Feb. 29, 2024 - America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes
01:40:57
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| The boomer generation and its consequences have been a disaster for the human being. | ||
| Americanism, not globalism, will be our freedom. | ||
| Americanism, not globalism, not globalism, not globalism, not globalism, not globalism, not globalism, | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| I'm sorry, Brittany and Betsy, but I just can't do it. | ||
| You're an e-girl. | ||
| You know the rule. | ||
| No e-girls. | ||
| Who's got the clip? | ||
| No e-girls. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Never! | |
| Hashtag never e-girls. | ||
| Not even once. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I've never heard of him. | |
| What is that? | ||
| Americanism, not globalism, will be our freedom. | ||
| I've never heard of Nick Puts. | ||
| What was that? | ||
| They, they see America merely as a vessel. | ||
| I mean, only, only a class of people so rootless The human view of America in such a way is merely a vessel for abstractions, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're gonna smash your brain in with the Bible, idiot. | |
| We're going to smash your brain in with the Bible, idiot. | ||
| And I'm addicted to the serotonin rush. | ||
| Where's enough enough, babe? | ||
| Where's enough enough, babe? | ||
| Just eat a Big Mac, stupid bitch. | ||
| You're not allowed to make jokes anymore. | ||
| We're not allowed to make jokes. | ||
| It's not funny. | ||
| Sipping wine. | ||
| Having some pasta. | ||
| Having some pizza. | ||
| Oh. | ||
| I'm weird. | ||
| I'm normal. | ||
| I'm the father. | ||
| I'm not normal. | ||
| I'm the father. | ||
| I'm the four-piece. | ||
| I'm original. | ||
| All right. | ||
| I'm the original. | ||
| Bye. . | ||
| One person raised his voice. | ||
| The teacher couldn't believe it. | ||
| but the classroom couldn't believe it either. | ||
| But in the end, he had logic on his side. | ||
| And at the end of the day, he proved his point. | ||
| And I predicted you, Sarah Taylor. | ||
| Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo not globalism, will be our credo in the end. | ||
| It's going to be only America first. | ||
| America first. | ||
| The American people will come first once again. | ||
| With respect, the respect that we deserve. | ||
| From this day forward, it's going to be only America first. | ||
| America first. America first. America first. America first. America | ||
|
unidentified
|
first. America | |
| first. America first. America first. America first. America first. | ||
| America first. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| 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 Wednesday. | ||
| We have a lot to talk about tonight. | ||
| Lots to get into. | ||
| Big show. | ||
| Big featured story. | ||
| Two legal matters. | ||
| Our first story, we're talking all about the decision by an Illinois judge to disqualify President Trump from the 2024 presidential election ballot. | ||
| They are joining 38 other states that have challenged the President's ability to appear on the ballot in the election. | ||
| It's a 14th Amendment challenge. | ||
| Which says that anybody that takes up arms against the government in an insurrection is disqualified from holding federal office. | ||
| So various state supreme courts, election boards, attorneys general are moving to remove him from the ballot. | ||
| Some cases have been dismissed. | ||
| Some are still pending a resolution. | ||
| And others are still unfolding like they are today. | ||
| So, we'll be talking all about it tonight. | ||
| We'll talk about this judge who's made this... Excuse me, it's 36 states, not 38. | ||
| We'll be talking about this judge tonight and the decision and the legal recourse that Trump might have. | ||
| It's all the same, folks. | ||
| It's all the same deal. | ||
| I've been saying this for years. | ||
| They will not give this man a rest. | ||
| You have to respect the Herculean effort of this president. | ||
| He will have my undying loyalty. | ||
| No. | ||
| But he will have my absolute loyalty and support because nobody, nobody in the United States, maybe on Earth, has to deal with more BS than Donald Trump. | ||
| He's like tied with Gaza. | ||
| That's like the Gaza Strip and Donald Trump are tied for most persecuted. | ||
| No, Palestinians aren't going to like that one, but he is being put through a lot. | ||
| So we'll talk all about that. | ||
| We'll also be talking tonight, finally, about the Supreme Court big tech decision. | ||
| I know I've been putting it off for two days. | ||
| Look, no matter how long the show goes tonight, I swear I'll cover it, okay? | ||
| Fast forward, it's 50 minutes later. | ||
| I'm gonna save it for tomorrow. | ||
| No, I swear! | ||
| I swear, I put my hand... I swear, I'm so serious that I put my hand on the calculus textbook. | ||
| Give me a book to swear on. | ||
| I put my hand on the differential equations textbook. | ||
| I will, I swear That I will cover the Supreme Court story tonight. | ||
| Because it's important. | ||
| And if you don't watch the show, you have no idea what I'm talking about. | ||
