Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 9, 2022 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:21:13

QUEEN OF ENGLAND DEAD AT 96 RIP | America First Ep. 1057QUEEN OF ENGLAND DEAD AT 96 RIP | America First Ep. 1057

Participants

Main voices

nick fuentes

01:17:09

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Good evening, everybody.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You're watching America First.
		My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
		We have a great show for you tonight.
		Very excited to be back with you here tonight on Thursday.
		We have a lot to talk about tonight.
		Lots to get into.
		Big news featured story you already know.
		Today the Queen of England died, 96 years old, after reigning for 70 years.
		Huge, huge news.
		Probably the biggest death or one of the biggest deaths of the 21st century.
		And a massive deal for the United Kingdom and a little bit less important for everybody else such as the people over here.
		It's a sad day.
		It is sad when a monarch dies or I guess anybody for that matter.
		So we'll talk all about that.
		We'll get into what happened and what happens next.
		And the significance of all of this?
		It's interesting because it seems like people in the American right are kind of split on this.
		I know that there are some people that are saying that it's a very sad day and this is something that we as Americans should mourn because it represents the loss of a connection between Europeans of the past and Europeans of the present.
		Queen Elizabeth was coronated in the 1950s, when there still was a British Empire, and when times were very different.
		And they say that she is one of the last things, if not the last thing, that connected the British to their historic past.
		So the argument goes.
		Other people, on the right as well as everywhere else, for various reasons, say that Queen Elizabeth either has nothing to do with America, or it's a good thing she died.
		A lot of blacks and non-white people in the United Kingdom, as well as around the world, are actually celebrating the death.
		Because they say that the British Empire is the pinnacle of colonialism.
unidentified		And there are right-wing people that say that Queen Elizabeth presided
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		over the very transition, which the former category of right-wing people decry.
		Some people on the right say that she's the last thing connecting us to our historic past, or Europeans, British in particular.
		And the critics on the right will say that, well, she presided over the transition from that historic past to the nightmarish present.
		And so, what is really the value of that legacy?
		So we'll get into all that.
		I want to talk about all those different views.
		And it should be interesting.
		Even though she's not The American sovereign, she still is a towering figure in world history, and particularly in British history.
		So, historically significant, whatever your view.
		So we'll talk about that.
		We'll also be talking tonight about the mass shooting in Tennessee yesterday, which I didn't cover last night because we didn't really have that much information In case you didn't see in I believe it was Memphis, Tennessee yesterday a 19 year old black guy Went on a shooting rampage, which he live-streamed on Facebook live and he just went around shooting random people killed four I think shot five others
		And this is a guy who actually had a prior conviction for attempted first-degree murder.
		He was let out within a year.
		And apparently the rampage started off when he called for help, claiming that he had been in a car accident.
		And when a paramedic showed up to try and help him, he shot and killed her.
		Real nice.
		That's what the black people are up to these days.
		So we'll talk about that as well.
		Obviously very tragic and also not surprising that it's not getting hardly any media coverage.
		And as I said yesterday, yesterday was a particularly dry day, particularly slow news day, and yet coverage of this shooting, or the gravity of what it represents, ...was not present anywhere across any major news agency.
		A 19-year-old black man on a massacre, a shooting spree, only targeting white people apparently.
		So there's an apparent racial motivation, but of course nobody in the media is bothered to discuss that.
		There's no memorial for that.
		There's no crying president.
		There's no legislation.
		There's no calls to stop hate.
		There's no Instagram story.
		Whatever.
		It's not there.
		And we know why.
		That's just the usual.
		So we'll talk about that too.
		Should be a pretty good show.
		Lots to get into.
		Before we get into all the news though, I want to remind you to follow me here on Cozy.
		Smash the follow button to get a push notification whenever I go live on Telegram.
		We just hit the 20,000 mark.
		We're shooting now for a million.
		So, gonna wanna make sure to smash that follow button.
		We're closing in fast.
		Also, follow me on Gab Telegram.
		True Social.
		Links are down below.
		Make sure to follow me on all three.
		And, if you haven't already seen it, the America First documentary about me and my being on the no-fly list and the FBI investigation into me and the freezing of my money That is available now on MyMoviesPlus.com for $6 for a subscription.
		So if you haven't seen it, check it out.
		MyMoviesPlus.com Okay!
		With that out of the way, we're going to dive in because there's a lot to talk about.
		So, it was kind of a weird day.
		The day today started off in the morning in America.
		With this announcement that the Queen was under medical supervision.
		But it's a very bizarre announcement, and I think everybody realized what was going on from the very moment the press release came out saying that she was under medical supervision, but they say she was comfortable.
		And when you hear that, you don't like to hear that when somebody's in their 90s.
		Anybody who's lost a loved one in that advanced age knows what that means.
		That means They're getting ready to die.
		That's what that means.
		And so everybody was talking about it this morning.
		I remember I woke up and I checked the news and I saw that and it was everywhere and people were preparing for the worst.
		And this is something that I don't think a lot of people think about all the time, the Queen, but it is a remarkable feat of longevity that she lasted 70 years.
		You know, when you consider that she's been the reigning monarch since before probably most Americans were born, I think about it in terms of media.
		Any reference to the Queen of England in nearly any movie and almost all of television and almost all of popular music, when you think about it, or anytime anybody referenced it in the school system in the last half century or three-quarter century, was talking about her, which is pretty monumental.
		And so you don't think about it too much, but it is one of those things which has just been a constant for nearly a century.
		So I saw the news come in and as the day went on it became clear that there was a transfer of power being set in motion.
		The BBC cleared its broadcasting schedule.
	They were preparing to make an announcement at 6 o'clock at their local time.
	All the presenters were wearing black ties.
	They put up pictures of her at the British Embassy in France.
	And then all the family members coming by, and so people kind of know, and it's always sort of sad to see that.
	And that's how it played out today, and this is the announcement about it in the Daily Mail.
	It says, quote, Queen Elizabeth II has died today, age 96.
	Her son Charles, the former Prince of Wales, is now King Charles III, as the world grieves his mother, Britain's longest reigning monarch.
	So that happened immediately.
	For those that don't know about succession, the Queen dies, and immediately upon her death, the heir apparent, which is her son, Charles, accedes to the throne and immediately becomes the king.
	So, the United Kingdom had a new king as of this afternoon.
	It's King Charles.
	And at the moment of the transfer of power, we didn't know what his name was going to be.
	You know, you've got your name, and then when you become a monarch, you have your, I believe it's called a regnal name.
	And they choose a name, I think out of the family names, that they can adopt as a moniker.
	And some people question what the name was going to be.
	Is it going to be, is he going to keep his name and become the third Charles?
	The third King Charles, which some said he may not because there's sort of a bad precedent.
	Because the first King Charles was beheaded, the second King Charles presided over the plague and other problems.
	But that's the name he's going with.
	He announced, I believe it was announced this evening, that he was going with King Charles.
unidentified		So it's now King Charles III.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		All Her Majesty's children had rushed to Balmoral today after doctors became concerned for her health.
