All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2023 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes
01:19:22
GRAND OLD TRANNY? Don Jr SWEARS ALLEGIANCE To TRANNIES, HORRIBLE | America First Ep. 1146GRAND OLD TRANNY? Don Jr SWEARS ALLEGIANCE To TRANNIES, HORRIBLE | America First Ep. 1146
Participants
Main voices
n
nick fuentes
01:14:48
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Now looking more like it's out of dependency that the Europeans are allied with the United States.
They rely on and depend entirely on the United States nuclear umbrella and on the United States power projection capability.
They as an independent entity do not have even the capability to operate individually or collectively as an entity that you could say is European separately from Washington.
And that's a big problem, especially as the United States is now refocusing on and shifting towards China.
So it's a huge speech today.
Macron is speaking on how Europe needs to break away from the American defense industry, the American officers, policymakers, and they need to exert themselves as their own European entity.
And so this brings to light Potentially a conversation about a European Army, a European Centralized Command, something like NATO without America, NATO that's just Europe.
And it's a complicated subject because, as you know, the United Kingdom broke away from the European Union seven years ago.
And there's all kinds of questions concerning what this would even look like.
There's only one country now within the European Union that has nuclear weapons.
Does that nuclear umbrella extend to Poland?
Does it extend to the Balkans?
Who makes the decisions?
Will France or Germany be able to send people from Croatia into a war someplace else?
It's a very complicated situation because unlike the United States, these are all sovereign, independent countries.
So many of the European nations want to be sovereign from America, but how many of them want to submit their sovereignty to Brussels, or Paris, or Berlin, or some other capital?
It's a very tricky subject.
So we'll talk about all that tonight, and there's not too much going on in America.
It's a pretty slow news day, but this speech is a pretty big deal in light of everything that's been happening in the world.
So it's going to be a little bit of a foreign policy show tonight.
We'll talk about the FBI, but that's not a huge story.
To me, the more interesting story, the bigger story, is what's happening with France, and this new vision articulated by Macron.
It's been a long time coming, it's a very big deal, and it goes hand-in-hand with what we've been talking about lately, which is how the world order is realigning, especially in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, and now, in particular, in the last month, all these developments with China.
So we'll talk about all that.
Should be a pretty good show, although it's a slow news day, but still much to discuss.
Before we get into this show, I want to remind you to smash the follow button here on Cozy to get a push notification whenever I go live.
Follow me on Rumble.
I'm live every night on Rumble as well, and all the replays are available there.
So if you didn't catch a show from a week ago or two weeks ago, I don't know how many are on there, but it's like every show this year I think is on Rumble, so check us out.
Links are all down below.
Also follow me on Gab Telegram and True Social.
That's all down there as well.
What else?
Not doing a show Thursday or Friday.
Just a reminder, I'll be out of town, so...
Don't be.
Don't be tuning in.
Thursday and Friday I will be long gone.
But I'll be doing a big collaboration on Friday.
So look forward to Friday.
You'll still have content.
And I don't know how many shows we're gonna do.
It might be one.
It might be two.
I'm not sure.
But you'll be seeing some familiar faces and some new faces as well.
It's gonna be a great show.
I'm really excited for this one.
So, we're down two shows but we're up one big collaboration.
The other thing I wanted to cover before I get into the news, not a huge deal but I do just have to bring it up.
I don't know if you saw this but, I don't know if this was today, yesterday, but Don Jr., Trump's son, was on the Full Send podcast.
And they ask him about the transgender thing.
And I said yesterday, I've been saying for a long time that I don't like the transgender issue because this is like becoming an obsession for the conservatives.
And as I've said, this is on the fringe.
It is the tip of the spear right now for the left.
That's the frontline issue.
That's the furthest extent of their Of their forward advance with the social progress.
So I get why that is the confrontation.
But I've always said that we have to push further than just trans.
We've got to talk about the whole enchilada.
We have to talk about feminism.
We have to talk about homosexuality.
We have to talk about contraceptives, abortion.
You cannot just say that we're going to disallow Some types of transgenderism for some groups.
As many conservatives, that seems now to be their position.
I've said this for a long time.
But the other day I said, well, I don't know.
Because it seems like that's an easy one.
You got even guys like Aiden Ross going out there and saying there's two genders.
But I saw this interview, and I didn't watch the whole thing, but I saw this clip where Full Send, and these are very popular guys, and they're actually seen as conservative.
They're pro-Trump, they have appeared with Trump in the past, they interviewed him.
And these guys are very mainstream, they're very popular, millions of subscribers, young people, college kids love them.
And so they are considered nominally in the mainstream discourse to be right-leaning conservative types.
They just had Tucker Carlson on the other week.
Well they have Don Jr.
on and they say, well what do you think about the transgenders?
And Don Jr.
says, I'm a liberal.
I'm a liberal on this issue, he goes.
And he says that if adult people want to be transgender, that's fine.
But it's just these kids that we have to protect.
And everybody, understandably, flips out.
They said, what?
You're liberal?
How could you be liberal on this issue?
This is like the one issue where you're allowed not to be a liberal, right?
unidentified
That's my whole contention.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
It is so weird and it's so offensive to any normal person's conscience that anybody, even famous people, can afford to not be liberal on this issue.
You cannot afford to be liberal on, or rather conservative is what I mean.
You cannot afford to be conservative on feminism.
You cannot afford to be conservative on homosexuality.
You cannot afford to be conservative on even abortion, as the last few elections are evidence of.
You can't afford to be conservative on any of it, on any of the social agenda.
Transgenderism is the one thing that famous people can be conservative on, and do not have to be liberal on.
Even somebody like J.K.
Rowling, who's a hardcore feminist, liberal British woman, even she is conservative on this issue.
But Don Jr., son of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who's supposed to be the guy, says, well, I'm actually quite liberal on it.
And I think it's just about protecting kids, but if you want to be trans, that's your prerogative.
And so understandably, these guys like Matt Walsh and others are saying, hey, what's the story?
We've been working so hard for all this time to consolidate and to make it possible for people to be conservative on this issue.
Why are you saying you're liberal?
Here's where it gets better.
I mean, that's bad enough, but then it gets better.
Charlie Kirk weighs in.
And this is in response to everybody who's been attacking Don Jr.
for this.
Pedro Gonzalez tweeted today, Donald Trump Jr.
says he supports transgenderism and is liberal on the issue.
What's especially insane about this is that it comes after the Nashville shooting.
The right has invested so much effort into arguing transgenderism is a threat to families and sanity.
Then the Trump family comes in and smashes it by legitimizing transgenderism.
Biden himself couldn't do better to undermine opposition to the left than these people.
Charlie Kirk comes in, he replies to Pedro, defending Trump, and says, knowing Don, this is an unfair mischaracterization of his position.
