All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2022 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes
58:35
CIVIL WAR IMMINENT??? NYC On The Brink of TOTAL COLLAPSE | America First Ep. 1075
Participants
Main voices
n
nick fuentes
57:30
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Good evening, everybody.
You're watching America First.
My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
We have a great show for you tonight.
Very excited to be back with you here tonight on Friday.
We have a lot to talk about tonight, lots to get into.
Big featured story tonight is about immigration.
And honestly, it looks like what these governors are doing is actually working.
Hate to say it.
And I have to eat a little humble pie tonight because I wasn't a fan, as you know, initially.
But our featured story tonight is about...did I say the whole intro?
We've got a great show for you tonight.
It is Friday.
I don't think I said it's Friday, but it's Friday.
And anyway, so our featured story, we're talking about immigration and the New York City government has just declared a state of emergency because the whole city is just surging with migrants that have been sent there by Texas, Arizona, I think one other state, I don't know if it's Florida.
But they're sending all their migrants up to New York and now it's actually causing a state of emergency.
17,000 migrants have been shipped up there and they just can't take care of them all.
So you know what?
Maybe it's working.
We'll talk about that.
We'll also be talking tonight about Joe Biden and his pardon of non-violent weed possessors.
Did you see this?
We've been hearing about this for years.
All these stoners and potheads and people in favor of drug legalization.
They've all said that it's just so wrong that we have anybody in jail for the crime of peacefully possessing marijuana.
As opposed to dealing drugs or gang related activity.
How could anybody be put in jail just for possession?
And so in response to this and with the midterms coming up, Joe Biden has issued an executive pardon to all those people in federal custody because of possession of marijuana.
And it's actually only going to affect 6,500 people.
Because as it turns out, there just aren't that many people in jail for this.
Despite what everybody says about nobody should be in jail because of X, Y, and Z, The percentage of people that are in jail at the state level, at the federal level, because of possession, because of non-violent drug offenses, is extremely low.
It's a low percentage of drug offenses, and drug offenses are a fraction of all the offenses.
So it doesn't even make up most or even a significant amount of the people in jail for drug-related crimes.
When they talk about people are in jail for not for being peaceful.
That's basically fake.
And so he issues his pardon and you get 6,500 people that will receive relief for that.
So we'll be talking about that too.
Should be a pretty good show.
It's Casual Friday and I thought in honor of, yay, going to war for us, I wore my Yeezy Gap Valenciaga coat and My one seam Yeezy Gap Balenciaga shirt.
unidentified
That says Gap right there, in case you can't see it.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
So I got my Yeezy Gap drip in honor of Kanye, showing that I'm a real fan, okay?
Honestly, I'm bitter and I'm sick of all these con ink shills bandwagoning onto Kanye.
I liked Kanye first.
I've liked Kanye since I got into this, and I took a lot of crap for it.
Everybody said, oh, he's a degenerate, oh, he's liberal, all this.
And I said, you just don't get it.
Totally based.
Totally red-pilled.
And today, he named them!
I don't know if you saw, but the big development on that, he did another... There was another segment of his interview with Tucker Carlson that aired tonight.
And then on Instagram, he said to P. Diddy, He said, I'm gonna show the Jews that told you to talk to me that they can't intimidate me.
He said that!
He said, I'm doing this to show those Jews that told you to talk to me, those Jewish people, that they can't intimidate me.
Or threatened me.
So awesome.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, it did!
And then the ADL came out in full force, and I ratioed them.
Ratioed them on Twitter.
I made an account today.
It's only been around for like, I don't know, 12 hours, and I ratioed the ADL.
I ratioed Raheem Kassam.
Uh, that actually wasn't, you know, in light of actually what that account was saying, actually that wasn't me.
That was, uh, my friend.
But, uh, but my friend, he went off on Twitter today saying that Rahim Kassam is a Jew lover.
I would never say it that way.
I think that's so, uh, offensive.
But, you know, this guy was going off on Twitter, ratioed Rahim Kassam, this handsome groper who's totally hot and awesome.
And, anyway.
So it's been a pretty good day.
Pretty big, white-pilling day.
unidentified
We got the Yeezy coat, let's go!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
And he's naming them, and he's on the Tucker interview, and he's naming the Atheist, and Kushner, and all of it.
Look at how big I look with this coat on.
I look huge.
Look at how much of the frame I take up.
Normally I take up this much of the frame, but now I'm taking up this much of the frame.
Look at how much of the frame.
So anyway, so there's that.
Before we get into the news, I have a huge announcement which I was supposed to announce last night, but I didn't get to it because we had our Sneako interview.
Yesterday, the official He Will Not Divide Us documentary premiered.
And this is something that I worked on with the filmmaker a year ago, or I was in it.
I didn't work on it with him, but I'm starring in it.
And I kind of forgot about it because it was a long time ago that that we did production on it.
And he reached out to me recently and said, hey, we're getting ready to drop this.
I totally forgot.
So it just came out yesterday.
The link is in my bio here.
So if you scroll down and buy it from this link, because if you buy it from this link, I get money from it.
Make sure to use this link.
Do not use the other links.
Do not use the link that Elijah Schaefer posted.
Do not use the link that other people are posting.
Use this link.
Use this link if you intend to buy it that's in my bio, because then I get a little cut of the profit.
And it's pretty cool.
It's me.
Sam Hyde is in it.