		Hours later, she died surrounded by her family.
		At 6.30pm her death was confirmed.
		A Buckingham Palace spokesman said, quote, The Queen's death will see Britain and her Commonwealth realms enter into a 10-day period of mourning, which is an official, that's a formal schedule.
		Al Morrow this evening and will return to London tomorrow.
		The Queen's death will see Britain and her Commonwealth realms enter into a 10 day period of mourning, which is an official, that's a formal schedule.
		There's 10 days of mourning and then a funeral.
		Her coffin will be moved to London on the Royal Train via Edinburgh before she lies in state in Westminster Hall in the House of Parliament for four days.
		Hundreds of thousands of people will be able to pay their respects.
		The state funeral is expected to take place at Westminster Abbey in central London on Monday, September 19th.
		Which will be attended by her bereft family as well as 2,000 heads of state, prime ministers, and presidents, European royals, and key figures from public life around the globe.
		As her son accedes to the throne, there will also be a celebration of her historic 70-year reign that saw her reach her platinum jubilee this year, a landmark unlikely to be reached again by a British monarch.
		Charles, who will reign as King Charles III, said today, quote, The death of my beloved mother, Her Majesty the Queen, is a moment of the greatest sadness for me and all members of my family.
		Today, and this is maybe a little bit of irony here, it says, Today all her children and Prince William flew into Scotland from all over the United Kingdom to get to Her Majesty's bedside before she died.
		Prince Harry did not travel to Scotland from Windsor with his family, and Meghan Markle stayed at Frogmore Cottage.
		But, Harry did not make it in time and landed in Aberdeen around 15 minutes after the death of his grandmother was announced.
		He arrived at the castle just before 8 p.m.
		around an hour and a half after the public announcement to join his father, brother, and other mourners.
		Which is appropriate and fitting, I think.
		A little bit of poetic irony there.
		So, that's how all the events transpired today.
		I guess the first thing to say is about some of the Formalities here.
		So I've been reading a little bit about this today.
		Now there's this 10-day period of mourning.
		She'll lie in state.
		The funeral happens on the 19th, 11 days from now.
		Tomorrow, the new king, King Charles, goes to London and there's, I forget what it's called, but there's a committee that's formed about his accession to the throne and they're gonna televise this and this is sort of like He's going to get briefed on what the king is supposed to do and all of that.
		It's one of these ceremonial things.
		And then in a few months, maybe in a year, there will be a formal coronation.
		I believe Queen Elizabeth was coronated 14 months after her father died and she became the queen.
		So we don't know.
		It could be months, it could be a little over a year.
		But so that's what happens now, and it will be interesting to see politically what happens now to the monarchy.
		There's been historically in modern times calls for the British monarchy to be abolished, although that was never a very popular position because people saw the Queen as likable and benign.
		So people that opposed the monarchy, it was really a fringe position because nobody really saw a reason to do it because she was Dignified, ceremonial, figurehead, inoffensive, likable, not really casting a long shadow over domestic politics or anything.
		So now we wonder what is going to happen next.
		Will the same be true of Prince Charles now that there's a transition?
		Will there be a renewed conversation about getting rid of the monarchy and have the United Kingdom become a republic or become a democracy or something like that?
		This Prince Charles is less popular, significantly less popular.
		Also people are wondering, you know, what is Prince Charles like?
		I don't know.
		I'm not really a I don't know about you guys, but I'm an American.
		I saw a lot of this news and it felt a little bit sad.
		It's sad to see a person die.
		It's especially sad to see the monarch die.
unidentified		I don't think that many Americans do.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I think that the only Americans that really care about the royal family are old white people.
		women you know affluent white female liberals I think they're the ones that are so caught up in the monarchy in the royal family it's kind of like I don't know tabloid and at the on some level and foreign at the minimum it's certainly foreign so I don't really know that very much about the Royals I don't know about the internal politics of all of that And I really don't care very much, I'm gonna be honest with you.
		It's sad, it's an important day historically, and it's interesting to sort of observe the historical legacy here and how that represents truly the passing of an old age, sort of the last relic of the ages of empire and kings and queens and monarchical sovereignty and those kinds of things.
		But outside of that, I don't really feel a particular affinity for the United Kingdom or for London or for the British monarchy, if you want to know the truth.
		So that's sort of my immediate reaction.
		I saw it.
		It's sad.
		Head of state, sovereign, monarch.
		That's very sad.
		And, you know, we hope that she rests in peace.
		We pray for her salvation.
		But by the same token, I don't have any kind of particular personal or cultural affinity for the Queen of England any more than I would for other countries or other heads of state.
		But I want to get into... Well, I will say one thing about it.
		A lot of people ask questions about the monarchy in the United Kingdom, and it does raise sort of some interesting topics, which may be beyond the scope of the show, but I know that a lot of people look at the Queen and they wonder, you know, what does the Queen even do?
unidentified		What does the King and Queen even do?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And it's true that the United Kingdom, like other European monarchies, And what distinguishes a monarchy like the United Kingdom from the United States is where the sovereignty resides.
		still very important and they're very important theoretically and what distinguishes a monarchy like the United Kingdom from the United States is where the sovereignty resides this is a very important thing the United States and France and Mexico and lots of other countries most countries in fact our republics As you know.
		We're a constitutional, representative, democratic republic.
		With a federal structure.
		And what it means to be a republic is that the sovereignty resides in the people.
		Sovereignty is the right to rule.
		Our Declaration of Independence, which is our founding document, or one of our founding documents, says that all men are created equal.
		That is, and Joe Biden said it last week, that is the soul of the country.
		And here's why.
		The premise that all men are created equal implies, then, that the people in the government are equal to the people that are not in the government.
		That what we really have is a lot of people not distinguished by nobility or class or heredity.
		What we have are people that were all created equal and therefore because all people are equal then they all have sovereignty.
		Then all individuals possess these rights.
		Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the right to self-government.
		The people can come together and create A government of peers, a government of, by, and for themselves to rule themselves.
		The sovereignty, the right to rule comes from them.
		Why?
		Because they're all equal.
		And so we talked about that last week and didn't really explore too much because he said that.
		Biden made the claim, and it is true, that the premise of the country is that all men are created equal.
		Some people will say that that's liberal, egalitarian, progressive dogma.
		But no, although it is liberal, it is liberal, maybe not progressive, and certainly to some extent it's egalitarian, that is the foundation of the country because it is from that premise that we derive the idea of self-government, a social contract, a representative democracy, and this constitutional form of government.
		And so what that means, saying that a republic, republic Again, meaning that the sovereignty resides in the people, and the people having the right to rule means that our government, which is this institution which governs the country, receives its authority from the people.
		The people come together and elect representatives.
		The representatives are their... well, they represent the people.
		They are the voice of the people.
		And the representatives come together, 234... 234?
		Years ago?
		36 years ago?
unidentified		How many?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		What's the math on that?
		The representatives come together 230 some years ago and they create the Constitution.
		And the Constitution establishes the federal government and enumerates what the federal government does.
		And the Constitution transmits, and we talked about this earlier this week and last week, transmits the authority of the people to the government.