Few people have been more vocal about fighting back against the radical trans movement than Don Jr.
The issue is not that some dude wants to wear a dress in his living room, it's that they're indoctrinating kids.
And I said this on Telegram, yeah, that's the liberal position.
That's by definition the liberal position.
What is liberalism?
Everyone is an individual.
Everyone is free to choose to do with their life what they see fit.
Who are we to stand in the way?
By what authority?
By what knowledge do we presume to be able to tell the sovereign, sacred individual what he ought to or ought not to do in the comfort of his own home?
That's liberalism.
That's what he's saying.
He's saying, you can wear a dress in your living room, just don't touch the kids.
Well, that's liberalism.
That actually is the liberal position.
And it goes further than this.
It's not just to say, you're liberal, therefore you're liberal, and that's a problem.
But this position, this angle, is deeply flawed.
And you hear this on every issue.
It's not just transgenderism.
You hear this on gay.
You hear this on feminism.
You even hear this on things that aren't even necessarily social issues.
This idea of hiding behind the kids.
And I have talked about this on the show at great length.
And I don't know if people thought I was purity spiraling or if they thought I was crazy.
If you did, here's why I say this.
For example, recently there was a bill in Utah And it was about technology.
I forget the specifics, but it said we are gonna ban, maybe it was, screen time on social media for children under the age of 18.
And I said, this is great, but in principle there's a problem with this kid stuff.
Same thing with in Florida.
In Florida, Governor DeSantis signed a bill, the famous Don't Say Gay Bill, that banned discussion of gender and sex issues in the public school classrooms for children before the fourth grade.
It's everywhere.
It's always about age.
You can't teach them about gay until the fourth grade.
You can't promote transgenderism until they're a legal adult.
You can't have pornography in the society until they're at least 18 years old or if there are not abusive practices in the production of the pornography.
And then there's this.
You can be trans all day.
When he says you can wear a dress in your living room, do you know what that means?
It means you can be trans.
Because guess what?
People don't live in their living room.
They live in the world.
Obviously.
They live in their living room.
They live in their bedroom.
They live in their kitchen.
Then they get in their car and then they go and they live at work.
And sometimes they go and live at schools.
And sometimes they go and live with other people in relationships and they bring kids into the mix.
So what happens when you're in your living room wearing a dress as a man believing you're a woman and you also happen to be a person that has children in the home?
Well then what?
Well you can wear a dress in your living room but just not indoctrinate the kids.
Well it seems like those things are not mutually exclusive.
It seems like those things, the idea that you can have one but not the other, it seems totally incompatible.
And what I'm getting at here is that there is no such thing as the individual in privacy.
There is only the society in public.
Which is to say that no matter what decisions you make and what you think about them, whether they're only affecting you or they're only taking place within a certain boundary, we are all connected.
It is impossible to not be connected.
To not be connected is to not be in the society.
It's to be in some other country, or it's to be in the wild.
In which case, it's not even a conversation.
I don't think anybody's arguing what A person does in the woods and no one's there to see it, we're talking about people that are in the society.
And insofar as you're in the society, you've got parents, you've got siblings, you've got a boss, or you've got employees, you've got neighbors, you've got people that you see on a daily basis.
And so this distinction that liberals, that's what this is.
It might be right liberalism as opposed to left liberalism, meaning that it's of a right-wing variety.
You could say libertarian.
But this is the problem with liberalism.
This is the liberal conceit, which is that you can separate and segregate out individuals and their choices don't affect everyone around them.
That they don't ripple horizontally in the current time, and that they don't ripple vertically across the generations.
And what do I mean by that?
If you're a transgender person and you go outside, this, yes, this affects and impacts everyone around you.
Everyone currently alive.
Maybe not everyone in the whole world, but it affects people in the here and now.
Everybody that looks at that, everybody that sees that, everything that has to change to accommodate this is affected.
Here's a perfect example.
If you're a transgender person and you're at work, what does every human being have to do at home, in their living room, or at work?
They gotta go to the bathroom.
Starting to see the issue?
And what happens when one of these adult consenting individuals who decided to do with their body what they wanted to do, leaves the living room and goes in public and has to use the bathroom?
Well, now we've got a problem.
Which bathroom are they going to use?
The boys' bathroom?
The girls' bathroom?
This guy in a dress?
Because if the guy in a dress goes into the girls' bathroom, which inevitably he will do in his life, he is going to scare and intimidate, probably harass, the women there.
And they're going to go and complain and protest.
So for him to be able to be a guy in a dress in his living room, he also has to be a guy in a dress in his living room who is able to use a girl's bathroom in public anywhere he goes.
Or else we're not really respecting his individual right to do to his body what he wants to do or to self-identify.
So now the society has to change to accommodate this.
It's the same thing in sports.
It's the same thing in all these areas.
It's like I've always said.
There is no such thing as a private, individual, moral decision that doesn't affect society.
Doesn't exist.
And when you see these issues like the bathroom, or sports, or even for that matter when we talk about indoctrinating children, These are just the areas where this revolutionary attitude conflicts with the society.
If you believe that people have a right to be transgender, in other words, then it's just a matter of society changing to accommodate that.
If you think that people have a right to be transgender, they have to have a place to go to the bathroom.
So, you're either gonna let them in the girls' bathroom, or you gotta make a gender-neutral bathroom, if you think they have the right.
Because if they have a right to be transgender, if they change genders, then that means that they're a girl.
They get to use a girl's bathroom.
Or, if you think that they didn't really become fully a girl, they're just a transgender, but we recognize that, then you gotta have a transgender bathroom to accommodate.
And the same goes for sports, and the same goes for the rest of it.
We just have to get used to people liberally expressing their individual rights.
Moreover, when you make the argument about indoctrinating... So that's with regard to this idea of privacy of your own home.
We're okay with it in the privacy of your own home.
No such thing.
That's first of all.
Second of all, when it comes to the children, think about it this way.
We can let people be transgender if they want, just don't tell the children to be transgender.
What's the problem with that idea?
Which, by the way, I don't think that a lot of transgender people, maybe they don't even have a problem with that.
I think there are a lot of agreeable ones, and they present as non-threatening, like a Caitlyn Jenner, or even this Chris from Mr. Beast.
And their reasonable argument goes something like, I'm just doing what I want to do.
It's not your business.
So I think that that's actually a position that even a lot of left-wing people might have.
Although there are radical people that say that kids need to be indoctrinated with this gender ideology.
Point is, there's a lot of discussion on the topic.
Here's what I would have to put forward about this.
Children are exposed to a lot of things that we would not necessarily permit them to do.
Like, for example, alcohol.
Do adults refrain from drinking alcohol in front of children?
