna send money to my friends in Ukraine.
		I'm still gonna I'm still gonna support them and What about the Azov battalion?
unidentified		We didn't even talk about the Azov battalion tonight!
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Christian, Western Ukrainian.
		He asked me for dating advice that he followed well before the war and he actually took me up on it and he actually had a successful taste date with a girl that he was into.
		So, you know, he's a good kid.
		Anyways.
		Uh, sorry, did you have a real question about the Yazoov Battalion?
unidentified		No, I just mentioned that we hadn't brought it up.
		I was just being silly.
		I mean, it isn't silly.
		We haven't brought it up.
		But, uh... Wait, why do you... I don't know, do you want to say something about the Yazoov?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Why do you Christian nationalists who hang out with fascists care about Ukrainian fascists as a moral fucking indictment of Ukraine?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		That's my question.
unidentified		I don't.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
unidentified		Yeah, I don't.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Everybody's always using that argument.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		They're like, the Yazoov's a bunch of Nazis.
unidentified		You like Nazis, you dumb fuck?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I will say, here's what I will say.
		The Ukrainian far right, they hate ethnic Russians.
		For what it's worth, I am against ethnic hatred.
		I'm not going to say that I support the war by Russia because they're exterminating racism.
		I'm not going to say that.
		But I will say that the ethnic hatred of the Russians is wrong.
		I don't support ethnic hatred.
		And for what it's worth, it is fucked up what they're doing.
		The Galician far right and the Kiev government Going after the Russian language and all of that, I think it's messed up, but I also don't really care about the conflict.
unidentified		The Azov thing is also, I mean, people bring up the way they are treated by the Western media and Western governments previous to this conflict.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Where they're called out before and now they're just virtually ignored because as long as they're fighting Russia, who gives a fuck?
unidentified		Basically.
		I won't say ignored, but kind of whitewashed a little bit.
		It's not like they completely ignore it, but they kind of give it a little bit of a pass now.
		So, yeah.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Which you find ironic considering, like, the global, homo, internationalist, pro-LGBT, pro-disagreement.
unidentified		Well, I'm the moderator.
		Some people say.
		I don't know.
		I won't weigh in how I feel one way or the other.
		But people have certainly brought that up.
		Yeah.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		So, okay.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So, what I'll tell you is, I don't need to wrap up.
		I can be here as long as you want to if you want to answer superchats or continue on to a different conversation or whatever.
		I'm just telling you, I'm old as shit.
		I'm still in the wage cage, so I have to pay my bills.
		So I sat in a chair for eight hours before doing this debate, and my neck and my back is fucking screaming at me because I can't do this shit full time, unlike you neat fucks.
		And basically, you know, I want to get there eventually.
		But I'm not there right now.
		So so maybe next time I can be a little bit more hydrated and well rested.
		But my brain, my early onset dementia is going to start to wander.
unidentified		So you kind of we know we got we got a few.
		Yeah, we got it.
		No, it's cool.
		We got a few here.
		I think I mean, We did a couple hours.
		I said Spacey earlier.
		It was wide-ranging.
		Somebody said more of an interview.
		I saw a couple people.
		Kind of more of a discussion, I would say.
		And feeling out some areas here.
		Let's see.
		Counterpoints.
		Clean up that mouth effect that you curse after every word you say.
		It makes you unbearable to listen to.
		It makes you sound Like, you don't know what you're talking about.
		No, I do curse a little bit myself, but... I was about to say, that's super true.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well... No, hold on, Ethan.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I want an opportunity to respond.
unidentified		Go ahead.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'm a former Marine, number two.
		Eat a dick, number three.
		You're on the far right.
		We're literally talking about, like, Christian Imperium and conquering the world and what elements of fucking fascism are integratable and which ones of them are fucking cringe.
		And you're complaining about the word, like, fuck?
		Are you a baby?
		Are you a child?
		Get the fuck out of here.
unidentified		I will say it is a crutch, though.
unidentified		I realize that on my own, and it's like just something that you always wish to.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'm halfway through life.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, I'm still gonna curse, don't get me wrong, but I do recognize, I like, there are better words.
		Santa Claus says, CounterPoints denies Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
		I don't know.
		And then he said something about, I won't repeat the rest.
		It was kind of rude.
		If it's TOS safe, go ahead.
		No, I'd rather not.
		Something about burning on coal for eternity.
		So I don't know.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Is that a sex joke or is that a hell joke?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I can't tell.
unidentified		I mean, if you want me to read it, I'll read it.