		The people, with authority, elect representatives and delegate the authority to the representatives.
		The representatives draft and sign the Constitution on behalf of the people.
		The Constitution establishes a government.
		The government derives its legitimate authority and process and structure from the Constitution.
		And then as the government rules, its legitimacy and its authority comes from the people.
		From the people, through this process established by the Constitution, through to the government.
		In the United Kingdom, of course, it's reversed.
		When I say that the monarch has passed, I say the sovereign has passed today, Queen Elizabeth.
		In a monarchy like the United Kingdom, the queen is called the sovereign.
		The queen or the king, the monarch is the sovereign, rather than the people.
		And again, sovereignty means the right to rule.
		And that means that the king or the queen, the monarchy, has the right to rule.
		The king or the queen has the right to determine what happens within the jurisdiction of their territory.
		And that includes collecting taxes, passing laws, going to war.
		All the things that we think of when we think about authority and what a legitimate government can do That power resides within the royal prerogative of the monarch, the sovereign.
		Now, of course, in the United Kingdom, we know that the king and the queen aren't going out and writing decrees all the time.
		People say in contemporary times that the Queen is a completely ceremonial role, she is a figurehead, and it means that she's not effectively ruling.
		It's actually the parliamentary government, it's the Prime Minister, and it's the House of Commons and House of Lords.
		It looks like America.
		It's got a representative system, although it is a parliamentary system.
		But the United Kingdom has political parties, it has a legislature, it has an executive branch, and people think of the Parliament like the Congress, and they think of the Prime Minister like the President.
		But it is very different, because unlike in America, where the authority is transmitted from the people through the Constitution to the government, in the United Kingdom, the authority proceeds from the monarch through to the Parliament and the Prime Minister.
		The Parliament serves at the pleasure of the monarch, and the Parliament is exercising the monarch's delegated right to create the laws.
		The prime minister running the executive branch and performing the ministerial duties is performing the executive authority delegated to them by the monarch.
		So we could say that the Prime Minister, when they act as effectively the head of state in foreign affairs, is operating under the delegated authority of the monarch, as a representative of the monarch.
		And the same is true of the Parliament.
		When the Parliament passes laws, they're exercising the delegated power of the monarch to create the laws.
		And that is still technically true.
		Even though there is long-standing precedent and convention where that does not happen, It still is technically true that as the sovereign, the authority comes from the king or the queen, and that represents a very old idea.
		And so when people talk about abolishing the monarchy, what they're really talking about is completely revising the old world, where the right to rule comes from the church, where it comes from God, where it comes from
		The idea that there are classes of people and special families and these kinds of things, and it gives way to a completely egalitarian, liberal worldview that says that we're all individuals, we're all equal, we can all come together and pick who's going to run the government.
		It is different.
		And so while the king and the queen are effectively, and for the past 70, 80, 100 years, maybe even a little bit longer, While the King and the Queen are effectively a figurehead, tactically the legitimacy of the government's rule still comes from the King and the Queen.
		That's an important distinction.
		So just in case, I just want to talk a little bit about that because I know some people are confused on that.
		And it is true that the United Kingdom has a constitution.
		People say the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
		But the Constitution, in the case of the UK, performs a similar function as the US Constitution.
		The British Constitution technically has no authority, but it says how the monarchical authority is transmitted and how the Parliament will operate.
		But it just operates with a different flow.
		In a republic, the authority and the sovereignty resides in the people and flows from the people through the Constitution to the government.
		In the United Kingdom, it comes from the sovereign, the monarch.
		The sovereignty and the authority resides in the monarch, and it flows down to the Constitution, through the Constitution, to the ministerial executive ranch in the Parliament.
		So that's that.
		So that's just a little political theory.
		But to get into the passing of Queen Elizabeth, again, I don't have very strong feelings, but I've seen a lot of different positions on this.
		The first thing I want to talk about is the widespread celebrations, and that's what it is, of the passing of the monarch by non-white people of the world.
		And this is something that has not gone unnoticed.
		Jeff Bezos tweeted about it.
		There's a war going on on Twitter over this, on TikTok.
		And people are taking sides.
		And the argument goes that Queen Elizabeth, because she represents all of what I just said, because she represents the dying of an old age of empire and dominion and conquest and kings and queens and colonies and truly the old world, while all the indigenous, non-white, communist, Jewish elements despise her as a representative of that.
		And so you've got black university professors, and you've got immigrants and foreigners in the United Kingdom, and Middle Easterners, and a lot of Africans around the world, and liberal white women in America.
		They're all saying that actually it's a good thing that the Queen passed because she's an evil person.
		She's an evil person that presided over an empire, and an empire that used genocide and slavery and all those terrible things.
		And even within the United Kingdom.
		This is going on.
		And in particular, there was something telling about this.
		There was a group of mourners outside the Buckingham Palace today, and they're all out there and they're singing God Save the Queen, and they're paying their respects.
		And there's all this backlash on social media.
	There's a video of this posted on Twitter, and there's all this backlash in the replies.
	People saying that the crowd of mourners is so white.
	It's too white.
	They say that the proportion of people in the crowd is far whiter than London, than the City of London, which is now a global, diverse, multiracial, cosmopolitan hub.
	So all these non-white people in the reply say, well there's too many white people in this crowd, and F your white queen, and F this and that.
	And it goes to show the differences in national feeling.
	Take away the GDP, take away all this talk of shared values and we're all human beings, we're all pink on the inside and assimilation and all of this.
	Think about it.
	You've got ethnic English people who are white, you know, the color of English people is very very white in case you've ever seen them, and they're out there mourning their sovereign, not even necessarily because they are conservative or anything like that, but because to them the monarchy is a part of their character.
	It's part of their national character, and their national heritage, and their culture, and it's part of their identity.
	It's part of their identity in meaningful ways.
	They grew up with the Queen.
	Their parents grew up with the Queen.
	Their grandparents grew up with their Queen.
	And all through the ages, for thousands of years, their ancestors and their forefathers had affection as subjects for their king or queen.
	That's part of the British identity.
	That's part of the British history.
	It's part of the British national character and part of British pride and to some extent their heredity and their identity and their character.
	And this is something that the people that got brought into the United Kingdom from India will just never understand.
	The people that got brought into the United Kingdom from West Africa will never understand that.
	The people that came to the United Kingdom from the Middle East will never understand that.
	And that is why, to them, they don't see the monarchy as a source of positive feelings.
	It's a source of negative feelings.
	It's a source of racial and ethnic division and, for some of them, revanchism and hatred and grievance.
	And if that does not tell you why multiracialism is not tenable, I don't know necessarily what does.
	They do not share the same affinity for the national character, they don't share the same affection for it, and that's because they're not of it, they're not in it, it's not theirs.
	It doesn't belong to them.
	In the same way that black people in America will go and tear down statues of Christopher Columbus, Or tear down statues of Thomas Jefferson or of Robert E. Lee for the exact same reason.
	Blacks have been on this continent with the white people as slaves initially and then as freedmen and then under segregation and now as delinquents.