Brittany Venti, who we don't like.
She's a disgusting pig, but she's in it.
And who else is in it?
Some other people are in there.
But it's really good.
Really well produced.
I'm in it for a pretty good amount of time.
And it tells a story about how I went down there when Sam Hyde was going down to He Will Not Divide Us.
There's some never-before-seen footage of me meeting Sam Hyde.
Pretty cool.
Some animations.
about me being talked about on poll when I was on He Will Not Divide Us.
It was a really cool project.
I was in love with it.
He showed me.
I got to watch it before it came out.
And it's, if you like this internet stuff, if you like the internet lore, if you're a super fan of the show, it's a must watch.
You gotta see it.
Not just saying that because if you buy it I get paid.
I'm not just saying it for that reason.
It is really good.
And I was surprised how much I was in it because I only went down to He Will Not Divide Us for a day.
But I was in it for, I was in the documentary for sort of a considerable amount of time.
So check that out.
Link is in my bio.
It's called The Dividers.
And I think it's $8 to rent.
It's $20 to buy.
So, costs about as much or a little bit less than a movie ticket.
So check that out.
Pretty sweet!
I'm in documentaries!
I'm in documentaries!
I'm in all the documentaries!
I'm in the... I'm in The Most Cancelled Man in America.
I'm in The Dividers.
I'm in the Alex Jones documentary.
I'm everywhere!
I'm a star!
How could I not shine?
So check that out.
Link in bio.
Super excited about that.
I hope you guys are all excited to see it as well.
Maybe I already did see it.
unidentified
I put it on Telegram.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
I don't like that it's sort of like this.
I wish it was like a little bit more boxy.
Yeah, like that.
I have to hold my shoulders up like this.
unidentified
All right.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Okay, all right.
um this is so cumbersome but it's fun it's a fun fun seasonal halloween treat here with the big guy all right all right okay um okay What else?
So with that, we're gonna dive into the news.
Let me think.
Anything else I wanted to discuss?
Nope?
Okay.
So let's get into the news here.
unidentified
Whoops.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
And our featured story is about this weed legalization deal.
And this is something that actually happened, I think, yesterday.
But I...
Didn't get a chance to cover it because we had Sneeko over here.
And so our first story is about Joe Biden, who has pardoned all of the people that are in federal jail, federal prison, for possession of marijuana.
And this is the story, and I'll react to it.
It says, quote, whoops, got the wrong one here.
It says, quote, US cannabis policy has been thrust to the fore.
After Joe Biden issued a blanket pardon for Americans federally convicted of possessing small amounts of the drug.
Mr. Biden also urged governors to do likewise on state offenses and called for a review on whether cannabis should be listed as a less serious drug.
Federal law currently classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
As one White House official noted, that's the same schedule as heroin and LSD, and it's even higher than the classification for fentanyl and methamphetamine, which are the main drugs driving America's overdose epidemic.
Biden said on Thursday it makes no sense, as he directed his Attorney General and Health Secretary to oversee a review.
He said too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana.
It's time that we right these wrongs.
The news came as a surprise to many, but it has set cannabis stocks ablaze.
Advocates say the move is a first, albeit overdue, step to bringing a $33 billion industry out of the shadows and providing relief to those impacted by a war on drugs that began in the 70s.
It's a welcome conversation starter, said Cassandra Frederick, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.
She said, we've been waiting for some action on cannabis reform federally.
So we welcome the opportunity to use this for a much broader conversation about reform.
As the White House itself has noted, Mr. Biden's pardons for simple possession are limited in scope.
Only about 6,500 people with federal convictions and some District of Columbia residents are eligible for the relief.
That's because while nearly 29 million Americans have been arrested for cannabis-related violations since 1965, nobody Nobody is currently in federal prison solely for possession.
In addition, most convictions for possession are at the state and local level, and presidential pardons only apply to federal charges.
Mrs. Frederick argues, however, that the President's actions have put teeth behind efforts to relieve the perceived harms of cannabis prohibition.
Organizations like hers are calling on the President to deschedule the drug, that is, repeal cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and regulate them in the same way as alcohol or tobacco.
If the Biden administration does ultimately call for reclassifying cannabis, the federal government will be catching up to reforms already underway in several US states.
So, there's a few things here.
The first is the most obvious.
He's only doing this because he is just using everything possible to shore up the Democrat majorities for the midterms.
We know that.
That's why he's releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
That is why he is forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt and this is why he's issuing a presidential pardon for 6,000 people who were convicted for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
They're just doing everything they can because they really haven't done much in the past two years on any level.
At the level of the presidency or at the congressional level, not a lot going on and not a lot that isn't very bad or controversial.
So that's in the first place.
Before we get into it, the question is, is it good politics?
And is it good policy?
Without a doubt, it's good politics.
In the sense that this is one of these issues that obviously skews younger and probably towards minorities, and it's young people and minorities that don't turn out in the midterm elections.
So these menu options, and I'm using that as colloquial expression, it's not technical, but these things that he has at his disposal, these executive actions that he can undertake unilaterally, student loan forgiveness, the pardon, the petroleum reserve, and less so the petroleum reserve.
It's mainly aimed at young people, and it's mainly aimed at blacks and Hispanics.
And again, those are people that historically don't show up in the midterms.
So by doing these things, whether or not it's good, and by good I mean good policy, good for the country, is really an altogether separate question from why it's being done.
