Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 13, 2022 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes

01:12:21

GUN CONFISCATION IMMINENT??? Visa and Mastercard To TRACK ALL GUN PURCHASES | America First Ep. 1059GUN CONFISCATION IMMINENT??? Visa and Mastercard To TRACK ALL GUN PURCHASES | America First Ep. 1059

Participants

Main voices

nick fuentes

01:07:36

Appearances

Clips

alex jones

00:20

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		America first!
		America first!
		The American people will come first once again.
		With respect, the respect that we deserve.
		From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		America First. America First. America First. America First. America
unidentified		First. America
		First. America First. America First. America First. America First. America First. America First.
		Thank you.
		Good evening, everybody. 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 Monday.
		We have a lot to talk about tonight.
		Lots to get into.
		Our featured story is about Visa and MasterCard.
		Who are creating a soft gun registry of all gun owners in America by tracking every single purchase of a firearm using a credit or debit card in the United States.
		And this is part of a long ongoing trend of private sector working together with the public sector.
		to create these massive tranches of data which will ultimately be used by federal law enforcement in the event of totalitarian control.
		Simple as that.
		What other purpose would it serve for Visa and MasterCard to collect that kind of information other than to eventually give it to law enforcement when the time comes?
		There's no other explanation.
		So we'll talk about that tonight.
		That'll be our featured story.
		We'll also be talking tonight about those illegal immigrants that we covered two or three weeks ago.
		You remember we covered a story recently in which the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, began shipping illegal immigrants up to Chicago.
		And this is part of a policy Which he undertook earlier this year to ship busloads, not tons, but hundreds of illegal immigrants from the southern border in Texas up to northern Democrat-controlled cities.
		And so first he sent a few coach buses full of illegal immigrants to Washington, D.C.
		because that's the source of the federal immigration open borders policy.
		And then he sent a few more busloads up to New York City, because that's just a liberal Democrat city.
		Starting last month, he began sending busloads of illegal immigrants up to Chicago.
		Except now we've learned, just as I predicted, we've learned the fate of those illegal immigrants that he shipped to Chicago last month, and it turns out that the governor of the state J.B.
		Pritzker sent those illegal immigrants from Chicago to the suburbs.
		To the white suburbs outside the city.
		And so apparently they were supposed to be held at a hotel in Chicago but you see the Chicago Marathon is going on and so they couldn't keep them at hotels during the Chicago Marathon in Chicago.
		So they sent them out to a suburb called Elk Grove Where they're being put up at a La Quinta hotel in the suburbs and now the mayor of that city and the mayor of that village And the mayor of the city of Chicago are working together to find jobs for those illegal immigrants out in the suburbs.
		So congratulations to the residents of Elk Grove.
		You've just gotten a hundred new illegal immigrant residents that have no documentation, no background check, no health screening, nothing.
		They're just out there at a hotel and now in the community.
		So we'll talk about that.
		Shouldn't be too surprising.
		And I said this a lot on the show, people need to stop thinking about immigration as a national issue.
		It is a national issue, obviously.
		But it is something that, of course, will affect everybody.
		And what I mean by that is, when we think about national issues, we tend to think about not our neighborhood.
		We tend to think about not our block and where we live.
		When we think about national issues, we think very general and very far out, and we think about it as something happening over there.
		But it's not happening over there.
		Illegal immigration is happening to everybody, everywhere, all the time.
		And so I'm sure all the liberals in Elk Grove didn't anticipate when they voted for Joe Biden that they would be getting sent busloads of hundreds of illegal immigrants to live down the block from them at the Budget Hotel.
		I think it's safe to say.
		I don't know that they necessarily anticipated that it would be coming to their doorstep, but it is.
		And that's how people have to regard The issue of illegal immigration.
		It's your neighborhood.
		It's your parks.
		It's your downtown.
		It's your children's schools.
		It's your workplace.
		It's happening to you.
		It's happening to all of us.
		So we'll talk about that.
		Should be a pretty good show.
		We're at a later start time tonight.
		Yeah, I fell asleep.
		Woke up late.
		But that's okay.
		I know you don't mind too much.
		Before we dive into the news, I want to remind you to follow me here on Cozy.
		Smash the follow button right here to get a push notification whenever I go live.
		Also, follow me on Gab Telegram and True Social.
		Links are all down below.
unidentified		I think that's it.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I have any other big developments for you.
		Yesterday was 9-11.
		And I didn't really say too much or talk too much about it.
		I feel like it's sort of trite at this point in time.
		I've been doing the show so long.
		We've covered 9-11 every year.
		You already know.
		It's fake.
		It's fake!
		Just so we're all clear, I hope that there's no narrative cucks watching the show still.
		People that still believe that it was...
		19, you know, Muslims in towels hijacking planes and flying them into the buildings and put up to do it by Osama Bin Laden because that is not what happened, okay?
		That is a narrative cuck.
		We do not believe in the official narrative.
		It was Israel and Mossad that was behind the 9-11 attacks.
		9-11 attacks.
		I firmly believe that.
		But I don't want to get all into that.
		We've talked a little bit about it in recent weeks with Sneeko and with others.
		Maybe at some point I'll do some big stream.
		I'd like to do a debate about it.
		I'd like to do a formal debate.
		Destiny is going around claiming that we debated about it when I was at his house.
		I go to his house and he's starting to debate and I said, hey listen man, I came here to hang out.
		This is the first time we've ever met.
		We've known each other for four years.
		It's the first time we met.
		I don't want to have a debate about 9-11.
		I want to hang out.
		But I would be interested in doing a 9-11 debate at some point or maybe doing a deep dive stream Although I'm not gonna do that tonight.
		I think it's kind of cheesy to do it like hey happy well not happy But you know 9-11 anniversary here here we go.
		We're doing that show again But I think it'd be worthwhile to cover it at some point But anyway, so that was yesterday.
		Never forget, of course, but also understand what really happened.
		And I said, the one thing I said on Telegram the other day, which I actually stole from somebody in a group chat, is that, and this is interesting, and this is the interesting part of it that I'll talk about briefly, and then we'll get on into the news.
		With every conspiracy, there are at least two layers of deception.
		9-11 is no different.
		Every conspiracy theory that you're aware of, there's at least two layers to the deception.
		And what do I mean by that?