	They have been on this continent for 400 years.
	400 years together.
	More than my ancestors have been on this continent.
	And yet, that 400 years together in this place, on this land, For almost a quarter of a century under this flag and under this government has not engendered in them any positive sentiment, any positive feeling towards the nation and the heritage and the identity and the culture of the nation.
	Represented by its statues, by its national symbols, its holidays, its heroes.
	And this is a commonality throughout the Western world.
	The same is true of the indigenous Indians and the recent Asian immigrants into Canada.
	The same is true of all these Muslims and Sub-Saharan Africans pouring into continental Europe.
	In Italy, in Denmark, in France, in Germany.
	It's a day like today that reminds you what makes us different.
	It's a day like today that reminds you that we are a people.
	We are a distinct people with a distinct civilization and culture and nationality and identity which no amount of time, no amount of friendliness or neighborliness will allow other people from other places to enjoy.
	They've got their heritage.
	And their culture, they've got their motherlands, and they've got their ancestral customs, and we've got ours.
	And I'm not English, but I can certainly understand by analogy what is happening.
	I can certainly have sympathy for the British people in a way that, as a white person, that the black and the Indian people and the Asian people in the United Kingdom simply do not have.
	No respect No congeniality, no familiarity, or anything.
	And it's not all of them, but it's significant enough across the Atlantic Ocean that it tells you that No amount of this liberal window dressing is going to paint over these very real cleavages and differentiation and distinction between peoples.
	So that's one strain that I saw across the board, is non-white people, particularly these Liberation Jude-up minorities in America and elsewhere, talking about what a great day it is because she represented white supremacy.
	And you know what?
	Frankly, she did.
	She did.
	She represented white supremacy.
	The Founding Fathers represented white supremacy.
	Christopher Columbus represented white supremacy.
	They do represent that.
	They do.
	They represented empire and they represented excellence and greatness and the pinnacle of civilization.
	Inarguably, the British and the American or the French or the Roman Or some other empires.
	The Spanish Empire at various times in history represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
	And may still.
	I don't know that we've surpassed that.
	I don't know that other nations or empires have surpassed that in recent times.
	They did represent that.
	What else could you call it when an island the size of the state of Alabama conquers one quarter of planet Earth and rules the world through its navy and creates and builds civilization where there wasn't any across every continent of the world and teaches them literacy and language and builds schools and infrastructure?
	What else could you call that?
	Other than white supremacy.
	What else could you call that other than white excellence and white greatness?
	And she and they in the United Kingdom and we are hated for it and resented for it and this is why they kill and this is why they tear down the statues and this is what they seek to destroy.
	This is what they seek to pillage with this global migration and these new global attitudes.
	So, that's one strain, is all the non-white people hate the monarch because she represents white supremacy, and you know what?
	They're right.
	But we, as white people, we as Western civilization, we have got to protect our distinct and our excellent and our great heritage and history.
	It is for them to hate, it is for them to resent, it is for them to seethe over.
	Some of them, if they're smart, can appreciate it and can enjoy it.
	And can understand that there is something about the universality of the human experience, and to the sense that they can feel that, then they can appreciate objectively what whites have achieved.
	But for the rest of them, that is for them to scorn and repudiate and seethe and cope and bitch about, and that's for us to celebrate and revere and hold up and worship to some extent, not like a god, but to glorify.
	And to set our gaze towards as we live our lives and raise our children.
	It's true.
	She did represent it in a very, very symbolic way.
	I'm not trying to say that her rule embodied that.
	It didn't.
	And I'll get into that in a moment.
	But to them, and perception is reality, to them, that is what she represents.
	And in fact, to some extent, it is what she represents, or at least the passing or the dying of that, which they now celebrate.
	So that's that.
	Now, that's all of those people, but my response to this is not dictated by the non-white people and what they feel about it.
	I've seen two responses to this from Americans on the right wing, and some say that this is a very sad day and there's great affection for the Queen, and some say that it's, we don't care, it's not our business, or maybe it is a good thing that she passed.
	So first I'll talk about sort of the positive feelings towards the Queen.
	I've seen a lot of people online today are saying that the Queen has passed and she represented this connection between the past and the present.
	And whatever you want to say about all the details, her reign, her rule, her life, what's transpired in the past 70 years when she was the queen, they say, nevertheless, she represented a cultural figure and a national figure and a national totem. she represented a cultural figure and a national figure and And she represents the dying of the old world.
	And to the extent that that is symbolically true, I guess that makes sense.
	And it is sad to see the passing of a historic monarch.
	But I think that's really where it begins and ends.
	Because if you want to know the truth, the queen, like I said, you can say that she represents a connection between the past and the present, but she was the bridge between the past and the present.
	That's like saying if you're, I don't know, that's like saying if you had a great childhood, but then, I don't know, someone came in and like murdered your family, and then the murderer died, and you're like, well, You know, with the passing of my family's murderer, there goes the last thing that connected me to the old world.
	It's like, well, but you know, they kind of caused that.
	And it's not to ascribe total responsibility of the decline and fall of the British Empire to the Queen, but it is to say that there has been a remarkable social, cultural, civilizational transformation of the British nation, of the British Empire, Under the Queen's rule, and she presided over it as the sovereign.
	Now, could she have prevented it?
	Could she have stopped it?
	You know, that is a matter of debate.
	To some extent, these were historical forces beyond really anybody's control, and I'm talking about the decolonization of all the European holdings after World War II, and the liberation movements, and the social unrest of the So how much of that was under her control?
	I don't know.
	It's probably unfair to say that it's too much.
	That being said, she was the Queen.
	She was literally the Queen.
	She was literally the Queen of England and the Sovereign.
	And so as people bemoan the passing of the Queen and us kind of being left with what we have now, not just in the United Kingdom, but around the world as the Well, that transition occurred while she was running the show.
	It's universally, objectively, a horrible transition.
	Demographically, economically, in terms of diplomacy, in terms of culture.
	And so, I don't look at the Queen with any kind of reverence for what she did.
	I mean, what did she really even do?
	Can anybody really point to one particular thing, anything for that matter, that's worthy of us to say that this constitutes a real loss for us as Americans or as American nationalists?
	I don't think that's necessarily true.
	And I understand that Mourning her passing without content is one thing.
	To say that she's the Queen, and it doesn't matter really what she's about and what she is, it's sad because she's the head of state and because she's been the head of state for so long and mattered to a lot of people, well that is one thing, and that is the kind of mourning which is devoid of content and somewhat universal in general, and that I respect and that's fine.
	But to say anything beyond that is To me, it really doesn't make much sense.
	Now, if Vladimir Putin died, I would be upset not just because he's the president and the king of Russia, but also because he was a great leader who stood up to the West and took courageous stands and, you know, brought back his country to its former glory.
	And similarly, if Bashar al-Assad died, I would feel sad.
	Not just because he's the king of Syria and the lion of Damascus, but also because he fought off Israel and he fought off Saudi Arabia, this gangster state, and fought off the United States and all these other foreign powers intervening.