And why it's being done is because it's very good politics.
It's very good politically.
And even a lot of Republicans support this.
Like Matt Gaetz, which I don't really care for.
I like Gaetz.
But I do not like that he's in favor of drug legalization.
I thought we left that behind like 10 years ago.
I like Donald Trump saying we got to give the death penalty to drug dealers.
That's way better.
So, with that being said, to talk about it in terms of how it actually is, not just how it's going to affect the election.
In the first place, there's this big meme that's been going around for a long time where people say, we need to let these people out of jail that are arrested and convicted and sentenced for nothing other than peaceful drug offenses.
Nothing other than they didn't hurt anybody, they didn't sell to anybody, they just had drugs.
And we have heard this decried over and over and over again.
And there just aren't very many people in jail for that.
If you break down the statistics, on any level, in the county jails, in the state prisons, in the federal prisons, there are just not very many people in jail for peaceful drug offenses alone.
It's a small fraction of the people that are in jail for drug-related crimes, and drug-related crimes are a fraction of the crimes that people are in jail for.
So, the way that we hear it, it's like this is some kind of major problem.
Most of the people that are in jail are in jail for violent crimes.
Drug-related, non-drug-related, most people in the prisons are in prison because they're violent.
This idea that the prisons are filled to the brim with people that just got caught with a dime bag of marijuana, or what, I don't even know what the term, if that even is the terminology.
People that are caught with a little, I think it's cocaine is a dime, right?
I don't even know.
But people that are caught with small, I'm trying to sound like Street or something, I don't know, a small amount of marijuana, that's not why people are in jail.
People are not in jail for small amounts of drugs and nothing else.
Because, typically, how do people get busted with drugs?
It's not like the cops are going in and busting people at their house for discreetly using drugs.
It's not like people are getting busted driving in their car for discreetly possessing drugs in the car.
Typically, cops are finding drugs.
Typically, there's a possession charge because there's some other crime going on as well.
And so that's just not what's going on at all.
It reminds me of the situation with abortion.
It's the same, it's a very similar bait-and-switch, or a Mott & Bailey, if you will.
Where they'll put out there on abortion, what about rape?
What about incest?
What about the life of the mother?
And when you look at the statistics, it's literally less than 1% of abortions are any of those three things.
That's the number.
That's not me saying 99.9% meaning like most.
No, it's literally.
That's the figure.
Fewer than 1% of abortions in America are rape, Or incest, or threatening the life of the mother.
99%, exactly 99% are elective, meaning that it's a form of birth control.
They got pregnant, they don't want the pregnancy anymore.
Not they were raped, not it was incest, not it was some other exceptional health situation.
99%.
But that, but those exceptions constitute 90% of the debate.
Even though they're 1% of the abortions, 90% of the debate is about do you want to get rid of it altogether with no exceptions, or do you want to have it with exceptions?
If you kept it with exceptions, you'd be outlawing, or rather if you got rid of it, except for those things, you would still be getting rid of 99% of abortions.
That's really the crux of the argument.
And the same goes for something like this.
When we talk about drugs and drug law and drug crime and the war on drugs, and people go on and on about all these people that got arrested for just peacefully having drugs or possessing small amounts of drugs, It's higher than 1%, but it's not like that's the real problem here.
It's not like in terms of law enforcement or incarceration, like, that's the predominant issue.
And even they have to admit in the BBC, which is a pro-drug publication, Even they have to admit, there's literally not a single person in federal custody that's there in prison for drug possession alone.
They're all in there for additional things on top of that.
So what does that tell you?
But yet that's what we hear all day long is, people shouldn't be in jail just for having a little bit of drugs.
Okay, well the good news is, fortunately, nobody fits that description at the federal level.
There's not one person that fits that description.
State level and local level it's a little bit different but you get the idea.
So I wanted to talk on that at least at first because all these arguments when they talk about almost any of these social issues it's never exactly what it seems.
When it comes to crime, when it comes to incarceration, when it comes to drugs, abortion, when we talk about trans or homosexuality, we talk about any of these things They're never presenting it as it is.
As we all know that it is.
And that's why it's very infrequently that people even get into the numbers.
That's why they have to appeal to the emotions.
And, you know, facts don't care about your feelings and all that.
But anyway, that's just that argument.
In terms of legalizing marijuana, that's another conversation.
It's not just that they're talking about freeing people that are in jail for possession.
That is just one among other arguments in favor of legalization.
That's the real thing that they're pushing.
They don't want to reschedule the drug.
They don't want to reclassify it.
They want to legalize marijuana.
And they want to legalize other drugs as well.
They're pro-drug.
Drugs are a big part of leftism, actually.
When you look across the board at liberals, you almost can't separate out their lives from drugs.
And that's kind of an interesting phenomenon.
Which, I'll get to that in a minute, but...
For openers, let's just put it right out there.
They want to legalize drugs.
And here's the thing.
I used to be in favor of legalizing drugs at one point.
I was a libertarian when I was in high school.
And I used to agree with this argument that was made by Ron Paul and Milton Friedman and others that The way it is right now all the drugs are banned and so it creates a black market for drugs And so you're essentially just giving the business you're giving the industry of drugs Which there will be a demand for and there'll be a supply for always you're just giving this lucrative business over To criminals.
And criminal enterprises are violent.