Is there alcohol in TV shows and commercials that children watch?
How about a young person watching a football game?
How many beer advertisements during the Super Bowl?
Nobody would say that a child should drink beer.
But then again, children are exposed to advertisements for alcohol, and they're expected to enjoy that responsibly when they're 21.
Why?
Because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with alcohol.
There's nothing intrinsically, there's nothing in itself that's wrong with alcohol.
There's problems with using it and driving.
There's problems with using it in excess.
There are problems with using it if you're not of the appropriate age.
But the reason why we don't care if kids see drinking is because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
It's just not for kids.
Same thing with marriage or intimacy or sex.
Children can't get married, but yet they watch in Disney cartoons princes and princesses, and they watch in all kinds of shows, girlfriends and boyfriends and that kind of thing, for the same reason.
When they become adults, we fully expect them to partake in that, because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
It's just not their time yet.
The problem with this argument about transgenderism is you want to have it both ways, which is we're going to abdicate the conviction, the moral conviction, which says it's wrong, it should not be allowed, but at the same time we want to allow people to do it and protect the children from it.
While you can't have things in society be permitted that are intrinsically wrong and immoral like transgenderism, But then expect that children are not going to be exposed to it.
You can't have those both ways.
If transgender people are out there in the world, children are going to see a glimpse of that.
They're going to see it in the school.
They're going to see adults this way.
It's going to be out there.
And what would be the argument for covering that up?
Other than to say it's wrong, in which case it shouldn't be here.
So this line about it's about the kids, it just doesn't square.
The reason why we don't want kids to see it is because it's wrong.
It's intrinsically wrong.
It is wrong in itself.
It's not wrong because kids do it.
It's not wrong because kids want to cut their balls off.
It's wrong that anyone would want to cut their balls off.
That's why we don't want it anywhere.
That's why we don't want it promoted anywhere in the public square or in a family environment, in a learning environment, in a community environment like at a library.
We don't want to expose our children to it because it is wrong in itself.
And if it's wrong in itself, why would we give license for people to do this in the world?
If it is irreversibly, irreparably harmful to people, and if it shocks everyone's conscience, it's such a transgression against the natural law, why would we say that anybody should be up to this in doing this?
That is the liberal position.
The liberal position is to believe in morality, but to defer any kind of moral pronouncement or any kind of moral conviction or decision out of fear of conflict.
That is liberalism.
That's where liberalism comes from.
Is the idea that these bigger issues, life and death issues, issues of God and morality and the natural law, are so contentious that people kill over them.
And rather than fight and die for what's right, we'll defer any moral pronouncement.
And we'll permit everyone to do what they can, with the exception of one immutable law, which is nobody wants to die.
Or rather, I should say, nobody wants to be killed.
Some people want to die, in which case you have euthanasia becoming popular in Canada and Europe.
Nobody wants to be harmed without their consent, I think is the new language.
Which is a logical conclusion that they've worked it out to.
Harm and consent.
Nobody should be harmed without their consent.
People can self-harm, And people can harm each other, I suppose, with consent, but nobody can be harmed without their consent.
That's the only moral pronouncement anymore that can be made in a liberal society, and that's what's being done here.
And here's why this is a liberal position because, and this is where it comes from with children, The argument that it cannot be shown to children, lest they be influenced by it, is that children cannot fully consent.
Because children are underdeveloped mentally, and so the idea is they cannot become transgender because they cannot consent.
Once they grow up and become an adult, well they can consent to whatever self-harm they want to do.
But God has a different idea of morality, which is not about harm and consent.
God has an idea of morality which is about our conscience and about a natural law and a moral law.
There's a lot more to it than that.
But conservatives are no different than liberals.
They may be different from progressives, but they're no different than liberals.
And I've said this for a long time.
All of this opposition against the trans issue, it is a fake.
It is a forgery.
It is a ruse.
It is not about protecting children.
It's not about morality.
It is not even a true social conservatism.
It is about circumscribing an acceptable level of degeneracy.
Circumscribing liberalism in a way that they feel comfortable with.
It's about moderating liberalism.
Transgenderism, fine, with an age limit.
Pornography, fine, with an age limit and some regulations.
Drugs, fine, with regulations and an age limit.
Abortion, fine, with a limit on how many weeks into the pregnancy before which an abortion is legal.
In every case, liberalism advances without any impediment.
It's unstoppably moving forward.
And conservatives are there not to push back, not to reverse it, not to divert it, not to change course.
Conservatives are there to say, hey, let's impose some reasonable regulations on that.
Let's circumscribe this in a way that is acceptable to old sensibilities, which are always evolving, by the way.
The sensibilities of the time are always changing.
The law is unmovable.
The law is an immovable standard.
Sensibilities change with time, and they're subjective, and they're relative.
So in the 1990s, when there was a social revolution happening, and conservatives said, hey, slow down.
Let's make this acceptable based on the sensibility of the time.
The sensibility of that time was relative and subjective, just like it is now.
And so if in 30 years, conservatism is doing the same thing, what will be the sensibilities of the adults making the decisions 30 years from now?
It'd be rooted in the kinds of things that children are being brought up believing today.
It would be different.
It would be more liberal.
This is what we call the slippery slope.
So this is why 60 years ago transgender and gay would be unthinkable, but you know women working wasn't so crazy.
And why 40 years before that women working and contraceptive was nuts, but women voting it seemed like this is where things need to go.
And that's why now All those things are a given.
Yeah, women voting and working and contraceptives.
But the transgenderism, let's debate a little bit about the implementation of this.
What's it going to be in 10 years?
Pedophilia?
Well, you can rape kids as long as the kid is 13 and they give their consent.
Is that what it's going to be in 10 years?
Does it have to get there?
Where are we going to be in 20 years?
Are we going to have full-on euthanasia?
And I can only imagine the level of deviancy that'll be possible.
You see what goes on today.
But this is the problem.
It's the subjectivity.
It's the relativistic idea of what we ought to be doing as a society.
At some point you have to establish that there's rules.
There's moral rules.
We live in a moral universe.
We're moral beings.
We have to act in a moral way.
And the moral standard has to be fixed and unchanging and immovable.
Once you break away from that, you're gone.
You're just floating out there.
That's what it is.
So...
Where to even begin with a statement like this?
Don Jr.
says, I'm a liberal.
You can do whatever you like.
And Charlie Kirk goes, you're mischaracterizing it.
You can do whatever you want in your own home.
It's just about the kids that we want to protect.
Well, listen.
The only reason we want to protect our kids from depictions of this is because it is always wrong.
It is wrong when they're kids.
It will be wrong when they are adults.
Would anybody be satisfied with the idea that children would not be shown transgender propaganda?
But wait patiently to turn 18 and then castrate themselves?