	Not just because of him generally as a head of state or as a human being, But because of the ideals that he lived and his actions.
	I don't know that the same could be said of Queen Elizabeth II.
	I mean, we know that probably the Queen, to varying degrees, was complicit in the creation of a British banking empire, a shadow banking empire, which is basically controlled by Jewish people.
	I mean, that's just true.
	If you look at the creation of the modern British Empire, which is still alive and well in the Commonwealth, it's just exercised in different ways.
	It's just controlled and governed in a different way, befitting of our postmodern, bureaucratic, managerial world.
	It's not a king and a queen.
	It's bankers and it's the Cayman Islands.
	It's these islands that they retain control of, where they do the shadow banking.
	For the intelligence agencies and organized crime.
	It's through its foreign ministry, it's through MI6 and intelligence.
	It was transfigured just like the rest of the modern world was and it still exists.
	And she presided over that.
	And she presided over the complete globalization of the world and of her country, the population, the economy, the affairs of the country, the creation of the European Union over the course of 60 years.
	And so with all that being said, you know, maybe it's not the right day to say all of that, but it should be said that I would definitely lean more into the camp of Elizabeth skeptics than I would say somebody that has so much respect.
	To me, it really only goes so far.
	She was the Queen.
	God save the Queen.
	Very sad.
	Rest in peace.
	I'm sorry to our British viewers.
	I'm sorry for your loss, but I don't really have too much affinity for the monarchy, for this particular monarchy outside of that.
	You want to know about the United Kingdom?
	Look into the City of London and look into where all of the banking power in the United Kingdom comes from in London.
	All of the British banking is headquartered in a neighborhood in London which used to be called Old Jewry.
	Okay, I mean it doesn't even get more obvious.
	It doesn't get more transparent than that.
	That would be like if the State Department and the Federal Reserve and the Pentagon were all in a neighborhood in Washington DC called Jewtown and people were like...
	Hey, well, this is about our nation and this is about our country.
	It's like, well, it's more like our country if there was like a headcrab attached to it or like the alien from Alien growing in its stomach.
	It's more like that to me.
	So, um, so, and it's, it's times like this when you don't really know when to accept for some value the face story.
	And say that the Queen ruled the country and because the Queen to everyone in the United Kingdom was the Queen.
	That's not, I mean, she's not really what she is to the common people.
	But you want to go out and say, well, we mourn her loss because of how people perceive her and what, you know, what she is to them rather than what we know to be on a more esoteric basis in reality.
	Sort of like 9-11.
	On 9-11, Do you go out and say, hey everybody, it was all fake, the government knew, etc.?
	Or do you go out and say, you know, we mourn the loss of 3,000 people lost in a terrorist attack?
	Because to most people, that's what it is.
	That's not in fact what it was.
	And the same is true of a day like today.
	You've got the Queen that people see with the hats and the ceremony and all of that, and to the extent that that is what millions of people believe, it is real on some level.
	But if we really want to understand how the modern world is so radically different from the old world and how it was severed and why she was the last remaining totem, well then you need to dig a little bit deeper and there's a little bit more than meets the eye.
	Things are not like in America as they seem over there either, especially when it comes to the highest levels of British government.
	So that's sort of broadly my feelings on The passing of the Queen.
	And again, I feel bad for the British people because I'm sure for the British people it's a big loss regardless of your feelings on the politics of it, but I fail to see, or rather I don't understand how people fail to see the connection.
	We lost the old world!
	Yeah, well, and she did not play an insignificant role in that.
	She and the British government and the royal family did not Play no role in why things were the way they were when she was coronated in the 50s and why they are now when a new king is coronated in the 2020s.
	It had something to do with it.
	And as a sovereign, inarguably, you have responsibility.
	You have the most responsibility.
	Who is there to blame other than the Queen?
	When you look at how bad things have gotten, who else is there to blame other than literally the sovereign, literally the head of the government, or rather the head of the state?
	So...
	Rest in peace, gone, not forgotten.
	And she didn't beat, she was the second longest serving monarch in history.
	She never will come close, no one will ever come close to the Sun King, Louis XIV, the Catholic.
	If that's not proof, if that's not proof of Catholicism, you know, I don't know what else you need to see.
	So that's the Queen, that's how I feel about the whole thing.
	I don't know, do I go on?
unidentified		Do I, um...
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Let's see.
		How long have I been live?
		Yeah, I guess we have time.
unidentified		I'll cover... I thought... I've gone on a little bit longer than I thought I would on The Queen.
unidentified		So let's move on.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about our other story here about this black shooter in Tennessee and then we'll get on to our Super Chats.
		We'll get on to our... The Queen was a featured story, but I wanted to get into that first because it's the most pressing.
		And then again, what happens next?
		There'll be this King Charles and...
		I don't really know any of the royal family melodramas.
		I'm not really privy to what all of that entails.
		But we'll watch and we'll see, just like the new Prime Minister being selected.
		Okay, well let's get on to our next story and talk about this shooting in Tennessee.
		So we didn't cover this yesterday because we didn't have all the information.
		But I'm sure a lot of you saw it yesterday.
		There was a mass shooting in Tennessee.
		19 year old black guy goes out on a shooting rampage and live streams it on Facebook Live.
		And it appeared, although it's not confirmed that this was the motive, that he was only targeting white people.
		It was a peculiar thing that people who went back and watched the footage and looked at the victims noticed, is that this black guy For apparently no reason, goes out shooting people, but everybody that he shot was white.
		Interesting.
		And so this is the story.
		It says, quote, four people were killed, three wounded, and parts of Memphis were in lockdown for hours until a man suspected in a live stream shooting spree that stretched across the city was taken into custody.
		The rampage began at about 12.56 a.m.
		on Wednesday and continued until Ezekiel DeJuan Kelly's capture on Wednesday evening.
		The crime scenes included seven shooting locations as well as a carjacking in South Haven, Mississippi.
		The Memphis Police Department, after receiving a tip from a concerned citizen at 6.12 p.m.
		on Wednesday, launched a citywide search for Kelly.
		Residents were told to shelter in place, public bus service was suspended, and many restaurants and other public places were shut down during the desperate search.
		South Haven police tweeted that officers responded to a vehicle theft around 8.53 p.m.
		at a gas station.
		Officers swarmed the area, and Kelly was arrested when he crashed during a high-speed chase a few miles south of Memphis.
		Police did not reveal a motive for the attacks, and the identities of the victims were not immediately released.
		But they were all white.
		Because it was live streamed, so we know that.
		The mayor, Jim Strickland, said in a statement, quote, I'm angry for them, and I'm angry that our citizens had to shelter in place for their own safety.
		This is no way for us to live, and it is not acceptable.
		Which Andrew Anglin pointed out is a funny way to react to a mass shooting.
		A black guy goes out and shoots seven people, kills four, and the mayor says, you know, that's really unacceptable.
		Yeah, I think that definitely... I think it kind of goes without saying, actually, that it's not acceptable for teenagers to go around shooting random people in stores and gas stations and across the city.
		This is unacceptable!
		I think that's an understatement, truly.