And so, the argument goes something like, even if you don't like drugs, even if you're against drugs, everyone should be in favor of it because there always will be drugs to sell and there will always be a market to buy it from.
And the question is not whether you're going to stop people from using drugs, but who's going to sell them.
That's how the argument goes.
Are we going to let violent criminals sell them?
Who are also going to traffic people and weapons and arm themselves and form gangs and use that to make profits to fund gang warfare?
Or are we going to put it in the hands of the private sector and starve the gangs of their source of income?
And I've heard that argument before, and I used to subscribe to that and say, you know, people aren't using drugs.
People are not not using drugs because they're illegal.
People are not not using drugs because they don't want to.
And if people do want to use drugs, well, then they have no problem getting drugs.
They never have.
For as long as these drugs have been around, which is really only in the last century for some of them, some of these designer drugs, as an example.
Like LSD or math or whatever.
If people want it, they can get it.
And I used to think, so as long as that's the case, let them buy it in the daytime from a legitimate vendor and not from the cartels, not from the gangs.
I used to believe that, but when you actually look at prohibition and the effect of prohibition, that's the same argument they used to use for the prohibition in the 1920s, the prohibition of alcohol, which was created by, what was it, the 18th Amendment, I think?
Or the 20th Amendment?
And they always say that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work.
It just created this criminal market and that's why we legalized it.
It was this great failure and that's what's going on with drug legalization right now.
But when you look at the effects of prohibition of alcohol, or you look at the effects of prohibition of drugs, What you find is that that theoretical argument, this argument based on assumptions that we're just giving the market to drug dealers on the streets and people are going to buy it and sell it anyway, it just isn't true.
Because when you legalize these things, More people buy them.
That's the basic fact that nobody is saying.
When we prohibited alcohol from being sold in the United States, what they will never tell you is that it worked.
People go, what?
Prohibition didn't work.
What about Al Capone?
What about the mob?
Yeah, you had bootleggers and yeah, you had speakeases and things like that.
But consumption of alcohol went down dramatically nationwide.
Sure, people still got it.
But it went down.
Less people were getting it.
Fewer people were getting alcohol than before.
Drug driving went down.
Other alcohol related consumption crimes went down.
So that's what they don't tell you.
Is that the prohibitionists were successful.
They banned alcohol.
And the goal was to introduce temperance to America.
Because there were so many fatalities from drunk driving and so much violence going on because of alcoholism.
And so initially they were successful.
The consumption of alcohol plummeted in the first few years and it recovered a little bit, but it was it was always depressed.
And the same goes for things like drunk driving.
The same is true for drugs.
We see that in states that have legalized marijuana, there's more marijuana consumption.
There are more DUIs related to marijuana.
There are also problems of marijuana overdose.
And I know all of the bro science experts that read articles on Reddit would say, what bro?
You can't overdose on marijuana.
Read about it.
In California, in other states that have legalized marijuana, They're seeing surges of hospitalizations of people that have induced in themselves psychosis or other forms of mental illness because they're habitual pot users or they're taking in lots of marijuana.
And it's funny, I grew up around pot smokers.
When I went to high school, all my friends were stoners.
I never smoked pot once.
I never took drugs.
I never smoked anything.
Cigarettes, vape, anything like that.
All my friends were marijuana users.
They could not have a good time without marijuana.
They smoked it every day, everything revolved around acquiring pot, smoking pot, and then getting more pot.
And they would insist, we're not addicted, it doesn't cause any problems, it's not a gateway drug, and then by the end of high school they were all doing cocaine, Xanax, with alcohol, which is like lethal, LSD, molly, everything you can imagine.
So, it's like so many other things in this society.
We've got a country of man-children that don't know how to discipline themselves, and so we're listening to these potheads.
We're listening to people that are literally addicted to drugs, as they tell us, it's not addictive, it's not a gateway drug, you're just uptight, it doesn't cause problems.
But the data doesn't lie.
Legalized drugs, you get more drug users.
Legalized drugs, you get more drug crime, you get more DUI, you get more psychosis, you get more problems.
And the question then becomes, not about crime, because you know what you do with crime?
You eliminate crime.
We can eliminate crime, actually.
I'll get into that aspect of it in a second, too.
People say we've got to throw in the towel because people are breaking the law using drugs and the people selling the drugs are breaking the laws by being violent.
Well, the solution is not to throw in the towel and say, oh well, better give over the streets to the drug users and the gangs because we can't get a handle on it.
If you have gangs forming up around drugs, then we need an FBI that isn't corrupt.
We need an FBI and a CIA and police forces and a DEA that are not corrupt.
And we need to intercept the drugs at the border, and we need to kill the drug dealers and kill the gangs.
We can do it.
And you can hunt down every incel and right-winger, and you can hunt down ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
You can hunt down drug dealers.
We just don't want to.
So don't tell me that we just have to, it has to be either we permit drugs for everybody or we don't and then we just have all this crime.
That's not, that's a fake dichotomy.
That's a fake dialectic between prohibition that doesn't even work and you can never fully stop it and you just give it to the gangs anyway and just permit it totally and legalize it.
It's a completely false dialectic.
The real conversation is what kind of society do we want to live in?
Do we want to live in a society with drugs or not?
Are drugs good for society or not?
Do we want to have a society where that's permitted and large numbers of people and children are using drugs or not?
And if we decide that that's a society that we want, then let no one stand in the way.