		There is, of course, the surface layer, which is the deception where they create a fake narrative.
		So as an example, The JFK assassination.
		Well, the official narrative, according to the Warren Commission, is that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald got a job at the Book Depository and waited for JFK to make the pass in front of that building on, what is it, Houston in Dallas, and shot him and killed him.
		And he did that because he was a, some say he was a communist, some say he was an anti-communist.
		I actually don't even know the official story on the motive.
		And then he was killed by a gangster called Jack Ruby and case closed.
		And so the first layer of the deception is that.
		That is not what happened.
		We all know that there was a conspiracy.
		And what does a conspiracy mean?
		It means that People got together in secret and conspired to kill him, and blame it on somebody else, and then covered it up.
		So that's the first level of deception, and everybody is aware of that general idea, that the official narrative about that, or about 9-11, or about the war in Iraq, or about any number of things, Oklahoma City bombing, Ruby Ridge, you name it, Everybody is aware of the possibility of an initial deception, which is that maybe the official story is not the real story.
		That the people telling the official story are the ones responsible.
		And they got together and carried something out for their own clandestine, covert purpose, and then created a story to sell it to people.
		Created a Created an alibi and an alternative narrative.
		The second layer of deception is concerning who exactly is part of that conspiracy.
		Because you know in all these cases, when it involves these large-scale or very significant crimes, naturally the facts will begin to come out.
		No conspiracy is perfect.
		There will be leaks.
		There will be imperfections, mistakes.
		Every conspiracy has got a trail.
		It's got fingerprints all over it.
		And even if there weren't anything like that, with any kind of large-scale event, people will doubt the official narrative.
		The second level of the deception happens here.
		Assuming that there will always be, and this is a heuristic, assuming that there will always be a group of people, there will always be those that are unconvinced by the official narrative, true or false, whatever it is, if it's a significant enough event, the second layer of deception happens among those people where the kinds of ideas that are promulgated by the conspiracy theorists, by those that doubt the narrative,
		That constitutes a second false narrative.
	A second layer of false narrative.
	I'll give you an example.
	Using the JFK assassination.
	The first layer happens here.
	Where the government says there was a lone gunman and it was Lee Harvey Oswald.
	That's who killed JFK.
	The second layer, and that's promulgated by the government, and the Warren Commission, and by the media, and the literature, and so on.
	The second layer is people among people who say that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a lone gunman, that in fact there was maybe another gunman, or maybe three gunmen.
	And it was not Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, but at the minimum there were more people working with him.
	Maybe the president, maybe other people.
	And the second layer of deception is to run a narrative which is still not true.
	A conspiracy narrative that it was not the official story, it was a conspiracy, but a fake conspiracy.
	And you see this crop up in all the conspiracy literature is there will be these mainstream narratives which are still alternative, but considered mainstream alternative, considered mainstream conspiracy.
	And these are the kinds of conspiracies that you can hear in comedy specials, and on network TV, and on the surface level internet.
	Things like, uh, what?
	Like that JFK was killed by the CIA.
	Or that the moon landing was, well I guess that's not a second layer one.
	Things like Bush did 9-11.
	That's what I'm getting at here.
	With 9-11 there's layers to the conspiracy.
	There's the conspiracy itself, which is the narrative, or the initial false narrative, that there is a conspiracy.
	Which is to say that it was not 19 Muslim hijackers at the order of Osama Bin Laden, but something else happened.
	Now the question of what happened...
	Is outstanding still.
	You can say we don't accept the official narrative, but then the next natural question is, well then what is the narrative?
	What is the interpretation of events that explains it?
	If it's not Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda putting up 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, Sunni Muslims to fly planes into the building because they hate our freedom or something.
	Well, we need to know what the alternative is.
	And that's where the next layer of deception happens.
	And you'll hear all kinds of things about 9-11 which are conspiratorial, but still not true.
	Conspiratorial, but still mainstream.
	Conspiratorial, but still a false narrative.
	And so I'll hear these things about 9-11 all the time.
	Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.
	That's one of them.
	Or, Bush did 9-11.
	That's one that I hear all the time.
	Bush did 9-11.
	We hear that.
	Bush did 9-11.
	Bush did 9-11.
	It's a slogan.
	It's a catchphrase.
	Did Bush do 9-11?
	No.
	I don't think so.
	And what's interesting about all those kinds of narratives is they always seem to point the finger at a perpetrator At an institution or a group of people or a particular actor who's really not that popular.
	So like the JFK assassination, if people are looking to point the blame it's at the CIA.
	Now, let me ask you this.
	Is blaming the CIA for something really all that controversial?
	If I go on Twitter and I say the CIA killed Jack Kennedy, am I going to lose my job?
	Am I going to get banned from Twitter?
	Am I going to lose my friends?
	Am I going to be considered a political extremist?
	Am I even going to be considered really out there at all?
	If I say, yeah, I think the JFK was killed by someone, no.
	But that is what crops up in the literature.
	There was a very famous film made in the 1990s called JFK directed by Oliver Stone starring Kevin Costner and it goes into all the details of the conspiracy and you might think A major Hollywood motion picture by a major director with a mainstream actor and it's a blockbuster film about how there was a conspiracy by the powerful to kill the president.
	Would that not almost by itself negate the possibility that there was a conspiracy?
	If there are people powerful enough to kill the president, cover it up, Would they not be powerful enough then to stop a major motion picture from coming out covering all of that?
	It would almost be enough to say that the existence of such a film proves that there was no conspiracy.
	Because the same powerful people that killed Kennedy, you know, would they kill Oliver Stone?
	Would they kill the people involved?
	Would they shut down the production of the film?
	And of course the film points the finger at the CIA.
	And it points the finger at US intelligence.
	Well, wouldn't you be interested to know that the man that produced that film was later revealed to be a Mossad agent?
	An agent of Israeli intelligence working in the United States A Jewish, Zionist, Israeli spy produced the film, which if you go back and watch it, it's scandalous and outrageous and it proves that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but it points the blame at the CIA, which is what they've been doing with that for 60 years.
	And the same is true of 9-11.
	And the same is true of all these conspiracies.
	There is an initial deception and then there's another layer.
	If there is a conspiracy, who did it?
	This unpopular Republican president.
	If there is a conspiracy, who did it?
	Dick Cheney.
	It was Dick Cheney.