		In February 2020, Kelly, the shooter, was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder, possession of a firearm, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon.
		A grand jury indicted him on those charges in June 2020.
		He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in April 2021 and was sentenced to three years in prison.
		He only served 11 months and was released about six months ago.
		So this is a problematic guy.
		He was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder, possession of firearm, when he was 17 years old.
		He comes back and pleads guilty to aggravated assault a year later in 2021 when he's 18.
		They let him out of jail after 11 months.
		And I guess my first take on this is we are constantly told about these poor black people that are mistreated by the police, locked up, mandatory minimums, ruining the lives of people.
		People like this should be locked away forever.
		If you got a black kid who's 17 and going out and trying to kill people and beat people up and illicit firearms, We know where this is heading.
		We know where this is going.
		And a large percentage of this demographic just needs to be locked up.
		It's just what it is.
		Hillary Clinton called them super predators.
		Democrats were out there campaigning in the 90s on tough on crime legislation under Bill Clinton.
		Joe Biden.
		And it's for a reason.
		And this was supported, by the way, by everybody.
		This was supported by white people.
		This was supported by black people.
		The 94 crime bill that Republicans bemoan as racist because of changing tastes now with our 750% increase in crime?
		It was supported by black people at the time!
		Not that we need their cosign necessarily, but it also happens to be true.
		Blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, everybody understood 40, 30 years ago that you had this class of super predator black people.
unidentified		Africa.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Which maybe makes you think, right?
		And now here we are 30 years later and we've got all this rhetoric about, you know, you've got to release these people and second chance and a first step towards a new life, first step back, platinum plan and all this.
		And this wouldn't have happened if this guy had just been thrown in jail.
		And this is maybe the first most obvious thing.
		This is happening, especially since the wake of George Floyd, but even before that.
		All across the country, in these big liberal cities, it is happening at every level.
		It's happening at the level of the police department.
		It's happening at the level of the state attorneys and who they choose to prosecute and who they choose to charge.
		It's happening at the level of legislation, at the level of state government where they're changing the laws.
		And it's not just happening in Tennessee where this guy gets picked up and let out, but it's happening in Chicago.
		Famously, there's a new law on the books now that says that they're not going to take cash bond.
		Somebody can show up on a property and trespass.
		You call the cops, the cops give them a ticket and leave.
		That's a new law.
		People can go out and commit arson, is one of the crimes.
		And then, not held for bail.
		Arrested, charged, released.
		This is what happens now as of... this will take effect on January 1st, 2023.
		It's happening across the country.
		And this is a trend that started really 10 years ago with Trayvon Martin and has only been accelerating and escalating ever since then.
		And it's going to worsen.
		It will continue to get worse.
		And that much is obvious.
		There are super predators out there.
		They are these black adolescents.
		Black people know this.
		White people know this.
		It's not all black people, but almost all these types are black.
		And I'll tell you this.
		Criminality is almost exclusively, this degree, and this kind of predatory, random, violent criminality is almost exclusively a black phenomenon.
		That's just a fact.
		Not all black people are criminals.
		That goes without saying.
		Not all black people are violent predators, obviously.
		But when you look at this particular variety of random, malevolent, predatory, and excessive violence, it's coming from one group.
		And that is 15 to 25 year old black adolescent men.
		And it's been like this for a long time.
		And it's like this on every continent, frankly, where you have these people.
		That's just true.
		And everybody knows that.
		Black people know that.
		White people know that.
		When you look at crime, there are disparities.
		Asian people commit the least amount of crime.
		White people commit a little bit more crime than Asians.
		Hispanics commit a little bit more crime than white people.
		Black people commit more crime than anybody by far.
		They're really in a league of their own.
		There's disparities, but when it comes to those conversations, it's really blacks and everybody else.
		And in particular, it's not just that you have higher rates, but only among them do you see so much randomness, where it's punching elderly people in the face, walking down the street.
		Now, when you have Hispanic crime, It's cartel, it's gang-related, it's these kinds of things.
		When you see white crime, white crime is usually personal or very impersonal.
		When you see white crime, you know, when white people murder each other, it's family, they're serial killers, they're, you know, it's something like that.
		When they rape people, because whites notoriously have a higher rape rate, I believe, than everybody else, it's people they know.
		When black people commit crime, it's not just that they're committing violent crime, like they're gonna rob a store, they're gonna rape someone they know, or something like that.
		Only in the black community do you have this kind of rambunctious, go out and just beat people up, go out and just shoot people, go out and just burn cars, go out and just loot a store, go out and just go crazy.
		You know, there's words for that, there's colloquial expressions for this, which I think we all know, and they're the only ones that do that.
		And, um, We're not going to get a grip on crime until we're okay with understanding that.
		Because once we understand that, then we become okay with a very high black incarceration rate.
		We become okay with a high targeted police presence in black neighborhoods.
		We become okay, actually, with racial profiling.
		We become okay with these things.
		You know, people say, what are we supposed to do with that information?
		Here's what we're supposed to do with that information.
	Not pass laws called the First Step Act, where we let people out of jail early because we say, oh well, they just didn't deserve it.
	We don't do that.
	Here's what we don't do.
	We don't say, wow, blacks represent such a high percentage of the prison population.
	That must be racist.
	We need to let them all out.
	We don't do things like that.
	We don't say that it's racist for the cops to get in a fight with black people, or chase black people by car or by foot when they commit a crime, or beat them up when they catch them, or shoot them when they draw a gun or a weapon.
	That's what we start to do.
	So people say, well how is that information useful?
	Isn't that just a dog whistle?
	No, not at all.
	Don't you understand how understanding the disparities And the differences between the races is essential to solving this very imminent problem?
	You've got a crime surge across the country, and this kind of thing, which is affecting everybody, even if it doesn't touch people directly, it touches scores of people indirectly.
	Because every one of the people shot and killed has loved ones, and everybody was affected when the whole city gets put on lockdown.
	It's not just the people that are killed or the people that are shot, but it's the ripple effect that happens across the society.
	It's when black people in San Francisco loot a target, it's everything in the target being put behind a black locked case and having to go to a store clerk to unlock a USB stick for purchase, or a stick of gum for that matter.
	It's Walgreens picking up and leaving the area.
	It's having a bank teller shield at Popeyes or Kentucky Fried Chicken.
	You know, or any fast food restaurant for that matter.
	It's... That is how it affects everybody.
	And that is the direct result of this race-blind ideology.
	It's the direct consequence of it.
	How?
	Because people start to get a problem with too many blacks in jail, or too many blacks shot by the cops, or too many cops in black neighborhoods, or something.
	But when you look at the numbers, and when you realize the difference, you realize that is entirely the appropriate and the necessary thing to do.
	If you have a mind towards forcing equality of people and reading into these disparities a racial, a systemic racist explanation, then this is what we have to live with.
	This is the cost of race blindness.
	Pretending like blacks are not responsible for the criminality gets you a whole lot more black criminality.
	On the subways, at the airports, at the restaurants, in the streets, in the stores, in your neighborhood, in your home.
	When you try to get in your car in the morning.