Let's sell it, let's permit it, let's open businesses.
And if we don't want to live in a society like that, then we need to arrest the people that possess it, sell it, manufacture it.
And if gangs are forming up in the business of it, then we need to arrest them too.
And if arresting them doesn't work, then do anti-corruption and law enforcement.
And bring more punitive forms of law enforcement punishment against the drug dealers.
Forget about rehabilitation.
Start chopping their heads off like they do in other countries.
Create more police.
Not difficult, not complicated.
But that's the real question.
And I would say that everything else is really just a distraction about, oh, implementation and laws and schedules and all these things are really just, let's get to the fundamental issue here, which is, is POT okay or is it not?
POT is not okay.
Marijuana, it does nothing for anybody.
People say it, you know, it can be medicinal.
Okay, well let a doctor prescribe it to people that have horrible cancer then.
If that's the argument.
But that's not the argument.
They don't want to push it for medicinal purposes, for people with epilepsy or for cancer.
They want to push it for recreation.
We all know that.
We know they're chomping at the bit to profit off of selling marijuana To people for recreational, habitual, addictive purposes.
And nobody is profiting in their lives from marijuana.
If we could say that what is good for people is to be productive, for people to be sober, for people to be of sound mind, rational, reasonable, then we can say without a doubt that pot is not good.
And people say, well, isn't alcohol a drug?
Isn't caffeine a drug?
Alcohol's in the Bible.
And a person can enjoy small amounts of alcohol without becoming drunk.
People can enjoy, and I don't drink for what it's worth, but people can enjoy a glass of wine or a beer or something like that without becoming drunk, without becoming impaired.
Also, it's biblical.
Also, it's historical.
And I'm not even too keen on alcohol.
That one's already, that one's already out there.
If I could ban alcohol, I probably would.
But that one's already out of the bag.
And is alcohol really doing any favors for society?
Do we love the effects of alcohol on the society?
Every rape, almost every murder, car accident has got alcohol behind it.
Every infidelity, every, there's so many bad things that are, find their root cause in alcohol.
That's a fundamental question.
Do we want a society that's productive?
Do we want a society that's energetic and vigorous and looking towards the future?
Or do we want a society that is sort of sedentary and depressed and lazy and slothful?
That's the fundamental question about whether or not to legalize marijuana or other chemically altering substances.
Do we want to have a society that is healthy, and well, and productive, and doing all the kinds of things that are good for a person?
Or do we want to introduce things that are, as we know, bad for people?
Which includes large amounts of sugar, seed oils, high fructose corn syrup, marijuana, pills, other kinds of things.
That's the real question at the core of all of this.
As for crime, people say, well, you can never go after the gangs.
We can create a society where there's no crime.
There are firms out there that use groundbreaking genetic technology.
There's a firm called Othram as an example.
There's AI firms like Clearview that use facial recognition.
The idea that we don't know who's dealing drugs, that we can't stop who's dealing drugs, That is a myth that they tell to stupid people.
That is just a straight-up, bald-faced lie that they tell to ignorant people that don't know about the strides that have been made in the technology.
You put together the new research and the new technology, the new advancements in genetics, and how they use genetics in forensic science, and how they can take the tiniest, tiniest amounts of DNA, and with other information, create a genetic profile of a criminal.
Criminals that are dead.
You should see the case studies where they'll go to an unsolved murder from 30 years ago with the tiniest amount of genetic material and they identify who it is decades after the fact.
Often the killer's already dead from certain things or the criminal's already dead.
Clearview AI and other facial recognition.
If you have artificial intelligence that can recognize people like me on social media And people in the Capitol on January 6th and things like that, don't tell me that you can't stop gang crime.
Of course you can stop gang crime.
Of course you can stop virtually all crime in this day and age.
It's just a question of, is that what the regime wants to do?
The answer right now is no.
And that's because the regime is corrupt and they profit from the drug trade.
All the organized crime in the world, or most of it, is controlled by the state, is controlled by the intelligence agencies, shadow banking, various arms of the government.
The idea that you've got ultra-wealthy criminal enterprises internationally and governments just can't get them is just ridiculous.
If they could do a manhunt for Julian Assange the day that they wanted him, or Edward Snowden the day that that stuff came out about the NSA, you think that they really were chasing Bin Laden for that long?
You really believe that?
You really think they couldn't find him for 10 years in Pakistan?
You really think they can't find El Chapo and all these guys?
Of course they could!
Of course they can, of course they could.
It's a question of if they flipped a switch and brought on the right team with the right technology, they could end all, with enough personnel and enough time, they could end all the drug crime.
So, suffice to say, almost every argument about drugs is a bait and switch.
It's not the real argument.
Don't tell me that we're taking it out of the gangs and putting it in the hands of the private sector.
We could eliminate the gangs.
Don't tell me there's always going to be drug users.
There's going to be way more if we legalize it than if we don't.
And if we were serious, we could reduce it significantly if we shut it down at all the borders and prevented it from being manufactured here.
Don't tell me that it's about medical purposes, or we're just trying to reschedule it, or we just don't want people in jail for a possession.
None of these are good faith arguments.
These are all people that just want, like everything else, they want unrestrained, unrestricted use of marijuana for their own personal use.
That's what they want.
And it raises a broader question about the society, which is Again, it goes back to the character of the society.
Do people have a right?
And do people living in a society have a right to kill themselves and thereby kill the society that they comprise?