	Who did it?
	The big oil companies.
	They say it was for big oil.
	We went to war for the oil.
	That's the other one you'll hear.
	Everything other than the obvious.
	Now think about it.
	Now think about when you try to figure out a crime like this, you gotta consider, well, who would have the motive?
	Who would have the motive to do something like this?
	Well, have to look at the aftermath.
	What did the 9-11 attack... What were the major effects?
	Well, if Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into our buildings, the initial response is for widespread animosity and resentment towards Muslims, particularly towards Muslims in the Middle East.
	Where there really wasn't anything like that in the United States before.
	There was Muslim terrorism.
	You know, you had the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
	And you had Palestinians kidnapping Olympians in Europe in the 70s.
	And there were some isolated incidents.
	But largely, Muslim terrorism wasn't truly a domestic phenomenon more than any other form of terrorism.
	When people thought of hijackings before that, people used to hijack airplanes all the time in the 70s, in the 60s and 70s.
	They would hijack airplanes on the runway and they'd demand a ransom and then they'd go away.
	And a famous example of this is D.B.
	Cooper, who was never located or identified.
	And there were other instances of this kind of thing happening and it was for all kinds of reasons.
	Anyway, the first effect of the 9-11 terror attacks was to engender antipathy towards Muslims by the United States.
	The secondary effect was to gin up support for a punitive expedition in the Middle East.
	At the minimum!
	We gotta go over there and find the people that did it and kill them.
	That was the obvious.
	As if Muslims flew the planes into the buildings, we gotta get the military together and send them over to the Middle East and find those Muslims and get them.
	And that's at the minimum.
	What wound up happening was of course much more significant than that.
	We went over to the Middle East and we didn't just go to Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban.
	Which Afghanistan is conveniently situated right between China and Iran and south of Russia, a very geo-strategically important place.
	But then we also went out in 2003 into Iraq and toppled the government of Saddam Hussein.
	And it just so happened that because we went after Saddam Hussein in Iraq, connecting him to 9-11,
	And because of the Casus Belli for that war, which is that he was procuring nuclear weapons, the effect of the Iraq war was not just to destroy Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime, but also to put a freeze on all the other nuclear programs going on in the region at the time, which were ongoing in Iran, in Libya, and elsewhere.
	It also helped open up the gates for not just those major ground wars, but also U.S.
	intervention across North Africa, West Africa, on the Arabian Peninsula, throughout the Middle East.
	And so, who would benefit from these two major wars?
	Well, some people would say Big Oil.
	Big oil.
	Because we got the oil.
	I don't even know what that argument is.
	We went there for oil.
	We didn't take the oil, actually.
	It turns out we didn't take any oil.
	And oil prices went up throughout the 2000s.
	I don't even know how that would have helped.
	You know, they go up and they go down.
	I don't even really understand the tangible effect.
	Certainly you could probably achieve higher oil profits without that, right?
	Without flying planes into buildings in two wars.
	It just doesn't even really seem to make sense.
	But okay, that's one of the narratives.
	The other one is that Bush did it for some reason.
	Well, who else would have the motivation?
	Who else would benefit from two major wars?
	People point to the defense contractors.
	Okay, fair enough.
	People point towards the Pentagon and U.S.
	intelligence and, you know, broadly speaking that if we have wars, we have jobs, we have budgets, we have money flowing to the military-industrial complex and that's also the MIC is who they point the finger at.
	Well, consider that just less than a decade before the 9-11 attacks, a memo was written By people that later went on to author the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Bush Defense Department and the Bush State Department.
	They wrote 10 years prior in 1993 a memo for the Israeli government for the then Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu called the Clean Break Memo.
	And it talked about how the main strategic priorities of the State of Israel were these.
	Destroy the Saddam Hussein regime, destroy the regime of Bashar al-Assad, weaken Iran, and all of that in the quest of securing Israel's northern border with Lebanon.
	Well, it just so happens that almost all of those objectives were achieved by the same people that wrote that memo who then worked in the Bush administration that carried out those wars that accomplished those things.
	Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Wormser, and others, Richard Perle, they wrote the memo, I think it was actually in 1994 for the Netanyahu government, and then they went on and took up positions in George W. Bush's State Department and his Defense Department, and they drew up the plans for the wars in Iraq and the wars in Afghanistan that fulfilled the strategic objectives that they laid out and wrote
	When they were contracted by the Israeli government less than 10 years before.
	On September 10th, 2001, September 10th, 2001, a day before the attacks, The Washington Times, coincidentally, and I do believe this is a coincidence by the way, but it does tell you something, The Washington Times, which was then a very prestigious paper, now not so much, They published a report from the US military which had 65 signatories from the military.
	Generals, high-ranking officials, and they were talking about a planned US military presence in Palestine.
	And they said that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was a true force in the world that would make American efforts look like Palestinian efforts by comparison.
	They said that Israeli intelligence was so sophisticated it would make American efforts look like the efforts of poor Arab countries.
	It also said that the Israeli intelligence power is so sophisticated And I'm not making this up.
	You could go back into the archives of the Washington Times and find this paper.
	September 10, 2001.
	This cost like four bucks to buy it, so I'm not like trading this out of thin air.
	The day before the attacks.
	According to this, I think it's School of Military Strategy, something like that, report in the Washington Times, they say that in fact the Israeli intelligence is so sophisticated They could attack U.S.
	personnel and make it look like it was done by Palestinian extremists.
	In other words, they are so sophisticated, they have the capability, they have the capability, this is U.S.
	military, they would know.
unidentified		U.S.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		military says that Israeli intelligence is so sophisticated, they have the competence and the capability to carry out attacks against U.S.
		forces And blame it on Palestinian or Muslim fundamentalists.
		And what do I always say about conspiracy?
		Most people don't believe in conspiracies not because they've looked into the facts, not because they looked at the data, not because they looked at the theories, not because they read the books, not because they did their due diligence.
		Most people have no idea.
		But most people say something like this, the government is neither willing nor able to carry out attacks of that scale, and then cover them up.
		Groups within the government or groups within the American regime either lack the logistical ability to do these things, plain and simple, they couldn't if they wanted to, couldn't carry it out and cover it up.
		Or, if they are, no one would do that, they're not willing to do that.