	It's what it is.
	And that's really the most obvious.
	But there's another angle here as well.
	This black guy targeted all white people.
	And, you know, I know this is not like groundbreaking or anything.
	I know this is not like a hot take.
	But we need to call it out every time it happens because people need to see the evidence.
	Because we're told constantly there isn't an anti-white bias.
	There isn't an anti-white narrative.
	There isn't a media narrative that's being pushed by what they cover and what they do not cover and what remains in the news and what does not remain in the news and what becomes a national tragedy or an international historic tragedy and what does not become those things.
	It's important to push it every time because we're told with the same frequency that it doesn't exist.
	This guy went out of his way to only shoot white people.
	And despite that, despite the fact that this was a hate crime, this was a shooting spree massacre, mass shooting hate crime, motivated apparently by hatred of white people.
	And yet there was hardly any news coverage of it at all.
	And again, you've probably heard this before, and you'll hear it more in the future.
	If a white person had gone out and livestreamed a shooting, shooting only black people, do you think that that pattern would escape the attention of the media?
	Because some people might say, well, they didn't release an official motive.
	Well, that's unconfirmed.
	Well, we don't know.
	Well, we can't ascribe a motive.
	That fact wasn't even mentioned in any of the coverage.
	Do you think that if the roles were reversed that that detail, which is kind of important, would escape the attention of the media?
	Do you think that they would not notice if a white person was only shooting black people in a black neighborhood?
unidentified		No.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that they would fail to report that?
		No.
		Do you think that even though there is not a confirmed narrative that that would prevent the media from speculating or projecting that narrative onto it, and before any of the details were confirmed, writing a press release condemning white supremacy and hatred?
		Of course, of course it wouldn't prevent them from doing that.
		And it would be a bigger headline than the Queen dying, frankly.
unidentified		It would be competing with it today, ...that were the case.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		But it's not!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
unidentified		White people are evil.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		And non-white people are all good.
		The narrative is that diversity is our strength.
		And what is diversity?
		Diversity is the increasing negrofication or non-whitification of America.
		Not necessarily negro because it's... Africans represent the third largest immigration... the third largest source of immigration behind Asia and Latin America.
		But you understand.
		It's America becoming a less white country.
		They say diversity is our strength.
		They don't mean they want a rainbow.
		They don't mean they want one of everybody.
		They don't mean they want to enrich us with a few new flavors.
		What they mean is we want more non-white people.
		We don't care if it's all blacks, we don't care if it's all Indians, we don't care if it's all Hispanics, as long as it's not white.
		That's really not diversity.
		If I say I want a diversity of foods, that means I'd get one of everything.
		But when we talk about diversity in the boardroom, The left would be perfectly happy with all black people in the boardroom, even though that's not very diverse.
		So diverse means not white.
		And when they say diversity is our strength, they mean becoming non-white is a good thing.
		They're saying that being non-white is good, being non-white is better.
		America having more non-white people, Wall Street, government, Education, having more non-white people, America becoming a non-white nation is better.
		It's a good thing.
		It's our strength.
		Not having it is a weakness.
		Having a white nation is a weakness.
		Having a non-white nation is a strength.
		Having a white boardroom is a weakness.
		Having a non-white female boardroom is a strength.
		That's the narrative.
		It becomes very difficult to push that narrative when these people that constitute the source of our strength are going out and killing us all the time.
		Stated simply.
		Put simply.
		That's what it means when you say it goes against the narrative.
		To air news stories night after night about crime sprees, shoplifting, carjackings, murders, gang crimes, grazed bullets, killing children, mass shootings by blacks, blacks hating whites, blacks hating Jews, blacks hating Asians.
		It runs counter to the narrative when you report on that every day that having a country that's more like that is gonna be better than the country that didn't have all that.
		Makes it very difficult.
		That's, simply put, why they don't cover it.
		And if you don't believe that, there was a picture that was published not too long ago from the Southern Poverty Law Center office.
		And the Southern Poverty Law Center had some journalist in their headquarters and he was working diligently at his desk and on his wall was a countdown timer.
		And it was a countdown to when whites became a minority in America.
		Now, why would that be?
		What's the purpose of that?
		Why does the Southern Poverty Law Center have a countdown?
		Apparently, do you think they're remorseful about that or do you think they're looking forward to that?
		Why are they looking forward to and documenting and tracking with glee, visibly?
		This is what, you know, they wake up every day to look at the countdown of how many white people are remaining here.
		Other than because they hate white people, they hate white civilization, they hate all of this.
		And when the SPLC and groups like it, like the ADL, or like Right-Wing Watch, like all these other groups, and when the Washington Post and the New York Times echo that sentiment, when they write articles like, we will replace you, and, you know, it's about time the Democrats achieve ascendancy in Georgia because it's all good non-white people instead of all these racist white people from before.
		That's the reason they don't cover these kinds of stories.
		It's with a mind towards that, obviously.
		And I know that that probably makes a lot of sense hearing it, but people don't hear it spelled out to the letter explicitly enough.
		I know that all of it, when I lay it all out, that probably sounds like, oh yeah, of course, naturally.
		People don't hear it spelled out enough, because I see coverage a lot on Twitter, and I see coverage a lot on Fox, where conservative pundits will say, oh, you know, if the shoe were on the other foot, they wouldn't talk about it.
		That's because it doesn't fit the narrative.
		Tell me what the narrative is.
		Tell me what narrative it doesn't serve.
		The narrative is this.
		White people bad, non-white people good.
		And this thing, the most significant thing ongoing in our country right now, which is happening today, which is the displacement of the historic white population by non-white immigrants, which Ignore it.
		Don't pay attention to it.
		Forget about it.
		Forget about it for days or weeks or years at a time.
		It's always happening and always affecting what goes on in this country.
		That's the narrative.
		The narrative is that that thing, this thing which is happening, which they want to ignore or tell you is a conspiracy theory and people feel negative about it, but on other days will tell you it's a great thing, it's real, and it's happening, and they want to program people to believe that this is the basis of our morality is accepting this transition.
	That's the narrative.
	And a lot of conservatives won't go there.
	They'll say, the narrative is about identity politics!
	No!
	No!
	It's not about identity politics at all!
	And it's not about oppression hierarchy and oppression Olympics and all this.
	It's not about cultural Marxism.
	Put simply, it's about this.
	If white people saw what was going on every day with the black people and at the border and with the gay people and frankly with women and their competence in the workforce, the white men wouldn't stand for one more day This feminist, non-white, anti-religious, gay, trans takeover of America.
	That's what it's about.
	When they say it goes against the narrative, the narrative is against the straight, white, Christian man.
	For those reasons.
	Because the country was a lot better when it was straight, white, and Christian.
	And run by men.
	Some people say, we need a country that's run by a multi-racial coalition of non-white workers who may be gay, but it's their business, and may be a Jewish, but that's their business, and may be women.
	If they're the right woman for the job, it's like, HELL NO!
	No!
	No!
	Wrong!
	That is not the narrative!
	F you!
	If I hear colorblind meritocracy one more time, I'm gonna scream!