Do people have a right to become addicted to drugs, become addicted to pornography, become addicted to sugar, balloon up to 400 pounds?
Do people have a right to waste their whole day, not work, squat and refuse to be evicted?
Do people have a right to do these kinds of things?
We're told by liberalism, yes they do!
It's their God-given right, and we just gotta make the case.
I'm not so sure anymore.
I'm not so sure that that's the case anymore.
Because it seems that we've tried this experiment, And it didn't work.
Half the country's obese.
Large percentages of the country are on some kind of medication, whether they've tried marijuana, addicted to marijuana, they're on antidepressants, they're on opioids, killing themselves with opioids, committing suicide, straight up, and other ways.
Large numbers of people addicted to pornography, people dying deaths of despair, young men and young women despairing, It's this health crisis, people dying from arrhythmia from the vaccines, and the, uh, what do they call it, myocarditis?
Cancers and autism because of what's in the food?
How the food is processed in America in a way that it's not processed anywhere else in the world?
We've tried it.
It's not working.
I would rather have a society where the government is legislating these things and maybe they go too far and they restrict too much than what we have right now.
Who among us would say I would rather see a loved one become 500 pounds?
I would rather see somebody live through the kinds of things we have to witness, the horror stories behind every corner that we have to witness all day in the workplace, with our classmates, with our loved ones and our families.
Any day of the week, I would prefer to save them.
And I know people like to hear that.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Well, you know what?
I'm not a government guy.
I came from the country.
And I want to get in government and then come from the government to help people in the country.
Because, clearly, they are either not capable or they're being preyed upon.
Either way, they need to be taken care of.
You could say either they can't handle choice, which is somewhat clear, because temptation is strong and addictions are strong and chemicals are strong and industry and the system is strong.
You could also say that maybe they're being preyed upon by the system.
And this is what's being put in people's faces and put on people's plates and put in people's hands in school and put in their hands by their doctors prescribed to them.
You could say another way, maybe they're being preyed upon.
Either way, if they can't help themselves, shepherds need to get in control of the government and make sure to protect our people.
We know better than this.
The basis of this freedom, the basis of liberalism, was this idea hundreds of years ago that we don't know what's good for people, so everybody should be permitted to decide for themselves.
Well, I don't think necessarily that it should be illegal to do any sin, because everybody sins and people need to learn from their sins and things like that.
But we can say definitively that marijuana is never going to be good for people.
We can say definitively that seed oils in the foods are never going to be good for people.
We can say definitively that internet pornography, ubiquitous, is never going to be good for people.
These are things that should just be banned.
And let someone make the case.
What's the public welfare?
What's the argument from the standpoint of the interest of our people, from the standpoint of the interest of our children, our families, that these things should be defended and remain permitted?
They shouldn't be.
Fuck Larry Flint, this Jewish pornographer that won the Supreme Court case.
He's a champion of free speech.
Well, look at how that turned out, if you're familiar with that.
Look at how bad it turned out.
Thank God that we won the court case for Penthouse and Playboy, and 20 years later we're losing the case for American Renaissance and Alex Jones.
Aren't we so glad we used the free speech argument to permit?
Seriously?
So, on a deeper level, it's not just about whether we want to have a society with drugs or not with drugs, it's what kind of society do we want, period.
What kind of people do we want?
Are we a family society?
Do we want a society where we look at people as children?
Look at people, not children in terms of they're immature or juvenile, but look at people in terms of they've got parents that love them.
Everybody has parents, or had parents, and everybody's a child of God.
And we tend to get away from that in this individualism mindset of, what if, in the state of nature, an abstract individual, like an atom... Okay, well, people aren't atoms, and people aren't individuals, and people are never in the state of nature, except for in the Garden of Eden.
So let's just dispense with that.
We're not atoms.
We're molecules.
We're bound together with other people.
We're bound together because we all came from parents.
We all came from a long line of ancestors and we've all got siblings and we're all connected to the people that we share time and space with.
The idea that we are leaving people to their own devices because of some abstraction and the rights that we could derive from these kinds of things It just denies the nature of reality.
It denies the nature of human society.
Does anybody want to see their kid become a drug addict?
Does anybody want to see their kid become some kind of slothful, miscreant, not contributing to society?
No?
Then why do we permit that to go on?
Why do we permit that to be foisted upon adolescents and children?
Why do we permit that to be put in the media and entertainment?
Why do we permit The Hollywood producers and the media to promote this?
If that's not what we want for our own, if that's not what we want for our children, if that's not what we want our society to be and to propagate, then why should we permit it to go on?
And they always say, oh, well, we'll control it in terms of age.
You know as well as I do, it always starts when people are young.
Nobody turns 25 and decides they want to start smoking pot.
Or at least very few people do.
People back then and people now got turned on to it when they were young.
Just like alcohol.
Who turns 21 and has their first drink in America?
Very few.
People hide behind that.
Well, we will age-restrict it.
Oh, please.
Just like everything else, right?
Just like everything else is age-restricted.
And now they're putting drag shows in the schools.
Age-restriction's a big spook.
You know, so...
That's the real issue at hand with all this stuff.
People gotta grow up.
And figure out what kind of country we want.
Do we want to spend our inheritance?
Do we want to be the trust fund?
Not even really trust fund, but do we as Zoomers want to inherit whatever's left of the society that was created by our ancestors and consume it by devouring that while we do drugs and jerk off and get fat and lazy?