		He says, is the gay apron worth burning on coal for eternity?
		Faggot.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Gay apron.
unidentified		I don't know what that means.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		What kind of apron?
		We'll catch up with them eventually.
		Somebody can explain it to me later.
unidentified		The apron, I'm not sure.
		So, let's see.
		Connor, you talk about how Russia didn't try to negotiate, but they did.
		And Zelensky wouldn't even deny NATO.
		With Russian security at risk over something so small, then yes, shelling cities is necessary.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so pushing back on that.
		Do you think I just as easily could have gone back to Nick and bored the fuck out of y'all by saying, Ukraine tried to negotiate too back in 2014.
		There was this meeting between Zelensky and Russia and they asked for these three things and they didn't get them.
		I don't give a shit.
		We're talking about broad strokes.
unidentified		All right, now, do you want to weigh in on that, Nick?
unidentified		Anything to say there?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I would just say that it's pretty transparent that we try to negotiate.
		I don't think any—or rather, that Russia tried to negotiate.
		I don't think anybody even denies that.
		I think that basically the diplomatic expansion, the NATO expansion, was a steamroll from the very beginning.
		I don't think anybody denies that.
		I just think where people would argue about that is they'd say, like, Well, it doesn't matter because liberal democracy is what's right, so it's almost like this.
unidentified		What do you think about the idea that Putin was actually doing this also for the future, not just for this Ukrainian dispute, that this is also to show the West that he will do something like that, that Russia will go to war, and it's not just all saber-rattling that, yeah, we will go into country, yeah, we will drop some missiles if needed.
unidentified		I think he's cementing his legacy.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		The dude that is like 60s or something like that, he's trying to make sure that Russia is stronger than when he first got it.
		I don't know if that's true or not, considering how economically fucked and militarily fucked it's been, but that was his goal.
		Whether or not he achieved it is debatable.
unidentified		Well yeah, well maybe he thinks if they don't ever act, if they just keep getting bullied by the West over and over and over again, then they never step up, basically, in a serious way, militarily.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but there's just, while we can extrapolate it down to these broad moral philosophies and all that kind of stuff, there's just, there's young people who are dead now that didn't need to be.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		That's it.
unidentified		Well, I mean, that's always the case, though, throughout world history, right?
		I mean, there's always wars and people dead that shouldn't be dead.
		In theory, right?
		In theory, you wouldn't want to see anybody get killed, but they're going to continue to get killed.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		My only objection to any pushback on this is basically, I want you to look at it.
		That's it.
		I don't care.
		If you want to say Russia is based and we salute our boys in white, red, and fucking blue or some shit.
		And we do.
		If you want to say that shit, I just want you to also look at the pictures of Ukrainian kids with half their fucking heads missing.
		Because, oh no.
		Oh no, the dead people, Nick.
		The dead people.
		Yes, I'm appealing to the dead people.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What picture of a dead person?
		You have this argument, but it's a war.
		And also a lot of that is fake.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		You could have left it with the first one.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		It's also fake!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Do you not believe in atrocity propaganda?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		No, I do believe in atrocity propaganda, but do you... So for atrocity propaganda, there's probably some level of atrocity, right?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Even if we're talking about a few thousand or a few hundred or whatever?
unidentified		No, I think that you have a war.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		If you shoot an artillery shell into a civilian area, there's a chance it's going to hit a civilian?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Well, there will be civilian casualties, but this, you know, what we're hearing from the media is hysterical, where they say, they're bombing maternity wards deliberately.
		It's like, they're bombing a puppy mill.
		They just blew up a puppy mill and a pet store and a daycare.
		It's like, that's the atrocity.
		Because it's, of course, like, atrocity to me implies excessive cruelty or malice.
		It is a war.
		There will be casualties, and that is unfortunate.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So this is what I'm really saying, because I don't think we're disagreeing.
		I just want you to look at it.
		That's it.
		That's all I care about.
		If you have the same opinion, you have the same opinion.
		I don't care.
unidentified		Okay.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Alright, fine.
		Then I don't give a fuck.
		That's fine.
		Just as long and I'm not saying this is like a personal indictment to you I'm saying I'm saying to the people who are blasé about violence I just I would like it if they had some real-world experience with violence so they know what it feels like and then if they could look at the violence that's being inflicted in an ideology that they supposedly support and then if they can morally square that with themselves it's like it's like somebody eating a cow or some shit
		Like, if you're gonna go to McDonald's or something like that, I'm not saying you gotta fucking kill your own cows and shit, but recognize that you're killing a fucking cow, and if it came down to it and you're like, yeah, I want my fucking Big Mac, then just be willing to shoot the cow in the fucking head yourself.