	We hear that the narrative is about identity politics, it's about this victim hierarchy, but the real truth is that we need a multiracial coalition of legacy Americans who were born here and have citizenship whether they be a man or woman or straight or gay and if they're gay it's their business and if they're Jewish we can't even talk about it.
	What's the difference?
	They're just like Christians and that's what we want.
	That's what's the real truth.
	You know?
	So it's important that you remember at the end of the day what's really going on here and why they're not talking about black crime.
	It's got nothing to do with ID poll.
	It's got nothing to do with any of that because they'll talk about black crime when they're beating up on Jews all day long.
	But Jews aren't the one being replaced in America at record rates through immigration.
	So that's the narrative.
	That's, you know, So anyway, another black shooting.
	Not surprising.
	Not surprising at all.
	You see this all the time.
	And think about, it affects everybody so much.
unidentified		And it's gonna affect people.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Everything they do, you think it's like something that happens over there.
		It doesn't just happen over there.
		When black people do this kind of thing, And I've talked about this before.
		It is, it destroys the public square.
		To have that menace, to have that threat, to have that criminality, it destroys the public.
		That's the reason public transportation is untenable.
		That's the reason why anything affordable is untenable.
		Anything, anything that is like, if you want to talk about like public works, public works Is crashing into black criminality like a train?
		Because you hear all these people say, you know, why can't we have these public projects that make things affordable for the poor and the working?
		Why can't we have trains that are cheap like Europe?
		Why can't we have walkable cities?
		Why can't we have nice things?
		Liberals will say, why can't we have a state that takes care of the public?
		And you want to know why?
		Because you build the train and guess who's gonna be smoking crack on it?
		Guess who's gonna be pissing on it in public?
		Guess who's gonna be pissing and shitting in it?
		In the train cars.
		Guess who's gonna be raping on it?
		Guess who's gonna be stalking and waiting to get some rape on on there?
		And guess who's gonna be dealing drugs and sitting in the corner sprawled out with a paper bag?
		Drinking out of a bottle in a paper bag.
		You guessed it!
		You already know the answer.
		Why can't the government create affordable housing for the poor?
		Why can't the government create subsidized, affordable, nice quality housing for the poor and the working in the city?
		I'll tell you why.
		Because you know who's gonna be hanging out there?
		Baby mamas and baby daddies and crack dealers and hoodlums and thugs.
		Hoodlums and thugs gonna be hanging out.
		Gangbanging and shit outside.
		You can design a beautiful public housing project with a nice green square.
		A nice livable green square.
		And they're gonna be gangbanging and shit.
		And they're gonna be throwing their trash next to the bench too.
		You're gonna put a bench and a trash can next to it and there's just gonna be trash everywhere.
		There's gonna be trash in the street, trash in the yard, trash next to the trash can, trash next to the bench.
		That's why.
		And then, well, why is the housing so unaffordable?
unidentified		Because all the affordable housing, you got that going on.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Why is the transportation so unaffordable?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Because all the affordable transportation got that going on for it.
unidentified		And it goes on and on like that.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		That's why you're going to need to have mass surveillance.
		You're going to need to have mass surveillance to watch out for those types.
		It comes at a cost of privacy too.
		And the list goes on and on of secondary and tertiary ways in which this behavior affects all of us, not just the direct victims.
		You know, a black guy could go and kill somebody, but that's not where it begins and ends.
		Then the property value collapses.
		Then, you know, it creates all these other problems in its wake.
		Yeah, maybe a black guy went in a store and stole a bunch of stuff and that doesn't affect you, but it affects the community.
		It affects the store.
		It affects what goes on in that neighborhood.
		So, you know, this is a massive societal problem.
		That is more far-reaching than people even realize.
		And as I said earlier, it's a direct consequence of this race blindness.
		People say, what's the use in talking about race?
		This is the use.
		So that we can deal with things like this and make the civilization better for everybody.
		Not just white people, but even for the non-white people that can't enjoy.
		The public and the civilization is for everybody that lives here.
		Whether they are a citizen or a foreigner or a visitor, whether they're a white or a minority, whether they're a racial or a religious minority, it affects everybody.
		The quality of life effect or decline affects everybody.
		And the only reason that's happening is because partisans have obfuscated the debate with this progressive egalitarian rhetoric.
		So that's that.
		So no more.
		We gotta lock them up.
		Gotta lock them all up.
		Sorry.
		Is it racist?
		Yeah, a little bit.
		But, you know, sometimes you have to be a little bit racist to solve problems.
		That's just the truth.
		We can have a racist society that has a good quality of life, or a non-racist society that has a terrible quality of life.
		I'm gonna choose to live in the racist society.
		All day.
		All day long.
		Sign me up.
		If somebody came to you and said, I'll transport you to a country where the city is clean, the transportation is cheap, it's advanced, they have beautiful architecture, you feel safe walking down the street, but you also have privacy, Everybody has prosperity and everybody is treated with respect.
		Nobody's wearing slides or sweatpants in public.
		People speak proper English and they don't talk ignorantly.
		You don't see anyone's underwear when they're walking around.
		But it's racist, but it's racist AF.
		It's just it has systemic racism and it's they had to do some racist stuff to get there.
		Or you can live in a country where there's a high likelihood you'll get shot or your car stolen and And there's cameras everywhere, and if you want to go into Target, well, everything's behind a locked box.
		Every trip to the store, you need to talk to an associate who doesn't, and hey, newsflash, the associate does not care.
		They're rude.
		They don't know what they're doing.
		They're terrible at their job.
		They don't care that you think all of this.
		The public transportation is dangerous, and the alternatives are expensive.
		The housing is expensive.
		You pay a lot for very little.
		But the good news is we have eradicated racism entirely.
		You know, what society would you want to live in?
		Because I would certainly take the former.
		In fact, that decision is really called the time machine.
		It's really something more like a time machine.
		We just adjust the dials here.
		It's called the 40s.
		It's called the 40s.
		It's called the 19th century.
		Or you could go 50 years into our future on our current trajectory.
		And, you know, the decision is ours.
		The decision is really ours.
		It's up to us.
		But anyway, that's that.
	Okay, but I want to move on.
	I want to get into our Super Chats and we'll see what you guys have to say about all this.
	It's what it is.
	I mean, listen, I'm not racist.
	I love black people.
	I do.
	If I meet a black person, I'm not going to judge them based on their race.
	I'm not going to not like them based on their race.
	I have a lot of black friends.
	But society is going to have to develop a cognizance of the salience of race.
	And if that's racism, so be it.
	I think it's more like racialism or race realism, because I think racism is prejudice, discrimination, cruelty, hatred, which I don't support.
	But if racism is disparities, difference, acknowledgement that races are real in significant ways, and that has effects on behavior, and behavior has an effect on society, and that has to be accounted for, you know, well then, then, you know, I would call that something else, but I do believe in that.
	But I do love black people.
	They're funny.
	They're funny.
	They're very musical.
	And, you know, they could be very easygoing and great companions, you know.
	So I love them.
	All right.

▲