Would anybody say that's okay?
You want to live in that society?
Are you satisfied with that?
Oh, well, good thing the child... Don't get me wrong.
You would have reduced the harm.
But is this the kind of society you want to live in?
Oh well, that's good.
All these 12 and 13 year olds that are being brainwashed with this gender ideology, they'll have to wait patiently until they're 18 to get their sex change, get castrated, start an OnlyFans, start smoking pot.
Good thing they waited until they were 18 to do all those things.
Said nobody.
So, we have to protect the kids from these things because we all know we don't want them doing those things when they're 5, 13, 18, 25, 50.
We don't want them to be doing it at all because it's wrong.
And so if that's the case, we need to have the moral conviction to say, I don't want my kids to see it because it's wrong.
And that's why people shouldn't be doing it even in their living rooms.
Now here's the thing.
You're always going to have people that are immoral.
You're always going to have that.
You will always have degenerates, deviants.
You will always have that in the society.
That will always be in the heart of man because we are fallen.
Whatever the sin, you're always going to have stealing, you're always going to have murder.
It's always going to be there.
And ironically, the question is how do you get people, if they are going to be deviant, to do it discreetly in a way that doesn't impose on anybody, in a way that doesn't scandalize or corrupt children?
It's by saying nobody can do it.
It'll still be out there, and it'll be quiet, but the only way that you arrive at a society where you minimize it to that level, to that proportion, Where everyone understands that if it's that way, you better shut up about it, is if there is a society with the moral courage to say no.
It's wrong.
And that's the irony of the whole thing, because it's always going to be there.
There's always going to be an element of evil, but it is the role of the state and it is the responsibility of the people in the society to collectively say, that is immoral.
We do not tolerate that.
We will not have that in our society.
That's what you have to do.
The benefit, here's what, this is a revolutionary idea here.
Watch this.
A lot of people say that we are going to reject liberalism, which I do, and they say we're going to reverse it.
That's where I disagree.
And I said this in my speech at the rally.
I don't think we can rewind the clock and go back to where it was before liberalism happened.
Because it happened.
Liberalism happened.
Liberalism grew and expanded and became hegemonic and it has influenced the entire world.
There's pushback.
There is pushback in places like Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Syria and Turkey and Hungary and there is pushback against liberalism.
But I would argue that The ideas of liberalism are not all bad.
I think there are certain things and there are certain ideas which have gotten a hold of people.
Although they're not entirely true, they've gotten a hold of people because there is something in them that is true.
And so I think the answer is not an anti-liberal or an illiberal trying to undo liberalism.
It is going past liberalism.
We're never going to stop it and turn it around.
But what we can do is transcend it.
We can go past it.
We can divert it in a direction and assimilate it into something that is good.
And here is what I think the application of this is.
What makes liberalism appealing is that it is humane.
There's, and Fulton Sheen said this, in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, you had the cross without the Christ.
You had the sacrifice, you had the individual sacrifice for the collective, you had the idea of mortification, of pain and suffering, but directed towards a higher purpose, which was in communism for the socialist paradise and all that.
He said in the West, you had the Christ without the cross.
You had the love, Without the pain, without the sacrifice, without the humility.
It was just all love and tolerance.
And that's the feature that people like.
People like the idea that towards sinners, we're not going to decapitate them and we're not going to be cruel towards them or prejudicial, but we're going to understand them.
The error was in accommodating them.
The error was in this therapeutic solution that if we were just kind and nice and tolerant of sin, that it would make the sinners feel better, but it didn't.
Because sin is poison, and it corrupts the vessel that it's contained in.
And so what happened is that all the people in which we tolerated sin, the transgenders, the feminists, the homosexuals, the drug addicts, did that help them?
Were they better off for that?
Was that actually a humane thing?
Was it humane to not just be understanding and loving, but to be tolerant of their sins?
No!
It was the worst thing we could do.
And now you see transgenders, they're all killing themselves.
Many of them regret what they do and they'll live with the regret the rest of their lives.
They've destroyed their bodies.
They have wounded their chemistry.
We think about the body as being the physical, but they've also wounded their whole system, their endocrine system, all of that.
The homosexuals.
Take a look at the monkeypox epidemic and what that exposed about that sordid lifestyle.
The promiscuity, the drugs, all the rest.
Drug addicts.
We all know about that situation.
Even things like obesity.
If you saw that movie, The Whale, I mean we all know what fat people are like, but that's another piece of media which shows what a sick lifestyle that is.
People want to tolerate this.
People want to enable that.
And so I think that the answer is not to say, let's turn back the clock and hate on these people and be cruel towards them and be prejudiced towards them.
The answer is to apply what we've learned.
Which is that for a lot of these things, we can understand them.
Why are people transgender?
It has a lot to do with mental illness.
Because there is too high of a coincidence of people experiencing so-called body dysmorphia and autism.
Or some other antisocial personality disorder.
The same is true of homosexuality.
Drug abuse?
We see there's a genetic correlation with that.
Same with obesity.
There's also a connection with nutrition.
And so we could say that the answer is not to, and this is I think the big mistake, what conservatives do because they're unimaginative, and because in some cases there is a legitimate critique that they're prejudiced or that there's ignorance, conservatives say we gotta just act like people used to act.
And I don't think that's necessarily the answer.
I think the answer is to be as loving and as compassionate and as merciful and charitable as liberals towards these groups, but without tolerating these sins.
I think that's the answer.
It's to say that for these categories of people, I don't think the answer is to beat them up or to make them afraid or to hurl insults at them or slurs, which I think is popular on Twitter.
I think the answer is to, and you know, without throwing pearls before swine, in terms of advocacy, the solution is that these people need to be identified and they need to be helped.
And help is not to enable them to persist in these lifestyles which we know are deeply immoral.
We know that it's not good to cut a slice of a person's skin off and roll it up into a penis and sew it on their crotch.
Like, we know that's not good for people.
We should not allow them to do that.
Without hating them, with compassion and understanding extended towards them, we should help these people see a better way.
And the same goes for all the other groups.
But I believe that that is why conservatives have lost the culture war.
Because there's no answer for these sinners.
There's no answer for them.
For liberals, there's this answer in, we're gonna bring everybody in, we're gonna wrap our arms around everyone and make them all feel welcome.
Now, they did marginalize one group, which is the intolerant and the moral.
They marginalized Catholics and Nazis and racists and so on.
But liberalism was able to become hegemonic because it opened its arms to everybody and brought them all in.
But people are realizing that liberalism doesn't have all the answers.
It was actually Satan, because that's what Satan does.
Invites you in with false promises like, you will never die.
Or you could become like God, which was the two original lies of the devil.
And in this way, the devil said, you can be who you really want to be.
You can love who you want.
You can feel good all the time.