| But I've been promising for two days to cover this story. | ||
| Two cases at the Supreme Court. | ||
| Florida and Texas anti-tech censorship laws. | ||
| Supreme Court will make a decision probably by June and it will determine the fate of the internet and thus determine the fate of the United States. | ||
| So we'll talk about the case and what's gonna happen there. | ||
| I don't know, I mean... | ||
| Nothing ever happens, but could be a big game changer. | ||
| So, we'll talk about that as well. | ||
| Before we get into it, I want to remind you to smash the follow button on Rumble and Cozy to get a push notification whenever I go live. | ||
| Smash the follow button. | ||
| Follow me on Telegram and like the video. | ||
| Like this video. | ||
| I don't know why people would though. | ||
| I don't... Does liking the video help the algorithm? | ||
| You used to say on YouTube you have to like the video because it boosts the video and the algorithm. | ||
| Is there an algorithm on Rumble? | ||
| I don't even know. | ||
| But just like it. | ||
| It's a little... Just do me a favor. | ||
| Do me a little favor. | ||
| Like the video. | ||
| What else? | ||
| That's it. | ||
| That's really it. | ||
| I'll be here tomorrow. | ||
| I'll be here Friday. | ||
| I'll be doing the show, you know. | ||
| You know where I am, okay? | ||
| So with that... Oh! | ||
| Also, you may check out, because I just got done streaming actually a few hours ago, I did a Rumble exclusive this afternoon. | ||
| This evening, really. | ||
| I covered the Lex Fridman-Tucker Carlson interview. | ||
| And it was... It was a good stream. | ||
| But that interview was boring. | ||
| Tucker has nothing to say. | ||
| I was talking to Keith after the interview and he's like, well, I don't want to say what he said because I feel like Keith is angling for that Tucker interview because I'm always in the group chat like, admit it, he's a fed! | ||
| And Keith is like, no, he seems legit to me. | ||
| And I'm like, are you just saying that because you want to be interviewed? | ||
| I mean, I'm cooked. | ||
| I'm not going to get that interview. | ||
| But I'm like, are you just saying that because you're just being nice to him? | ||
| I'm just a conspiracy tart. | ||
| I think everybody's in on everything. | ||
| But anyway, so we were discussing and we're like, man, what did he even say in the interview? | ||
| What was the big takeaway? | ||
| He's like, we should be skeptical of people in power. | ||
| Thanks. | ||
| Wow, thank you for that. | ||
| Greatest mind of our generation. | ||
| The American mind at work. | ||
| The American conservative mind. | ||
| Erm, we should be skeptical of those in power. | ||
| Shut up and obey. | ||
| That's racist. | ||
| I'm just a humble... I'm just a traveler. | ||
| I'm just a little guy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm just a little guy trying to learn more. | |
| Like, oh brother, what a boring interview. | ||
| Nothing. | ||
| We got nothing out of that. | ||
| The only thing we got out of that is this witch hunt. | ||
| This witch hunt that I'm prosecuting against Tucker. | ||
| We're gonna prove he's a Kabbalist. | ||
| We're gonna prove he's a Freemason. | ||
| That's the only thing we got out of it. | ||
| It's just a little proof. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We got a little bit more information on his background. | |
| That's about it. | ||
| Not a lot of insight besides that. | ||
| So, but if you're curious at all about what was said in the interview, you want to make it a little more digestible, I reviewed it for you, so you can check that out on my Rumble channel. | ||
| Okay, with that out of the way, we're gonna dive in. | ||
| First story, we're talking about Illinois, my home state, which has taken Trump off the ballot. | ||
| Like I said, this has happened in three dozen states. | ||
| And it's happening in different ways, but they're all approaching it the same way, which is that if you're wondering why this is happening or how this can happen, there is an article in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that says that anyone who has taken up arms against the government and engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion is barred from holding federal office. | ||
| And 14th Amendment was ratified or approved with a slate of amendments, the Civil Rights Amendments, 14, 15, and 16, is it? | ||
| Or is it, I think it's 13, 14, 15. | ||
| Is it or is it? | ||
| I think it's 13, 14, 15. | ||
| And it was specific to the time period. | ||
| At the end of the Civil War, they wanted to prevent Confederate generals or leaders from holding office so that they can engage in reconstructions. | ||
| So, it's really an anachronistic provision. | ||
| It has not been applied since the Civil War or against anybody other than those who were engaged in the American Civil War 200 years ago. | ||
| But states, in order to remove Trump from the ballot, are now using this provision against Trump. | ||
| So different attorneys general and county or state election boards and state supreme courts are using this amendment to challenge Donald Trump as a candidate for president of federal office on the ballot in their states. | ||