Or do we want to build and perpetuate our own society?
That's the question.
So that's that.
So I'm obviously against this.
I think these people should remain in jail.
I think there are laws, there are penalties.
You possess drugs, you get caught, go to jail.
And maybe there can be leniency, but that's for the judge to decide.
That's why we have a court.
It's for a judge to decide what's a permissible sentence and maybe a change of mandatory minimums.
I haven't studied the criminal justice as much.
But the idea that just because somebody's peaceful that they don't belong in jail for certain things is just not true.
People have an effect on other people in ways sometimes that aren't violent.
But I want to move on.
I want to get into the immigration crisis.
This is our featured story.
That's that on drugs.
So we're going to get on with the big immigration crisis here in New York.
And like I said, I I guess I was wrong because I said all this stuff was so stupid but it turns out to be working and I'm talking about all these governors on the border with Mexico have been sending their migrants to DC and New York and Chicago and these northern cities in order to put pressure on the Democrats to do something about the border crisis because the border has never been worse.
And I said, this is a stunt.
It's a drop in the bucket.
They got migrants coming in all the time.
It's no big deal.
But as of this week, the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, has declared a state of emergency.
Because of all the migrants that are pouring in.
And this is a story, it says, quote, New York City Mayor Eric Adams has declared a state of emergency to address a crisis situation over an influx of migrants.
More than 17,000 have arrived in the city from the southern border since April.
Republican states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been sending migrants to Democratic areas in recent months.
It's part of a row with the White House as unprecedented numbers of people arrive at the border.
Since September, an average of five to six buses have been arriving in the city each day, said Mr. Adams at a press conference on Friday.
He said that one in five people in the city's shelter systems are currently asylum seekers.
Many of those arriving are families with school-aged children and are in serious need of medical care.
The influx is on track to cost New York $1 billion this fiscal year, and the mayor is calling for federal and state funding to help with the cost.
He said, New Yorkers are angry.
I am angry too.
We have not asked for this.
There was never any agreement to take on the job of supporting thousands of asylum seekers.
Syria, come on, man!
Are you kidding me?
How are they that explicit about it?
He says, the city is going to run out of funding for other priorities.
New York City is doing all we can, but we are reaching the outer limit of our ability to help.
He said the city's social services are being exploited by others for political gain.
unidentified
Ha!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Gee, imagine that!
Imagine that an unprecedented number of people pour into your jurisdiction And you didn't ask for it, and there was never an agreement to take on the job of supporting them, and you're running out of funding for other priorities, and you're reaching the limit of your ability to help, and you're being exploited by others for political gain?
Yeah, imagine that!
That sucks!
That's crazy, isn't it?
Go figure.
What are you, Donald Trump?
You sound like Donald freaking Trump.
You sound like Ann Coulter.
What happened?
What happened, you smug, uh...
Guy?
What happened, smug Eric Adams?
unidentified
We from New York.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
We got a brand here.
What happened to that smug liberal gangbanger mentality, huh?
What happened to that smug street hood?
I'm hood.
I'm from New York.
Yeah, well what happened to that?
Oh, now you don't want all these... now you don't want all these Guatemalans?
Now you don't want all these Salvadorian asylum seekers?
What the fuck?
I thought hate had no, hate has no home here!
No human being's illegal!
unidentified
No human being's illegal!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Until they're in Martha's Vineyard.
Then we're gonna load them up on buses in 44 hours and throw them back on the other side of the island.
And unless they come to New York.
In which case, it's state of emergency!
Three states, Texas, Arizona, and Florida have transported migrants to Democratic-led areas focusing on self-proclaimed sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Republican officials and border states say the tactic is aimed at mitigating the impact of migration flows.
They have also said the measure is designed to increase pressure on the administration of Joe Biden to reduce the number of migrants crossing the southern border.
The Democrat-run city of El Paso has been offering migrants free rides to New York and Chicago as a means of alleviating the strain on city resources.
El Paso alone has transported more than double the number of migrants, nearly 9,000, to the two northern cities that have been sent by the Texas governor.
El Paso officials say the rides are voluntary and that they coordinate with the destination cities to help the migrants upon arrival.
As part of his emergency declaration, the New York mayor issued an executive order that allows the city to dedicate resources to support asylum seekers and expedite any response efforts.
So, I have sort of mixed feelings about this because I still do.
They should just be deporting these people to Mexico.
Not to New York, not to Chicago.
They should just be shipping them back to Mexico.
They cross, put them on a bus, send them back over.
Mexico doesn't want them?
Then Mexico should stop them at their southern border.
Because that's a dirty little secret is these people aren't even Mexican anymore.
The people crossing the border are asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle countries, from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua.
They're coming also from Venezuela, and they're coming from countries that don't have a good relationship with the United States.
They're also coming from other continents they're flying in.
And the dirty secret is that they are They themselves are crossing Mexico's southern border, and they're crossing through all of Mexico, and then they're crossing our southern border.
So people say, well, how are we going to return them to their jurisdiction?
Not our problem.
Not our problem.
The border has two sides to it.
And as far as I'm concerned, Mexico's not stopping any of these people leaving their country or moving through their country, crossing their border to come to America.
So, we're out of consideration for Mexico?
Gonna worry about putting them on a plane and sending them back to where they originally came from?