You can do whatever you want and everyone has to be okay with that.
There are no consequences from living your truth or something like that.
And it's not to say that we should adopt any kind of false promise, but we should embrace the love of Christ towards these people.
Just not their Errors.
So to me that, I look at this and I get it.
I get because, and I said this the other day with the Mr. Beast story, you see this guy Chris on Mr. Beast and he's totally sympathetic in a certain way.
A lot of people see this and here's the thing, transgenderism is something that is so intuitively repulsive to people that their disgust overpowers this liberal idea of compassion.
That's what it is.
More than anything else, transgenderism, because it is so visibly uncanny and unnerving and weird, people's disgust overpowers the usual programming.
Because any adolescent male, and really I think any adult male, and even a lot of women, just look at that and say, You know, what the fuck is that?
That's a guy that looks like a woman or a woman that looks like a guy.
It's something that just is unnatural.
So that's why there's especially a lot of pushback to transgenderism.
Because disgust is a real emotion.
It's a real distinct feeling.
And it's involuntary.
It's instinctual.
So I think that's what happens when you see a guy like Chris from Mr. Beast, there is a lot of pushback because people see it and it's jarring and it triggers their disgust reaction.
I'll tell you this though, that guy will win.
This transgenderism thing eventually will overpower that.
And it'll overpower that because the message is something like, Hey, why are you attacking me?
Why are you being mean to me?
I'm just a victim.
I'm just a person that... I just want to be who I am and everybody's being mean to me.
And it's compelling.
It works.
That's how it's been for a lot of people.
Why can't I just do what I want to do?
I just want to do what I love.
If it's a woman working or it's whatever.
I just want to be myself.
I just want to do what I want to do.
And everyone's being mean to me.
Eventually that message is going to win.
Nobody wants to be the jerk.
And this is why Don Jr.
says this.
Don Jr.
doesn't want to be the jerk that says, I'm telling you, you can't do that because you know you're fucked up and this is at least that's how it's perceived.
You've made irreversible changes like the way you are is wrong.
And the solution is you don't have to be that guy.
You could be the guy that says, listen, I love you.
I understand you, but this is only going to harm yourself.
We know this is wrong.
We know it's unnatural.
It's only common sense.
It's common sense because that's conscience.
When people say common sense, wisdom is something that we could tap into.
And having a moral sense is also something that we're born with, something that's innate.
When you say common sense, it's like we all have knowledge we're born with.
Some say that all knowledge is interior.
That's another conversation.
But it's to say that, you know, we don't hate you, and there's a place for you in society, but it's not doing this.
It's just that nobody wants to be the bad guy.
Nobody wants to be the cruel, backwards person who's fighting progress, but that's what we have to do in a certain and an attackful way.
So that's the... it's very similar to the story about when Jesus encountered the prostitute and they said, well, hey, you gotta stone her.
You gotta stone her to death.
And Jesus didn't say, alright, hey, listen, bitch!
Hey, listen, whore!
Hey, you're gonna die!
He said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Now that didn't mean everybody can do what they like and don't face the consequences.
He said, you can't sin anymore.
I'll be merciful, but go and sin no more.
It's got to be more that flavor.
But anyway, that's my thoughts on the whole situation.
So it's got to be, you got to bring together both things.
We have to synthesize here.
It can't just be this rabid... and too often, I said this before, when you see that protest in Ohio and they're throwing up Nazi salutes and they're saying, hey fuck you faggot!
You should kill yourself!
It's like, that's just... does anybody think that is a winning message?
Does anybody even really feel good about that?
I don't think anybody feels good when they see that.
I don't think any good person... I don't think a decent person sees that and has any good feelings.
I know people get self-righteous, and I know people get angry about what they see, but if we're all being honest, I don't think that reflects good on anybody.
By the same token, we also see the Don Jr.
thing, and he says, well, if you want to wear a dress, and we see Alex Stein hanging out with Blair White, we also say, yeah, that's definitely not acceptable either.
That's not tough enough.
It's not to say that the balance is in the middle, but it is to say that we have to at once have a moral authority, we also have to have compassion.
And I think that's what a vision after liberalism looks like.
Because let's retain that element of, we don't want slavery, we don't want executions, and we don't want the kind of brutality that defined the old age.
And this sort of, um, I don't know what you would call it, but certain attitudes.
But by the same token, we cannot permit the degeneracy to go any further.
I think that's what it looks like when you go beyond as opposed to trying to go back.
So that's... those are just some thoughts.
I saw this post and I'm thinking... and it vindicated me.
I've been saying this now this entire year.
Have I not said this?
That this is what conservatives are doing?
This is a losing battle.
It's not what you think it is.
They are just trying to regulate degeneracy.
And here it is!
Charlie Kirk and Don Jr.
and all of them, even Tucker Carlson, saying, hey, we can have gay all the way.
We can have transgenderism up to a point.
Well, that's not okay.
We don't want transgenderism at all.
We don't want gay at all.
We don't want any of that stuff.
And to take it further, we don't want feminism, and we don't want abortion, and we don't want contraceptives.
We don't want any of it.
And anything less is just not being consistent.
It's not an internally consistent worldview.
And the problem without an internally consistent worldview, without a standard that doesn't move, is that it is reactive.
And by being reactive, it is relative.
And by being relative, it is fluid.
And it will always vacillate.
It will always defer.
It will always capitulate to the forceful march of progressivism.
That's what happens.
If you start to say, well we could bend the rules a little bit here, just based on reacting to what the left is doing, well the left has a very clear vision.
So if we're just reacting to that, we could just join them.
We're just joining them.
We could just join them at the destination, which is what?
Tolerance of necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, cannibalism, euthanasia.
Might as well just join them at the destination because that's They put something out, we react and say, a little bit less.
They push further, we say, okay, fine, but a little bit less.
We're on the same trajectory infinitely going forward, if that is how we're going to play.
Anyway, so that's that.
But I want to move on.
I want to get into the news here.
We're out of time.
unidentified
No.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
We're an hour in, but... That's okay, it'll be a long show.
So, our next story.
I want to move on.
I want to get into strategic autonomy, which is the Macron speech tonight.
And so, the French President Emmanuel Macron, embattled over his pension reform, took a trip to China today, or this week.
He went to Beijing and met with Xi Jinping.
And he returned to Europe this week and gave a speech in the Netherlands.
And the timing is very interesting.
We covered this all last week.
China is now making big moves.
They are doing war games and military drills.
They've encircled Taiwan.
China brokered a peace deal to normalize ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
China is now conducting trade in Yuan, the Chinese RMB, with Saudi Arabia, Brazil, even France.
And the French President last week made a remark that China should play a role in the peace process in the Ukraine crisis.