		Well, when, a day before 9-11, the military with 65 signatories comes out with a report saying that Israeli intelligence is so sophisticated they would possess the ability, and we know they possess the willingness because they invented the false flag attack in the Middle East, Jewish terror groups like Ergun, the original Zionists, back in the 10s, 20s, 30s, and 40s, they pioneered the false flag.
		At the King David Hotel and in the Lavon Affair, they pioneered this.
		We know, based on these pieces of information, that they had the willingness and the ability, the willingness to create false flag terror in the pursuit of their national and strategic goals, as well as the ability, as evidenced by the military report the day before, which is pretty current, that they would be, at the least, a suspect.
		If they're willing, if they're able, If they've got a clear motive.
		But yet, and again this goes back to the original point, because I didn't mean to get so far into it.
		To get back to the original point, there are two layers of deception.
		There's the initial narrative which is fake, and then there's the conspiracy narrative which is also fake.
		20 years.
		20 years of 9-11 conspiracy.
		And we've heard about oil, and we've heard about Bush, and we've heard about the military-industrial complex.
		And we've heard about jet fuel and steel beams, and we've even heard things like that there were planes that never hit the building, that they were a hologram, and that introduces a whole other idea which comes to us from Lee Sunstein in 2008 who co-wrote a paper.
		With the Catholic pundit at the New York Times, whose name I forget right now, talking about how you have to introduce wildly ridiculous conspiracy narratives to obscure the real ones, to obfuscate and obscure the real and legitimate narratives.
		That's a whole other story.
		But there's two layers.
		We've heard every story from ones that are more plausible, like Oil or Dick Cheney or something, to ones that are completely out there, like that there were holograms doctored into the footage.
		Everything other than the one that WILL get you banned from Twitter.
		Everything but the one that WILL ruin your political career.
		Everything but the one that probably actually makes the most sense.
		And that is true time and time again.
		And by the way, that's true of 9-11, and it is true in the exact same way about the assassinations of JFK and RFK.
		And if you look throughout the 20th century, you'll find a whole lot of that.
		You'll find a lot of it.
		Throughout.
		That's what I will say.
		And I wound up doing the 9-11.
		Even though I said I wasn't going to do the 9-11 show, I wound up doing the show anyway.
		But but I see that, you know, it's it's the day and and even the even the edgy people I saw some post on true social the other day I'm not gonna say who it was cuz I like them, but it was about like, you know Oh 9-11 the truth will be revealed.
		Whatever.
unidentified		It's like but where's the where's the real stuff?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Where's the real truth there?
		People want to talk about oil.
		It wasn't about oil It wasn't about oil and it wasn't about you know, whatever else Very clear what went on that day.
		And you know, look, if that's going on, then how can you say you're a patriot if you're not working overtly or covertly to achieve justice?
		That's the million-dollar question.
		If, you know, if you care about this country and you're aware of those facts, And you're in politics.
		How can you call yourself a patriot?
		How can you say you're America first if you're not working every day, either overtly or covertly, to achieve justice for the fact that they killed our president, they killed his brother, the next would-be president, they flew planes into our buildings, they sent us to war for 20 years at our expense, How can you call yourself a patriot if you don't dedicate yourself in politics?
		You don't even have to talk about it openly.
		But at the end of the day, that's in the back of your mind.
		How can you call yourself a patriot if you're not doing that?
		You can't.
		You can't.
		It happened.
		It matters.
		The last century of our history and beyond is fake.
		It's fake.
		Completely manufactured.
		It was all a big story.
		And it's a big story about Nazis, and it's a story about democracy, and it's a story about Muslims, and about communism, and you know, all these things are going on in Rio, but there's a missing piece of the puzzle there.
		And that missing piece of the puzzle is why we're not a free nation.
		It's true.
		Well, it's a big part of it.
		Certainly.
		So that's that.
		That's that.
		We did it.
		We covered it.
		That's your 9-11 deal.
		We're gonna move on.
		We're gonna move on.
		We're gonna get into the real.
		We're gonna get into the news.
		The real show here.
		That was the other show.
		That was the fake show.
		That was the show I said I wasn't gonna do, but did anyway.
		I'm still shaking out the cobwebs.
		I'm still a little bit tired.
		And hungry!
		Man, am I hungry.
		I wish we went to war to set up McDonald's in Iraq.
		That'd be a lot nicer.
		I wish that was the case.
		To give them a delicious, fresh, never frozen, all beef quarter pounder with cheese.
		And a Coke chilled to perfection.
		McDonald's Coke chilled to perfection.
		Okay, let's get into it though.
		Let's get into our news.
		Our first story is about... Can you see the bags under my eyes?
		You see how tired I am?
		Okay.
		So our first story is about illegal immigrants and we initially covered this one a few weeks ago.
		Greg Abbott, who sucks!
		He's the governor of Texas and a Republican.
		He's been doing this ridiculous gimmick where you know, and I covered it last time I'm not gonna go all the way into it But the southern border is right now worse than ever you can look into the data.
		I don't want to get all into it, but We've had five million illegal border apprehensions Or stated another way, Border Patrol has apprehended 5 million people attempting to cross illegally into America at the southern border since Biden's inauguration last January.
		5 million people.
		That's half the size of the Chicago metropolitan area.
		Five million in less than two years.
		Like, a lot less.
		That's like 18 months, basically.
		A little bit longer than 18 months, but you get it.
		So it's worse than ever.
	And there are people that are not being apprehended, and it's just a total joke.
	They're not deporting people anymore.
	They're not turning people away.
	Everybody that's showing up at the border, for the most part, they're either getting past Border Patrol, or they're being apprehended, detained, and then released into America.
	Now, the governors on the border states, they actually have constitutional authority to close the border.
	They do have a legal case to do this.
	And I was mistaken last time.
	I said, we covered this initially, I said I wasn't sure.
	But a friend of mine who works for one of these activist groups down there in Texas, he sent me, because he did the research on this, there is precedent.
	There is a statute in the law that says that the border state governors, and it doesn't say particularly border state, but obviously those are the ones that have to deal with the border, those that reside on the border.
	The governors, at the state level, not the federal level, the governor has the authority to close the border.
	Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, could close the Texas border if he wanted to.
	He could deploy the National Guard.
	He could deploy whatever assets he needed to to shut down the Texas border.
	He is within his rights to do that.
	He does not need federal authority.
	He does not need permission from the federal government.