		That's all I'm saying.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I just think that, like, I agree with you.
		I think that people should not be blasé about war and violence because, and you uniquely understand this because you were in a war, that you're right, violence is abhorrent and war is abhorrent.
		I think that war should be avoided at any cost and I don't think there's any, and I don't think it's going to be glib about violence.
		That being said, I think that it's foundational to the worldview that The violence is unnecessary and the violence is being caused.
		I mean, it's true that Russia, in a strict sense, initiated it, but the real cause was the West.
		And it is tragic and it's unfortunate.
		I'm not trying to be funny when I say that, but I do support Russia and I do support it and, like, you know, the meta-political consequences.
		But I agree with you.
		I don't think violence is funny.
		It is tragic where it happens, but That is the world, and these are things that happen.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		We don't have to be so sober.
		Violence can be funny.
		And death can be funny.
		But, like, I just want people to reconcile what they're doing.
		So for instance, like, Coach Red Pill as a fucking sample or whatever.
		See?
unidentified		Who would sell?
unidentified		I don't know who you're talking about.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I knew, I knew you would enjoy that.
		Traveling to a country that's being invaded, publicly supporting the invaders, and then posting that to social media, and then getting detained for a few weeks.
		I don't know the details of it or whatever, but the fucking, like the Rip Bozo shit on fucking Twitter, I'm not gonna lie.
		It's fu- like if he was actually executed in like a, you know, Ukrainian fucking jail cell or whatever, it'd be a little fucked up.
		I laughed.
		Okay?
		I laughed.
		I thought it was fucking funny.
		I thought it was fucking funny that somebody was mean to you, and you're like, fuck you, you piece of shit.
		And, uh, you know, violence can be funny sometimes.
		The... I agree.
		Yeah, so, so, my, my only point is, like, I just want, I just want people who are casual and blasé about violence to know what they're being casual and blasé about it.
		If you want to be funny, if you want to fuck around with it, yeah, sure, go ahead.
		Just do it like a fucking adult.
		That's all I need.
unidentified		Fair.
		Yeah, yeah.
		Okay, alright.
		No, I have my own take.
		I won't.
		I was about to say something.
		Alright, now let me look.
		Make sure I didn't miss all the questions.
		Let's see.
		Ask Connor why he thinks black people love their families more than white people love their families.
		I don't know if that's a take that you have or... That's not a take that I have.
		Okay.
		Internax says, wow, my old best friend and my new best friend are getting along.
		Glad to see that you're becoming a griper like me, Connor.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Nick, do you know who Internax is by any chance?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I have seen him around, but I don't really know his story.
unidentified		I don't know his deal.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		He's a Christian Democrat, and he basically, like, he's not as built into this universe as, you know, I am, I guess.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		But he basically, he goes, deals with degenerate Twitch trash, and then freaks the fuck out and autistically spurgs at him without getting banned.
unidentified		All right, now let's see.
		Anonymous says, so based on this debate, Conor agrees with Nick on Russia's justification of this war.
		What do you say about that?
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So, I can concede descriptive reality.
		There's no harm in conceding descriptive reality, but I also think that we can... Nick would probably concede my descriptive reality, which is the United States is representative of a 65 trillion global hegemon that's trying to rule the world, either through diplomacy or economics, in that there is a argument for Russia being forced into the fold.
		It didn't happen.
		There's a consequence.
		And you could say it was like an overreach or some shit, but it's not Europeans.
		Europeans are experiencing high gas prices.
		They're not getting artillery shelled.
		And Americans, there's global economic earthquakes because of what's going on, but it's not Europeans or the Western hegemony that's paying the price.
		It's Ukrainians and it's Russians.
		So while I think Nick could be right that this is an overreach by the global American empire, I think the reason why they were willing to overreach is because they knew they weren't going to be the ones who primarily paid the price.
		So you can morally indict my side while still descriptively understanding their project.
		So just because I concede to descriptive reality doesn't mean I'm like, oh yeah, Russia's based for fucking artillery shelling fucking cities.
unidentified		No.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I would go a step further, and I would even say that the United States is driving the policy, and the United States isn't even bearing the brunt of the economic pain, too.
		It's like, we're not dying, and also, we're not reliant on the Russian natural gas, but we're the driver.