So, all of this sets the stage for this speech, which is that we are entering a multipolar world order, where the United States is not the only superpower, or a hyperpower, meaning that it's more powerful than all the other countries put together, or so much more powerful than the next most powerful country.
Well, we are entering a period where there are multiple polls that are exerting influence which might be Russia and China or maybe Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran acting independently.
And we talked about this a lot last week.
This owes tremendously to the Ukraine crisis, which exposed the United States as a paper tiger.
The United States tried to force Russia to stop the war, and they simply could not.
They were unable to force Russia to stop.
Russia invaded Ukraine against every threat, every warning.
The United States applied every kind of soft power they could.
And the result was that Russia was Essentially unaffected.
Actually, the United States hurt itself and its allies more than maybe it hurt Russia.
And not only did the United States not succeed in isolating Russia, but as a matter of fact, the United States isolated itself and its allies.
The only countries that ever sanctioned Russia are the U.S.
and its handful of solid allies between NATO, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea, But not India, not Pakistan, not most of Africa, not the Middle East, not South America, not Central America, not most of Asia.
And so as a consequence, the multipolar world order is coming into reality much more quickly than expected.
Now that countries see the weakness of the United States, And they see that the United States is abusing its allies that are basically trying to leave.
It's only accelerated the process.
And so, the big speech today from Macron in the Netherlands was laying out his idea, which he's been talking about for a long time, about something called European strategic autonomy.
European strategic autonomy.
And the idea is that as it stands, and basically since the end of World War II, all of Europe has merely been a vassal, a subject for the United States.
That they just do whatever the United States says, and that they have to.
And that status quo came out of World War II, because after World War II, all the European countries, specifically the Western European countries, were destroyed.
And they were at risk of being invaded by the USSR.
There was a fear that the Soviet Union could keep going after they invaded Germany, and they could take over the entire continent, and nobody could stop them.
In 1949, there were only two nuclear powers in the world, Russia and the United States.
And at that time, the Soviet Union appeared unstoppable.
And without the United States, they could have taken over Europe.
And since then, although the European countries recovered and their economies rebounded and they developed industry and the Soviet Union fell, because of that relationship there was a legacy effect that the Europeans never developed their own military capabilities.
Because the United States was paying for their defense, in effect, all these other countries never bothered to develop their own defense industries, never developed their own defense capabilities.
Why would they?
The United States was paying to defend them from Russia.
The United States was paying to defend them from every other threat.
And other countries were not allowed to militarize like Germany had restrictions.
So that brings us to the present day.
And the idea behind strategic autonomy is that now Europe wants to chart its own course.
It doesn't want to be dependent on the United States because increasingly Europe and the United States have different strategic interests.
Europe doesn't want to be bossed around by America.
Before it was somewhat benign because the United States and Europe shared so much of the same interests.
Both of their Interest was in defending against Russia or radical Islam.
But now as the United States pivots towards a confrontation with China, Europe doesn't really have the same interest in confronting China.
Europe does a lot of trade with China.
China is in real terms the biggest economy in the world.
It's the United States That has beef with China.
And they have beef with China because the United States is a global hegemon and China is a rising superpower.
So it's purely a status competition between the existing superpower and the emerging superpower.
Europe doesn't really have any skin.
They don't have any stake in that fight at all.
They're not the superpower.
They're not even a superpower.
And so strategic autonomy is about developing A common European defense industry.
They want their own factories.
They want their own military.
They want their own army.
They want to bring together all the European states, which is basically the European Union member states.
They want to bring them all together With 450 million people between their countries with 18-20 trillion dollar GDP and they don't want to come together quite like a nation but in the way that the United States is able to combine the powers of its land and people and resources.
Some Europeans want to do the same for Europe and bring together all the European states into a consortium, essentially, and form a common European defense in a way that is distinct and separate from the NATO alliance led by America.
That's the idea.
And if they're able to do that, then they can be autonomous.
If they have their own army, if they have their own defense industry, if they have their own resources, then they don't need America.
And if America calls them into war, they could say no.
And Europe can act independently as its own power.
China will be a power exerting its interests, the United States will be a power exerting its interests, and a common, united Europe will be its own superpower, like I said, with close to 500 million people, a massive GDP, massive resources, and they could be their own distinct, independent superpower apart from the United States.
Maybe allied with the United States, but not Not a subject of the United States.
That's the idea.
So Macron gave a speech about this, and this is the article from Russia Today.
It says, quote, Speaking at The Hague on Tuesday, French President Macron spoke of his vision for a new era of European sovereignty in which the continent can choose its own partners and shape its own destiny.
His address was briefly disrupted by protesters who attempted to shout him down.
Macron's speech made during the first state visit to the Netherlands by a French president in 23 years was closely watched by analysts and allies alike as it centered on European sovereignty.
It came just days after the French leader sparked concerns among allies after he said in an interview that Europe must not be a follower of either Washington or Beijing on the issue of Taiwan.
European sovereignty might have once sounded like a French idea, said Macron, or even wishful thinking.
But he pointed to the danger of a Europe that is too dependent on other world powers, saying it places Europe in the position of not being able to decide for itself.
European sovereignty should mean that the continent can, quote, choose our partners and shape our own destiny, rather than being a mere witness to the dramatic evolution of this world.
He said this means that we must strive to be rule makers rather than rule takers.
But Macron also said Europe would maintain robust relationships with its allies.
He said we can do this in a cooperative manner in keeping with our spirit of openness and partnership.
And he said the pandemic was a wake-up call as Europe discovered how dependent it was on other nations.
So this is a pretty interesting speech.
And he's talked a lot about this and so has the new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
They've talked a great deal about strategic autonomy and Macron says it's because of the pandemic and that may be partly true, but I think mostly it has to do with the Ukraine crisis.
And the reality is that this war in Ukraine is far worse for Europe than it is for the United States.
This is a war that the United States wants, because the United States wants to weaken Russia.
It's that simple.
The United States is all in on defending Ukraine and making sure that it had to go down this way.
They could have negotiated, they could have made a deal for Ukraine to never join NATO, but they wanted this conflict because the decision makers in Washington thought it would isolate Russia and that it would cost the Russian military greatly.
And Russia is a competitor, not a peer competitor, but a rival of the United States, so Washington thought that this would come at a tremendous cost to Russia and hurt their relative strategic position in the world.
On the other hand, in Europe, they did not want this war.
From the beginning, from the very beginning, from 20 years ago, the French in particular, but also the Germans and the Italians, have taken a far lighter stance towards Russia than Washington.
And that's because, to some degree, many of the European countries are dependent on Russia for natural gas, for energy, for other trade.
And what's more, the Europeans see and are sympathetic to Russia's point of view on the issue.
It's the United States that wants to extend NATO to Ukraine.