They all came from Mexico.
Insofar as the border on America and Mexico sits between America and Mexico, then they're all coming from Mexico.
They don't need to be Mexican.
They're coming from Mexico.
They were in Mexico.
They crossed into America.
They came from Mexico.
So, Back to Mexico, they should return.
And this is within the jurisdiction of all the governors.
DeSantis, Abbott, Ducey, they all have the jurisdiction to put these people back in Mexico.
It's in the Constitution.
There's a federal statute that says that they can do this.
They'll have the ability to close the border and they'll have the ability to deport people.
They just won't do it.
So, I would prefer to see them ship back over the border.
If for whatever reason there is some if for whatever reason they cannot send them back over the border, I suppose this is the next best thing.
Because at the minimum, it is furthering the problem in blue cities.
At least you're preventing these people from putting down their roots in red states where they're going to have kids and they're going to vote and the kids are going to vote and then they'll be impossible to remove eventually.
At least you're putting them in Chicago and New York where it's already... we're never going to win there.
We're never going to win a Republican election there.
I guess that's the upside and also you're going to get them out of the cities in Texas and things like that.
On the other side, though, you're just pushing them further in.
And you know, they're not going to stay in Chicago.
They're going to go to Wisconsin.
They're going to spread out and fan out all over the country.
They're just being moved further into the interior.
So, it's good from an electoral standpoint.
It's bad from the standpoint of some of these other states, actually.
And for how this demographic transition is now being evened out, it was honestly not as bad when it was concentrated in the Southwest, because at least it was like, okay, well that's just California.
Now they're everywhere.
So it's not good.
And the idea that they're ever going to pressure Biden to stop, it just won't happen.
The idea that they're going to put a strain on the resources, are you kidding me?
Chicago is already completely insolvent.
Do you think a few thousand more migrants is going to make a difference?
Chicago's paying more people.
They're paying more pensioners and disability than they have people working for the city of Chicago.
It's unbelievable the abuses in this city.
The state government, the city government, the Illinois Springfield government, the Chicago government have both been like irreparably bankrupt for decades and completely corrupt and it's largely the fault of the unions and the Democratic machine which used to be run by, what was his name, Madigan.
And it's been going on forever.
They've been stealing forever.
So the idea that you're going to put some migrants in and it's just... They'll always be the limitless coffers of the federal government, which gets its money by printing it.
As if there's any lack of a propensity to print and spend more money at any level.
It's just ridiculous.
And what's more, El Paso is sending them there as an assistance program.
Texas, the government, is sending them there as a punishment.
So which is it?
If El Paso is sending them there as a free trip, literally as, hey, you want your final destination Chicago?
unidentified
All aboard!
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
We'll get you there.
And if they're doing that even more than Texas is doing that, saying, get your ass on the bus, Get them out of here, you know, tapping the back of the door, kicking the tires, get the fuck out of here.
If they're both going to the same destination, it's like, okay, so how is this really punishing anybody here?
I think you're just taking them where they maybe want to go to begin with.
I don't think anybody's gonna say, oh man, now we're in New York.
Maybe they are.
I don't know.
But I don't think it's... I think the point is they want free health care.
They'll get it in New York.
You know?
They want free education and free health care and they want welfare and they'll get it.
They'll probably have an easier time getting it in Chicago and in New York.
They come here sick, they come here illiterate, they come here poor, and they come here to get stuff.
They come here to get free hospital, they come here to get free school for their kids, government housing, they come here to get food stamps, they come here to get a cheap job, a low-wage job.
And they're going to get that in Chicago and New York, so it's no skin off Eric Adams' nose or Lori Lightfoot or Joe Biden.
It's not going to change policy.
It's not going to hurt those jurisdictions.
It's not going to hurt those people.
And everybody says, oh, well, liberals will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions.
Liberals don't care.
Do you think that Chicago will ever go red because of black crime?
Is the city of Chicago in any danger of becoming Republican because of the decisions and the policies that have led to crime getting this bad?
Do you think that any of the faggots in the North Side, any of the white people, any of the white yuppie liberals on the Gold Coast or in Lincoln Park, Or in Boys Town?
You think any of those people are going to turn against blacks anytime soon or against the soft on crime policies because of all the people getting executed on Lakeshore Drive?
It's not going to happen.
It's never going to happen.
You think all these, they literally drive down some of these neighborhoods and they've all got the ultra pride flag, the gay flag with the trans and BLM Chevron.
You think that those people are gonna say, you know, I'm a gay liberal, but I'm sick and tired of black people executing my neighbors and stealing our cars and catalytic converters, so I'm voting for Trump to bring the National Guard to Chicago.
It's never gonna happen!
So this idea that all we need to do is make liberals live up to their principles, they'll do it!
Their kids will be killed by illegals and they'll go on TV and say, I love burritos, I love tacos, You think that 10,000 illegal immigrants more in New York is even going to make a difference?
And if it did, do you think that any of these liberals would change how they vote?
They would change themselves!
They'd say, oh I'm sorry for bleeding on your Nikes.
They're getting executed by blacks on Lakeshore Drive and saying, oh I'm so sorry I'm bleeding all over your new shoes.
Can I clean that up for you as reparations?
So, I guess I'm still against it.
It's funny that they're declaring a state of emergency, that it is having an impact, but let's be real.
It's not really having an impact on anybody.
▲
Export Selection