		This policy is not good for Ukraine, or for Germany, or France, or Eastern Europe.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		But maybe Joe Biden is playing 4-D chess, because Trump Was trying to get the German military to carry its own weight, and because of the war in Ukraine, you know, the Bundeswehr is now rearming and becoming, you know, better funded.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		So maybe Biden is actually, despite his melting brain, a 4D genius.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, maybe.
		Possible.
		He's, hey, he's about to end abortion.
		Holy Catholic president.
unidentified		He's gonna end an abortion.
unidentified		We never saw it coming.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		We kind of like it.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Never saw it coming.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Caliban won in Afghanistan.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I'm kind of loving what we're getting, honestly.
unidentified		Now let's see here.
		We have a couple more Super Chats.
		Let's see.
		Unrelated to this debate, but according to Julius Evola, the masculine spirit takes form in warrior or priest.
		People telling Nick to work out don't get that they are imposing warrior Case values on a man who walks a priestly path.
		Ah.
		True, true.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this guy's a warrior.
		He's a former Marine.
		I don't know if you caught that.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		He's a former Marine.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Or you never leave... What is he?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Never leave the Marine Corps or something like that?
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Once a Marine, always a Marine.
		Yeah, and that's why I have fucking arthritis and neck problems and shit.
		So, yeah, wasn't Evola the fucking autist who was like walking around in artillery strikes during World War I and got paralyzed as a result?
		Or was I thinking of some other philosopher?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know his story.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I don't believe he was in World War I, no.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		There was some dissident right-wing philosopher or somebody people like to appeal to, who literally was like, the axe of God and the axe of man are ba-ba-ba-ba-ba, and they align this way mystically, this, that, the other, and he used to go out for walks in artillery strikes in a civilian area, and he literally got paralyzed because he was such an autist.
		I haven't heard that one.
		Just be careful with Central Europeans giving you advice on how to live a masculine life, that's what I would say.
unidentified		People in chat said yes, but World War II, not World War I. I didn't know that either.
		Let's see, Mr. Gibson says, Counter, does signing your life onto Zog make you feel like you have an important take?
		Being a Marine doesn't hide you from real criticism.
		You started off good, but ended up shooting yourself in the foot.
		This isn't good.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		I'd be curious about what he thought I shot myself in the foot in.
		No, I don't hide behind my service to make my own opinions.
		I make my own opinions.
unidentified		Let's see.
		I'm trying to make sure I don't miss any.
		I think we got them all in here.
		And like I said, it ended up being a little bit more of a discussion with some flourishes of debate here and there.
		Now, you started off counterpoint, so I'll let you start off here and let Mr. Fuentes finish it here.
		And I know your back's hurting, too, probably, so I appreciate you hanging in here.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
		I appreciate you allowing me to be a boomer on your platform.
		No, I had fun.
		I enjoyed it.
		Nick the Knife Fuentes is a feared name in the world, but unfortunately he's been castigated into his realm.
		But I do want to make it clear that we do have opposing projects.
		Just because I'm conciliatory or concede to descriptive reality or this, that, the other, we do have fundamentally different perspectives.
		To articulate this in the closing, Um, because I'm not religious, because I don't root my world in foundational Christianity, I do have different takes on gay folk, trans folk, you know, whatever, minorities, all this kind of shit.
		And I'm trying to think of the future of the world in which we build a civic nationalist, liberalist, Structure that actually is strong enough to survive the trials and tribulations of the future without it being like a desiccated morally bankrupt spiritually collapsing falling apart Because we're at the peak of Rome But what happens now does it perpetuate or does it collapse?
		And if it's going to perpetuate, we're going to need a spiritual, not like religious necessarily, but we're going to need a spiritual narrative that actually propagates the project forward.
		Without that narrative, we're doomed to collapse because people don't even know what they're fighting and dying for.
		So the material benefits are obvious.
		The global hegemonic project is powerful.
		Just because it experienced a temporary setback, I want people in Nick's audience to soberly reflect on what the geopolitical goals of Russia are and what the geopolitical goals of the American hegemonic project are, and who's succeeding in their goals more at this time.
		And if anything, my argument against Nick's view, like this prescription that it's all going to fall apart, Cato, again, like the Roman historian philosopher or whatever, he predicted the fall of Rome 350, like 400 years before it happened.
		So you can see the writing on the wall, but it could take longer to happen than you give it time for.
		And on top of that, who do you want to be?