It's the United States that wants to extend its umbrella of security protection but which really means power projection to the throat of Moscow by pushing it to Georgia and Ukraine.
But from the beginning France has been pushing negotiation and from the beginning Germany has only strengthened their ties with Russia.
Additionally, the sanctions on Russia are hurting the Europeans more than they're hurting the United States.
Not only did the Europeans not want this conflict, But they also don't want the conflict because it's hurting them, disproportionately.
Germany, as an example, has a massive industrial base.
25% of the German economy is industry.
In the United States, it's a much lower percentage.
America, I think it's 80% service.
I think it's something like 5% or 10% industry.
So, relatively speaking, Germany has a far bigger productive sector of their economy than the United States.
The inflation in energy price, in energy cost, because of the destruction of Nord Stream 2 and the energy sanctions on Russia are catastrophic for German industry, which as a consequence is catastrophic for the German economy.
You don't have energy, you don't have industry.
You don't have industry, if you're Germany, you don't have an economy.
It's been catastrophic for them.
The same is true of the Eastern European countries, the same is true of Italy, and to a lesser extent the same is true with the United Kingdom and with France.
What's more, the Europeans have a lot in common with Russia, in that they're dealing with a lot of the same issues, like migration, like terrorism, like Muslims.
They also have a shared identity, they have a shared civilization, Shared religion, to some extent, also.
And so Macron can say that it's about the pandemic, it's really about the Ukraine crisis, that America has dragged Europe along into this conflict, even though it's really not in their interest.
And they couldn't say no.
Because Washington is so thoroughly infiltrated and compromised all these governments, and they're all dependent on Washington, so they couldn't refuse.
Now, the United States is pivoting away from both Russia and the Middle East and towards China.
Specifically, this big confrontation over Taiwan.
Taiwan sent a delegation to the United States.
The United States sent a delegation to Taiwan.
China is now hosting a series of military drills.
They've encircled Taiwan.
They're sending fighter jets and warships into the Taiwan Strait.
And as the United States pivots to confront China in what seems like the beginnings of World War 3, Europe is realizing that they do not have any interest in fighting that war.
This is about the United States.
This is about the U.S.
control over the Pacific Ocean and over shipping routes.
This is about the United States insulating and suffocating China with a chain of islands around the sea of China, which is constituted by the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, and it's about global dominance of the economy, and it's also about, to some extent, global prestige and power in the world.
Why would Europe want to fight in that war?
Maybe Europe wants to side with China, like many other countries are.
India has articulated something similar.
Saudi Arabia has articulated something similar.
The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, they're making moves that indicate that they're feeling a similar way.
So are all the African nations.
So are Central American and South American nations.
Paraguay is debating on whether or not they'll still recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan.
Nicaragua is in talks with China to build a deep water port and allow China to dock its military ships there.
The entire world is looking away from the United States and towards China.
And so the point of Macron's speech is to say, we want the ability to choose.
We don't want to be dragged along by the United States.
Maybe we want to side with China.
Maybe we don't want to side with anybody.
But we are unable to make any decisions for ourselves.
We're unable to be autonomous if we do not have a strategic capability.
The reason they can't make these decisions is because they don't have their own arms industry.
There is no way for them to be able to mobilize in the same way as the United States because they don't have the troops and they also don't have the same level of coordination.
There is no European common defense in the way that there is with NATO or the way that there is within the United States.
And so there's a lot of disagreement about how this would be implemented and what steps would be taken, but the general idea is that Europe will begin to spend more on its own military, build their own defense industry, then they've got to bring together and create a shared strategic command They've got to bring together a shared surveillance and intelligence apparatus.
They've also got to find a way to share the nuclear deterrent because as it stands there's only one European Union member state that even has a nuclear weapon now that the United Kingdom is out.
And then how do you integrate the United Kingdom since they broke away?
So, there are a lot of difficult questions, but the general idea after the Ukraine crisis is that Europe has to become its own entity and break away from the United States.
And this is just furthering what I said last year, the multipolar world.
And the way to look at it is like this.
In the 1970s, the United States and the Soviet Union were evenly matched in firepower.
The United States fighting the Soviet Union was arguably an even fair fight.
Maybe the Soviet Union was more powerful, actually, at the time.
It went back and forth a lot between 1945 and roughly 1986.
There was a lot of back and forth where the United States had the upper hand or the Soviet Union had the upper hand.
But that is what defined the bipolar world order, was the relative power of the two superpowers.
After the Cold War, the United States was more powerful than all the countries put together.
The firepower of the U.S.
was more than half of the firepower of the whole world.
But in the last 20 years, 23 years, Putin became president in the year 2000.
He began revitalizing Russia.
Brought Russia back under control from the oligarchs and from the United States, made Russia a strong country, lifted millions of people out of poverty, and so on.
We also saw the rise of China.
Now, the combined firepower of Russia and China, which they're now in an unbreakable alliance, is more than the United States alone.
Used to be the case that the United States alone was more powerful than everybody else put together.
Now Russia and China are just about evenly matched with the United States.
Just about.
Maybe more powerful than the United States by itself.
For the United States to remain competitive, and to remain, you could say, in the position of primacy in the world, they need all their allies.
They need Australia and the UK.
They need Canada.
They need the European Union.
They need Japan.
They need South Korea.
They need Saudi Arabia.
If they don't have these allies, they are, in terms of raw numbers, weaker than their rival powers.
They're weaker than China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea.
They're weaker than all the axis of enemies put together.
And so when Europe decides to become independent and create a central European defense, without its allies, the United States is going to be one among several superpowers.
And it's not going to happen tomorrow, and it's maybe not even going to happen by the end of this decade, but in the 2030s, 2040s, the world will meaningfully be a multipolar place, meaning that China will be as powerful as the United States.
Europe Maybe as powerful as China or the United States.
India may be on par with these other countries, but it's going to look a lot less like the United States telling everybody what to do, and it's going to look a lot less like the United States telling everybody what to do except Russia and China, and it's going to look like more a series of different powerful countries With smaller regional powers lining up based on who's going to offer the best thing.
There was a book written in the 90s called The Reluctant Sheriff by Charles Haass, who I think is the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he says that in the future, this was written in the 90s after the Cold War,
Instead of these fixed alliances, you're going to see what are called posses, which are informal collections of states that will come together and disintegrate based on mutual interest, based on issues.
So regional powers, great powers, coming together for a time for a specific thing, And then separating on other issues, or separating after that thing is resolved.
But rather than these types of coalitions like we saw during the Cold War, where you're either communist or you're American, or rather even in the last 30 years where you're with China or you're with America, it's gonna be like you got three or four superpowers and then these smaller powers that'll go between, like Europe, like France as an example in this case, or like Saudi Arabia or Turkey, they would be prime examples.