	Greg Abbott can shut down the border.
	But he hasn't done that.
	Instead, what he's done, and we covered this the last time, is this political gimmick, this cute little marketing campaign, where he said that if Joe Biden is not going to secure the border, then he's going to just bust the illegals to D.C.
	So he's letting the border crisis go on.
	The Republican state government is letting the border crisis continue to happen.
	It's just that Governor Greg Abbott is collecting 100 of them or 200 of them every now and again and putting them on a bus that the Texas taxpayer pays for and sending it to D.C.
	Sends it to Washington, D.C.
	and says, oh well, these are your illegals.
	You want them, you got them.
	And then he sent them to New York and lately sends them to Chicago.
	And I said on my show last time I'm not going to cover it again exactly the same way.
	But this changes nothing.
	It doesn't fix the problem.
	It doesn't even significantly alter anything.
	It's a stunt.
	It is a political gimmick.
	He's rounding up 50 or 100 of these people.
	It's a drop in the bucket.
	We're talking about 5 million.
	5 million people that have crossed over in less than two years and he puts 100 people on a bus and sends them to D.C.?
	You could secure the border.
	That's for starters.
	On another level, you're just paying more money to move these illegals around.
unidentified		If you're going to put them on a bus, send them to Mexico.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		You're putting them on a bus.
		You're paying for the bus.
		Why not just tell the driver to cross the Texas border instead of drive to D.C.?
		You know, that's another area.
		And when all is said and done, he's not bringing nearly enough illegals.
		If the goal is to change policy by sending so many illegals that it makes a difference, you're not sending enough illegals to make a difference.
		You're sending 100 people over there.
		We all know the point of this is not to change policy in any way.
		It's not meant to significantly reduce the amount of illegals in Texas.
		It's not meant to reduce the amount of illegals in America.
		It's not meant to really apply any tangible pressure to Democratic elected representatives.
		Sending 100 illegals to DC is no skin off anybody's nose.
		There's already so many feral homeless people.
		What's the difference?
		And what's more, you're just shipping, to the extent that you are making a difference, you're just shipping these illegals further into the interior of the country.
		They were on the border, now they're in New York.
		Now they're a thousand miles away on the East Coast, and they're on the Great Lakes in Chicago.
		Why are we talking about it?
		Predictably, and I pointed this out weeks ago, these illegals have not stayed in Chicago, they're gonna move.
		They were sent to Chicago.
		They're in the country now.
		They're never going back.
		If there's illegals arrested in Texas and shipped to Chicago, you can place a $1 billion bet that those people are never going back involuntarily.
		They may go back for vacation, which they often do.
		And that is a very well-known phenomenon.
		A lot of people don't even realize that, but they taunt us.
		It's called ampersands.
		That's a term that was coined by Sam Huntington, who was a political scientist.
		These Hispanic immigrants, or illegal immigrants, will come in and they'll spend their vacations in Mexico and then they'll come back.
		They'll go and they'll come back.
		Go and come back.
		They'll come and work here for 20 years and make their money and go back.
		They'll come here and earn a lot of money and then they'll go back for a vacation and give their family in Mexico some of the money they earned and spend some time there and then they'll come back.
		And so they really don't even have nationality in a meaningful way.
		That's why they call them ampersands, because they're Mexico and America.
		So anyway, so they go and they stay, and predictably they move.
		And this is what brings us up to today.
		There's a new report, a Fox News exclusive, which says that those immigrants That particular busload, because you can track these people, that busload of immigrants that Greg Abbott sent to Chicago for the first time ever, they were shipped by Chicago to the western white suburbs of Chicago in Illinois.
		And here's a story from Fox.
		It says, quote, the mayor of a suburban Chicago town in Illinois is demanding an apology from Governor J.B.
		Pritzker after 90 illegal immigrants were bused to a hotel in his town with little notice or planning.
		Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson told Fox News Digital that he received a phone call from Pritzker's office on September 9th informing him that a migrant bus would be arriving in his town that same evening.
		So the governor calls up the mayor of a small suburban town and says, hey, 90 illegal immigrants coming your way tonight.
		However, when Johnson pressed the governor's office for details, such as how many migrants are coming and what hotel they were going to, no details were available.
		When asked if the migrants had gone through health screenings and background checks, the governor's office also had no answer.
		Then, according to Johnson, The governor's office called back on the evening of September 9th around 5 p.m.
		and said that it would be 90 immigrants arriving in 90 minutes at 630.
		When asked if the migrants went through background checks and health screenings, the governor's office said, well, we don't have those.
		Without background checks and health screenings, Johnson said that the migrants wouldn't be getting off the bus, but said he would provide them with food and water.
		He said, I'm sworn to protect the health, safety, and welfare of this community.
		Until those questions are answered, I will not allow them to get off the bus here.
		Which is noble.
		But newsflash, they're getting off that bus.
		They're not going to stay on that bus forever.
		Imagine the smell.
		I don't mean to be cruel.
		Or anything.
		It's sad.
		You know Mexico was destroyed by NAFTA.
		And the people in Mexico have no opportunity.
		And the Mexican government and NGOs are sponsoring them to come to America.
		And you know if you were in those situations.
		You would probably take a chance and come to America maybe.
		So I don't mean to be cruel.
	But you literally have this stinky bus full of illegals.
	And you know what the heck.
	Seriously.
	And when I say imagine the smell.
	It's to point out like look at what we're doing.
	These people you know they march through Mexico a thousand miles in the blazing sun.
	They jumped on a bus and drove on a bus from Texas to Chicago.
	They got to Chicago and were shipped out to Elk Grove.
	They're in this bus, stinking and smelling, with no plumbing and no shower and no nothing.
	They don't speak English.
	They don't know how to read or write.
	They have no skills, no education.
	What the hell are we gonna do with all these people?
	Why do we need these people?
	We already have a homelessness crisis.
	We already have feral homeless people accosting you.
	We already have poor people.
	We already have problems.
	Why do we need more people like this?
	It's sad, but it's not our problem.
	He says, we're not gonna let him off the bus.
	Oh really?
	Wanna bet?
	Let's place a bet.
	Johnson says, I'm not going to allow them to get off the bus here.
	here.
	When Johnson asked the state official why the migrants are being sent to Elk Grove Village rather than a city such as, you know, Chicago, the Illinois government allegedly said that the Windy City has the Chicago Marathon coming up, which is on October 9th.