		So, do you want to be the, you know, the Christian aesthetic who ignores the fall of the Imperium and eventually wants to reconstitute something greater within Christendom?
		Because there were people who existed 2,000 years ago who did exactly that.
		There were Bulgarian Central Europeans who became more Roman than some of the Romans themselves and fought for the Imperium and perpetuated the Empire for longer than most people thought it was going to survive.
		And then there was stuck-up, snobby, shitty Italian Romans who basically doomed the Empire through their own hubris and through their own discrimination of what they had created, but they basically rushed the fall of the Empire because they were snobby and shitty towards their own creation.
		I'm hoping that through these conversations, through these ideas, we could kind of come along like a civic nationalist, liberal social structure that's capable of perpetuating.
		And when Nick says, do you think it's strong enough to survive?
		My honest answer is, I don't know.
		It's just what I'm pushing for the same way that he's pushing for Tsar Nicholas XIV and the revitalized Christian empire of the 3500s.
		So we'll see whose project survives the test of history.
unidentified		Mr. Freitas, go ahead, sir.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Indeed.
		Yes, well, what started out as a debate about Russia and Ukraine has really taken some wild twists and some winding twists and turns, but that's okay.
		I thought it was fun.
		I thought it was a good conversation, and I think you hit the nail on the head.
		The crux of the real divergence is on religion, and I think that is true about you and I and Destiny and I. I don't even think it's so much about Right or left or, you know, anything really specific about ideology.
		It's about whether or not we're religious.
		That's obviously the big difference.
		And as far as the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes, I think if I could just give an opinion on that, I think it's NATO's fault.
		I think Russia is awesome.
		I support Russia.
		I think that the decline of America, and here's the thing about American hegemony, it's over regardless.
		The unipolar moment has passed.
		The Ukraine war is not the beginning of it, it's sort of the end of that transition.
		And so whether we pass good policy or bad policy really doesn't matter.
		China is coming back, Russia is coming back, Europe will probably break away in more meaningful ways as time goes on.
		This is reality we have to deal with and so we can't have a foreign policy predicated on this Infallibility, the self-righteousness, and also this idea that we can achieve any goal, and we don't have to select which goals we want to have.
		We've got to make choices and be economical, as opposed to this idea that we can fight two wars at once and do whatever we want, and we're never wrong.
		I think the Ukraine war shows that.
		As for our competing and separate projects, I think that you are with everyone else.
		In a certain sense, you are with the Nietzscheans and the Baptists and with everybody else that is trying to create some kind of new religion or something like a religion in the wake of modernism.
		And I think that it's just not going to work.
		And it's not going to work because religion is true.
		If religion were not true, it would be possible.
		But it just so happens that because religion is true, this project is impossible.
		It's probably not going to work.
		It's not going to work.
		And it's been tried in communism, it's been tried in liberalism, I mean, and how many times do we have to see these kind of violent revolutions and butchery in France, or in Russia, or in Iran, or in other places, or in Germany, even, before we realize that there are no idea systems, there are no systems that are going to solve the problem, which is that man has fallen.
		And that we live in a hierarchical, supernatural, metaphysical universe where there are angels and demons or rather there are angelic beings and where there's a God.
		I think that all these systems failings is a testament to the fact that it's not getting at the true nature of the universe and of man.
		And so I think that's why the only The only thing that will work is going to be Christianity, and it's only going to work because it's the only thing that's true.
		And if we're living in the end times, it's not going to work.
		If we're not living in the end times, maybe we'll get another century or two.
		But that's my closing statement.
		That's all I got.
unidentified		Thank you both, you gentlemen, for coming on the Killstream tonight.
		Another one in the books.
		Wide-ranging discussion slash debate here tonight on the show.
		I enjoyed it as well.
		Counterpoints, Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		Welcome back.
		Both of you, hopefully, down the line.
		And have a good one this weekend.
		All right.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Appreciate y'all.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Have a great one.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Thanks a lot.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You too.
unidentified		Yep, you too.
		Thank you both for coming on the Killstream.
		There we go.
		It's in the books all day long.
		Anonymous sent $3.
		So based on this debate, Connor agrees with Nick on Russia's justification of this war.
		Bambigida Bomb sent $10.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		What's good?
unidentified		Big pimpin'.
unidentified		Nothing.
@counterpointspol ▲ ● ▼		Nothing beats the killstream.
unidentified		Congrats on Rosie and salute Pansu.
		Thank you.
		Ralph, we are proud of you and know your mom and dad are too.
		Thank you, man.

▲