Turkey, which is part of NATO, but will also make deals with Russia and China.
Saudi Arabia, which in the last 80 years was the most important ally of the United States, now making deals with China behind the back of Washington.
They didn't even know that this was happening.
And same with some of these others.
And other countries are going to become more important players.
India is on track to surpass China in population.
Nigeria, Tanzania are expected to become population superpowers.
Congo, very relevant with its natural resources, although who knows what kind of agency any of those will have politically.
You get it though, you get the picture.
Brazil, perhaps, who knows?
But that's the future.
So that's Macron, that's the speech.
Interesting stuff, and it was only a matter of time.
That's why we should have been nicer to Europe.
We probably should have forged a real foreign policy instead of, like I said last year, hanging on with this death grip to the post-Cold War order.
It was always going to be transient, but we acted like it wasn't.
Now we're in a sub-optimal position.
unidentified
That's how I would describe it.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
So that's that.
You know, I don't think I'm gonna cover the next story.
I think I'm just gonna jump into the Super Chats.
It's already late.
We're already an hour and 20 minutes in.
You got two stories.
They just weren't the ones I said I was gonna cover, okay?
But we're gonna move on.
I'm actually gonna take a look at our Super Chats.
I'll change the show title.
I'll change the show title.
We'll cover the FBI.
That was a filler story anyway, to be honest.
that was filler anyway to be brutally honest with you let's see what what should the headline be mmm Total Trans Victory?
Don Jr.
swears allegiance to Dylan Mulvaney Mmm, I don't like total tran maybe something like Grand old tranny that's good grand old party more like grand old tranny I'm sorry.
unidentified
I'm sorry.
All right.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Okay.
All right.
unidentified
I like that.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Grand old tranny.
Grand old party?
More like grand old tranny.
unidentified
That's what I say.
All right.
Okay.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Let's take a look at our Super Chats.
Let's take a look.
unidentified
Uh-oh.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Uh-oh.
My stream... Seriously?
unidentified
The Super Chat website's down.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Come on, man.
Sorry, that page is missing.
Let me try like this.
It's down?
unidentified
Come on.
Oh no, I guess there's no super chats.
Oh no, that's terrible.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
No, I hate this.
unidentified
This is terrible and I hate it.
Come on.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Is it down for everybody else?
Let me click my own link.
It's down for you too!
unidentified
So it's just down.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Well, I'll read whatever I didn't read tonight.
I'll read tomorrow, okay?
unidentified
I really don't want to do a third story.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Listen, I got 80 minutes of monologue in me, all right?
unidentified
I'm tired.
I'm hungry.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
I'm starving.
You know what I had for dinner?
I had a cheeseburger and a sad little order of fries.
I got these fries and there were like 10 fries in there.
I'm like, I paid four fucking dollars for a side of fries and you put 10 fries in there?
unidentified
Bone of beef.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Little, this carton of fries and it was like half full.
Really?
I'm thinking the driver ate some.
Thinking the driver stuck his hand in the bag.
unidentified
Maybe.
I don't know.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Maybe it was black.
unidentified
I don't know.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Not that you'd have to be black to do something like that, but... Who knows?
unidentified
They could have been white.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Something tells me they're black.
If they even did, I mean... The bag was sealed shut with the sticker, so... It's probably not possible, but... You know, with these black DoorDash drivers, God only knows what they're capable of.
I don't know.
Anyway, could have been white, though.
unidentified
Could have been Chinese.
Who knows?
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
All right, well, let me, let me try it again.
Let me see.
Otherwise, I'm just gonna call it.
unidentified
I'm gonna, I'm gonna take a little break.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
You know, I'm gonna give myself a little break.
It was a kick-ass monologue tonight.
That was pretty good.
unidentified
That was some good stuff.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Right off the dome.
No prep.
I saw that Telegram post today.
I posted it.
I jumped on the show.
I said, I'll say a few words about that.
Boom!
20-minute killer monologue off the dome.
Hello?
Greatest of all time?
Hello?
Greatest of all time ever speaking?
Hi, yeah, you've reached the office of grand old greatest of all time goat?
Grand old all time?
unidentified
Greatest all time guy?
Yeah, alright, that's it.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
That's it.
I'll play some Phasmophobia with Veda if he's awake.
That'll be my Super Chats, okay?
I'll play some Phasmophobia with Veda if he's awake.
I'll jump on his stream.
unidentified
We'll do a quick gaming stream.
nick fuentes ▲ ● ▼
Otherwise, that's it.
I'm done.
Ah, too bad.
Ah, the Super Chats sites aren't working.
That's too bad.
Oh, that's terrible.
Well, guess we gotta end the show.
Listen, I'll be back tomorrow.
Then I'm traveling.
You'll get your content, okay?
But that's it.
That's all I got for you.
Remember to follow me here.
That's so refreshing.
You know, maybe this show would be a lot better if it was only like an hour.
The Super Chats really grinds me up, but after doing this show, I feel like I'm in a great mood.
I'm like, wow, that was easy.
It's these Super Chats that are making me want to kill myself.
Yeah, that's it.
Because I do the show, I do a 60-minute monologue, I feel great.
I'm like, yeah, I could go, I could go and do some more stuff.
Maybe we'll have to change the model.
If I ever get subscriptions back, we'll get rid of Super Chats.
If I ever get a donor, can I get a donor that just gives me like two million dollars, one million dollars?
Then I wouldn't have to do the Super Chats for a little bit.
And the show would improve dramatically.
Because man, I finished that monologue now I feel fine.
I do these super chats and by the end of it I'm like, why even live?
Why even get up anymore?
Because they're just, they really, they really stretch me.
So who knows?
Maybe, maybe it was a big enlightenment tonight.
Maybe it was a big revelation.
Maybe it was, it happened for a reason that the site is down.
All right, that's it.
No offense by the way.
I didn't mean to say that you make me want to kill myself.
All I'm saying is I don't want to kill myself when there's no super chats like I normally do.
That's a joke by the way.
Don't feel like that at all.
I'm in a perfectly good mental state.
Okay, all right.
But that's it.
That's all I got for you.
Remember to follow me here on Cozy.
Smash the follow button to get a push notification whenever I go live.
Follow me on Rumble, Gab Telegram, True Social.
Link's down below.
I'm on the air Monday through Friday, 9 o'clock Central, 10 o'clock Eastern Time.
As always, thanks for watching.
Thanks to our Super Chatters.
I'll get you tomorrow.
Thanks to everybody that watches the show.
We love you.
And I'll see you tomorrow.
Until then, have a great rest of your evening.
unidentified
Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.
It's going to be only America first.
America first.
The American people will come first once again.
America first!
▲
Export Selection