	It's in a month.
	They said that we can't put up hotels in Chicago because the hotels are full because of the marathon, which is in a month.
	Which means that these migrants are going to be staying in a hotel for at least a month, probably longer.
	It says during a conference call with representatives of the federal government and the state of Illinois, Johnson said that federal government employees from FEMA and other agencies assured him that the migrants had gone through security and health checks.
	When the migrants arrived on September 10th, they came on Chicago Transit Authority buses and were dropped off at La Quinta Hotel.
	So, in other words, they were shipped from Texas to Chicago on one bus and then the Illinois government took them off that bus and put them on a Chicago bus and shipped them?
	Seriously?
	Like, think about all the transportation and the lodging and all the logistics and money.
	Just send them home.
	The journey that they're on, paid for by the taxpayer, They're invading at our expense.
	They come to Texas.
	They get put on a bus.
	Texas pays to ship them to Chicago.
	Chicago takes them off that bus, puts them onto a Chicago public bus, and pays to ship them to Elk Grove.
	Elk Grove receives them and pays to put them up at La Quinta and pays for their food and water.
	Seriously?
	Enough is enough.
unidentified		A hundred people, by the way.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		It says, when the migrants arrived on September 10th, they came on Chicago Transit Authority.
		Johnson initially said that he was upset with Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's perceived involvement.
		Johnson said that he offered to work with Lightfoot on a plan to help out the migrants and offer them jobs.
		This isn't the first time the migrants were bused from the city of Chicago to an Illinois suburb.
		147 migrants were bused from Texas to Chicago on September 7th and 64 of them were then taken to a Hampton Inn Hotel in Burr Ridge which is outside Chicago.
		Burr Ridge is far from Chicago and Burr Ridge is a very affluent suburb.
		If you've ever been to Burr Ridge, it's one of the richest zip codes in America.
		So, as I said at the top of the show, this is an issue which will affect you.
		from the city or state called him about the arriving buses of migrants.
		So, as I said at the top of the show, this is an issue which will affect you.
		These immigrants are coming to your neighborhood, and they're either going to come there on their own, you know, because they're going to move to Texas and then move somewhere else, or they're going to move to Texas or California and then go somewhere else, or the government is literally going to send them to your house.
		Like, think about it.
		If the illegals don't get to Texas and then get a job and then move somewhere of their own accord, if they're not doing that, which they are doing, and they're all over, they're in Kansas, they're in Connecticut, they're in Georgia, they're everywhere.
		Everywhere where there are people, there are Hispanic immigrants moving in.
		Everywhere.
		Even in the farm land, even in the interior, even in these so-called flyover states, they're everywhere.
		And if they're not coming to a city near you of their own accord, the government will literally get them on a bus and tell the bus driver to come to your neighborhood, come to a Holiday Inn near you.
		Literally!
		Think about that.
		There were no illegal immigrants in Burr Ridge until the city of Chicago put 150 of them on a bus and said, take them to Burr Ridge.
		Seriously?
		And then they just get out there?
		And this has just got to stop, okay?
		At some point, people have got to take responsibility here.
		We've got to get these people out And it goes back to Governor Greg Abbott.
		I mean, and we already covered it with him.
		Just close the border.
		Don't do this stupid gimmick.
		I hate that so much because this is supposed to be cute or funny.
		We're supposed to look at this and say, haha, got him.
		Yeah, so clever.
		It's not clever.
		It's not funny.
		We're losing our country.
		These illegals are taking over our cities and our neighborhoods.
		And we're making light of it with these stunts.
		Greg Abbott should not hold elected office.
		If he can't secure the border, he shouldn't be elected by Republicans.
		And the same is true of the governor in Arizona, and to a lesser extent, New Mexico, because that's now a purple state.
		But it's time to get serious.
		And as far as immigration is concerned, now you know.
		It's not just affecting people in the border states, it's affecting us too.
		These people came all the way up here, where I live, in the suburbs of Chicago, from Texas.
		They put them on a bus and sent them here.
		And if they could get to Chicago, they're gonna get everywhere else.
		And they're gonna get to Wisconsin and Michigan and they're gonna vote.
		And that's maybe the way that they'll be most impactful, is by swinging elections.
		100 illegals at a time by being bused there or flown there or moving there.
		It's been going on since Biden got in office.
		They'll put these illegals, the Biden administration will do this.
		They'll put them on planes and send them to Michigan and Minnesota where they're going to vote and they're going to have kids that are going to vote.
		And they're going to, while they're voting, they're going to receive free education, free health care, free housing, food stamps, disability, Social Security, Medicare, throughout the rest of their lives, as will their children.
		It's just not sustainable.
		So that's what's going on here, and we knew that was going to happen.
		We knew they were destined for the suburbs.
		No surprise.
		Nobody should be surprised at all.
		And you can thank Greg Abbott for that.
		Thank you to the Republican governor of Texas for giving the white suburbs in the north all these illegal Hispanics.
		You couldn't... it would have been a far shorter journey and cheaper probably to just send them back where they came from.
		So that's that.
		I want to move on.
		I want to get into... because we're running out of time here and I'm literally falling asleep.
		I want to move on.
	I want to get into this story about Visa and MasterCard which are now tracking gun sales.
	And I want you to keep in mind there's really no reason for this other than They are planning on taking people's guns.
	That's the only way to look at it.
	The big story today is that, not the banks, but the credit cards, the credit card companies are now going to track every purchase of a firearm in the United States that is made with a, made with plastic, made with a credit or a debit card.
	Because they say that every purchase made in the United States already has a particular code for the kind of thing that's being bought and they're saying well the guns should be no different so they're gonna they're gonna track everybody and every purchase where they buy a gun and you know and so we'll get into this and I'll get my reaction I think it's pretty obvious though.
	It says, quote, three major payment processors, Visa, MasterCard, and American Express, have announced they will put all gun store sales into a separate category of purchases from now on.
	The move, which was met with criticism by weapons rights advocates, follows a decision by an international standards body to introduce a separate merchant code for firearms retailers.
	Visa, the world's largest payments processor, was the last to announce its decision on Saturday.
	MasterCard and American Express had both previously said they would start using the new code.
	The International Organization for Standardization, a Swiss-based body, announced its decision to introduce a new merchant category code on Friday.
	Until Friday, gun store sales were labeled as general merchandise.
	The move was made in response to a request by the New York-based Amalgamated Bank.
	The measure has long been demanded by advocates of tighter gun regulation who say it will help track suspicious weapons purchases.
	The move allows banks and payment processors to assign a new code to payments made to gun retailers, but will not show which specific items were purchased.
	So yeah, it's not gonna tell you what specifically people bought at the gun store.
	They're just gonna tell you that a purchase was made at the gun store.
	Oh, phew!
	What a sense of... I am overcome with relief.
	Oh, thank God.
	Yeah, because that would be a real invasion of privacy.
	If Visa and MasterCard knew exactly which items I was buying at the gun store, now that would be a bridge too far.
	God only knows what they could do with that information if they knew What specifically I was purchasing when I made a $2,000 purchase at the gun store.
	But I sleep easy at night knowing that they don't have that information.
	All they know is that I made a $2,000 purchase at the gun store.
	Could have bought anything!
unidentified		Could have bought $2,000 worth of Doritos at the vending machine there.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		I swiped my card and I bought $2,000 worth of Red Bull while I was at the shooting range, you know?
		And I bought a t-shirt and I bought a baseball cap.
		Really? - Like, Well, we're not going to know what you bought there.
		We're just going to know that you bought it at the gun store.
		Okay.
unidentified		Good.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		It says the code will also not cover gun purchases outside of specific arms retailers.
		The New York City Mayor Eric Adams said, quote, when you buy an airline ticket or pay for your groceries, your credit card company has a special code for those retailers.
		It's just common sense that we have the same policies for gun and ammunition stores.
		The new system would be, quote, an important step towards ending financial system support for gun trafficking, gun violence, and domestic terrorism, said Elizabeth Warren.
		The news provoked the ire of gun advocates, however.
		The NRA said, quote, this is not about tracking or prevention or any virtuous motivation.
		It's about creating a national registry of gun owners.
		In August, anti-gun lobbyists from Guns Down America and Kathy Lee Giffords called on credit card companies to flag legal purchases of guns and ammunition as suspicious.
		So, So there is an obvious angle here which is uh yeah like of course this is creating a national gun registry that's what it is like by definition at the end of the day they're gonna have a list of everybody that bought a gun and where they bought it and who they bought it from and we're gonna know who bought it
		That's the list that's being generated.
		It didn't exist before, but now it is.
		Before, the government couldn't do that.
		Necessarily, because the purchase information is a private affair.
		You know, when you go to a gun store, and you know, I haven't done this, but when you go to the gun store and swipe your card and buy a gun, you know, who has that information first?
		It's Visa and Mastercard and the bank, because they're gonna transfer the funds, they know the merchant, they know the customer, right?
		By creating a special code, they're going to be able to do command find and say, and they're going to be able to generate, here are all the purchases of guns that happen in the United States, and this is who made the purchases, and this is their name, and this is where they made the purchase, this is the address of the business, and this is the business in question, and this is who runs the business, and this is the amount,
		And so, as long as this is going on, as time goes on, after 20 years, you'll have every new gun purchased in the United States for decades, and all those who sold them, and names of all the people that had them, and you'll have a reasonable idea of every gun owner in America.
		Done!
		And why did they make the list?
		It goes without saying.
		Why did Visa and MasterCard introduce this new code?
		They didn't introduce this new merchant code so that they could just achieve a better level of specificity for their records.
		You know, they're not going to go to the grocery store and introduce a special code for Captain Crunch and AR-15s.
		They introduced this special code for this purpose!
		For a surveillance law enforcement purpose.
		The mayor of New York and the body that requested this, the bank, requested this so that they could have supervision over who's buying guns.
		So, in other words, the point is not just to make the database.
		The point is to make the database for law enforcement.
		That's my point here.
		That is, in effect, what they've made.
		That is what they've generated with this new code, is a list of every person and their identity and where they bought it, who bought a gun, and who they bought it from.
		And why did they make this list?
		They made this list for law enforcement.
		And that's, those are the hands that it's going to end up in.
		They made it for that purpose, and that's who's going to have it.
		It's for the FBI.
		They're making a national gun registry for the FBI to do what exactly?
		Why would they even make a list such as this?
		They want to know who all has the guns.
		So then anybody who's involved in dissident politics, anybody that's involved in... who knows why?
		They want to know who has the guns.
		So when federal law enforcement is looking into a person for some other purpose, like, you know, they're a Trump supporter or they're pushing so-called disinformation online or they didn't get their vaccine or they're somebody that the FBI just doesn't like, they can pull up, they can make a phone call.
		Hey, we need the list.
		Boom.
		We can get that entry and that person, we can find all their gun purchases.
		And then the government can go in and disarm them and make it so that they're not a threat.
		And if they get a database of here's all the members of Patriot Front, here's a list of all the members of this group, here's a list of all the people that support this one who donated to this candidate.
		Control find everyone that donated to Candidate X, control find our database for all the people that were in this group or this militia, and then cross, what is it?
		Cross-check that with the Visa MasterCard database of gun purchases, and you've found your list of people the government is going to disarm.
		That's what they can do.
		That's why this was made.
		That's the obvious.
		What is less obvious is the fact that it's just ignored, that now there is this open, shameless collaboration between the government and the private sector.
		Visa, Mastercard, and American Express have created a new rule that governs all plastic purchases in the United States And that rule came from an international body in Switzerland, and Switzerland made that change at the behest of a bank in New York.
		And they did this to aid federal law enforcement.
		So think about the layers here.
		It might be obvious you say the government's coming for our guns.
		Not good enough.
		There is an open conspiracy, an open collusion between the private and the public sector to achieve total control, total surveillance.
		They are going to track every dollar that is transmitted in the United States.
		Now, it's not so bad now because you still have cash and people still use cash sometimes, but in the future we're not going to.
		In the future you're going to have central bank digital currency.
		And so all purchases, and it's increasingly like this already, who even carries cash anymore?
		Who even makes big purchases in cash?
	It's already happening now.
	All the purchases, all the money transfers are happening digitally.
	Happening with Visa, MasterCard, and American Express.
	And what does that mean?
	It means that all of that is being recorded.
	It's all being recorded and it's all being sent to the government.
	There is not one penny that is going to be moved in the United States without the approval of the government, without the approval of international Payment processors and banks without the surveillance of those entities, without that being logged with all of the relevant metadata, such as the time of the purchase, the location of the purchase, the location of the merchant, the amount, the thing purchased, the name, social address of the person that made it.
	That's the future.
	And if you control all the money in the world, you control the world.
	Look at what they're doing with Venmo and Cash App.
	If you want to use Cash App, you've got to give your social security number.
	If you want to use Venmo, you've got to give them your social security number.
	If you want to use PayPal, you've got to give them all your information.
	And the IRS is looking into it.
	If you're sending more than, what is it now, like 400 bucks?
	The IRS is going to get that information.
	They're not getting that information because they want the juice on that $500 you transmitted through Venmo.
	They want that information because they don't want any sum of money to move without them seeing it.
	That's not coming from the IRS.
	That's coming from the FBI.
	That's not coming from Visa and MasterCard.
	That's coming from the NSA.
	That's coming from the Department of Homeland Security.
	And it's not about making sure that, you know, I remember this was a big scandal with OnlyFans where people reporting OnlyFans stars to the IRS and saying, hey, they're running a business on Cash App.
	You need to audit them right now.
	You know, that was, they're not, they're not cracking down on that so that they could get their, their income from the, you know, e-beggars and e-whores and e-prostitutes and whatever.
	That's not why they're coming after it.
	They're coming after it so that they can monitor and prevent the the licit but clandestine transfers of money between political dissidents and in purchasing firearms.
	That's what they want to control.
	Just like they did the same thing to speech, the government and big tech got together to control speech and make sure that nothing is said, no ideas and no words are transmitted without the government seeing it, hearing it, and recording it.
	And they did that by colluding with the telecom companies and by colluding with the big tech companies.
	In the same way, they want to do that with money and firearms.
	How is that not clear?
	And they want to achieve a state where words, money, firearms, and weapons cannot be transmitted without the government seeing it, watching it, recording it, and being able to access it at all recording it, and being able to access it at all times.
	Used to be the case, but you could have a conversation privately.
	Now you can't, because your phone is listening to you all the time.
	And even if it's off, it's recording you.
	Your phone's camera, your phone's microphone is running all of the time.
	Always.
	So you think you can have a conversation?
	You can't.
	And if they were really interested, they could get a satellite and you'd have to be underground.
	You'd have to be under a body of water for them not to be able to hear you.
	They can hear you anywhere if they want to.
	It used to be that you could make a phone call and maybe it couldn't be spied on or you could send a text and it wasn't going anywhere.
	Now you can.
	Every email, every text, it's got a timestamp, it's got a number, and that number comes from a telecom company, and so on.
	Every call, text, you send, it's recorded.
	It's all recorded.
	And they're doing the same thing with purchases, though that's a little bit trickier because it's dollars.
	And they're doing the same thing with the firearms.
	And all of that is to prevent and preclude from ever being possible any threat to the government.
	Now, you might think that's a good thing because you think, well, we don't want threats to society.
	We don't want threat.
	But that becomes a very scary proposition if one day you don't like your government.
	If one day the government becomes the problem.
	You know, then you might want a disruption.
	Then you might want the possibility that a disruption can occur.
	Right?
	Because people look at terrorism, they look at something like 9-11 and say, how could you make 9-11 never happen again?
	Do something like this.
	But what happens when it becomes impossible for anyone or any entity to say anything, move money, or move weapons without the government seeing or hearing it?
	Are we comfortable with that level of control?
	Are we confident Do we have confidence in the government to wield that power responsibly?
	I don't.
	That's what we're talking about here.
	That's the scary proposition.
	And where does it come from?
	Nobody knows.
	It comes from Visa and MasterCard.
	It comes from the ISO.
	It comes from the New York Bank.
	And it's the public and the private sector working together at a national and international level.
	We have no idea who runs this country.
	I mean, we do, but I'm saying rhetorically.
	You think it's Joe Biden?
	It's not.
	These are the real masters of the universe here.
	So that's that.
	Very scary proposition.
	Not good.
	Not good, you could say.
	Not good.
	But that's that.
	We're gonna move on.
	We're gonna take a look at our Super Chats.
	We'll see what you guys have to say.
	I'm gonna try and keep it short because I'm tired and hungry.
	But let's see what do you got.
	Let's see our Super Chats.
	Crack open a LaCroix here.
	Let me get all set up.
	Let me get all set up and ready to go.
unidentified		Oh great!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Got like 50 superchats.
		Yo!
		Brittany with a huge superchat.
		Whoa!
		Let's go!
		Brittany holding down the fort.
		Well actually it's Mio.
		Let's read...
		Or, uh, hang on.
		No, it's separate.
		Yeah, look at this!
		Holy smokes!
unidentified		Britney, you really shouldn't have.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Wow!
		07s!
		You know what?
		These Jews aren't so bad after all.
		You know, Britney's Jewish.
		I didn't know that until she admitted it the other day.
		But you know what?
		These Jews aren't so bad after all.
		Thank you so much, Brittany.
		Can we get an 07 for Politically Provoked for Brittany?
		We love her!
		Even if she is... well, why would that even have any?
		Who cares?
		Big shoutout!
		I appreciate it!
		Thank you so much, Brittany.
		You know, we love her.
		She's doing a great job.
		She gets a lot of criticism.
		But you know what?
		I think she's alright.
		I think she's all right.
		She's pretty, she does a good show, she brings people together.
		Her stream was legendary the other day.
		She had on Beardson Beardley, Paul Town, that crypto guy, Andrew Anglin, Kai Klipsch, Dalton Clod.
		Who else was on there?
		I don't want to leave anybody out.
		Big Tech.
		But truly a legendary panel.
		I honestly think it was one of those panels you go back and watch years from now.
		Someone on Gamer Uprising said that.
		And it's true.
		Beardson and Paul Town on the same stream for the first time in forever with Wang Lin.
		It was incredible.
		So thank you so much for the big super chat.
		I appreciate it.
		And congrats on the big show.
		Really good stuff.
		And she sent another one.
unidentified		Britney sent $100 from Mio.
		He doesn't have an account.
		LOL.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼		Wow, well thank you very much Mio07.
		Very generous to both of you.
		I really appreciate it.

▲