| And they can do this because, really, there is no such thing as a presidential election. | ||
| Let me just get that straight so that people understand. | ||
| The Electoral College decides who the president is. | ||
| And the Electoral College is made up of electors who are appointed by the state legislature. | ||
| And in the first few decades of the United States, that is exactly how it worked. | ||
| That's precisely how it worked. | ||
| The state legislatures would put up a slate of electors, they would go to the federal government, and the electors would choose the president. | ||
| So there is no presidential election in the Constitution. | ||
| It's not in there. | ||
| If you're looking for how the presidential election happens, it's not there. | ||
| But the state legislatures are effectively delegating that power to choose the electors to the people by holding an election. | ||
| And that's why it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the state legislature to govern the so-called presidential election. | ||
| And this was a big question in 2020. | ||
| There were a couple of cases in Pennsylvania. | ||
| There was one in North Carolina. | ||
| Because the state Supreme Court in those states were making decisions about the presidential election. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| But the presidential election isn't real. | ||
| There are elections held by states, specifically by state legislatures, to determine which electors the legislature will send to Washington, D.C. | ||
| to pick. | ||
| So, the state Supreme Court cannot decide how the election is run. | ||
| They have no jurisdiction. | ||
| The state legislature can. | ||
| Anyway, just so you understand. | ||
| So, it is a lot of these state Supreme Courts, it is election boards, it's a lot of different organs are making these decisions and it's a big mess because it's not their decision to make. | ||
| They can't make these decisions. | ||
| And so, some of them have been dismissed and some of them are being resolved. | ||
| This one just came down today, and I'll read the story to you. | ||
| This is from the New York Times. | ||
| It says, quote, A state judge in Illinois ruled on Wednesday that former President Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot. | ||
| The decision creates uncertainty for the state's March primary election, in which early voting is already underway. | ||
| That also adds urgency for the U.S. | ||
| Supreme Court to provide a national answer to the questions that have been raised about Mr. Trump's eligibility to appear on ballots in more than 30 states. | ||
| The judge, Tracy Porter, Of the State Circuit Court in Cook County said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board shall remove Donald Trump from the ballot for the general primary election on March 19, 2024 or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed. | ||
| But the decision by Judge Porter, a Democrat, was stayed until Friday, which means Mr. Trump can remain on the Illinois ballot at least until then. | ||
| Judge Porter's ruling makes Illinois the most populous state where Mr. Trump has been deemed ineligible. | ||
| Officials in Colorado and Maine earlier ruled him ineligible on similar grounds. | ||
| The ballot challenges focus on whether Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat disqualify him from holding the presidency again. | ||
| The cases are based on a largely untested clause of the 14th Amendment enacted after the Civil War that prohibits government officials who engage in insurrection or rebellion from holding office. | ||
| Formal challenges to Mr. Trump's candidacy have been filed in at least 36 states. | ||
| Well, many of those objections have been rejected or dismissed, while others remain pending in state and federal courts. | ||
| It is not clear yet what Judge Porter's ruling would mean practically for Republican voters in Illinois if no higher court steps in before Friday. | ||
| The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine's Democratic Secretary of State each found Mr. Trump ineligible. | ||
| The former president, who is leading in primary polls, has appealed those decisions and his campaign has described the attempts to remove him from the ballot as anti-democratic. | ||
| Mr. Trump is likely to appear on ballots in both Colorado and Maine, however, which are holding their primaries on Tuesday. | ||
| The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Colorado appeal on February 8th in a case that could determine Mr. Trump's eligibility nationally. | ||
| Justices across the ideological spectrum are skeptical of the reasoning used to disqualify Mr. Trump and is not sure when they will issue a ruling. | ||
| So, 36 states are challenging his eligibility to be on the ballot. | ||
| In Maine and Colorado, it has been contested. | ||
| Supreme Court started hearing this case from Colorado on February 8th and they will make a decision and that will be determinative for the whole country. | ||
| And the question, as the article said and as I said, concerns this 14th Amendment, which there has never been a ton of scrutiny applied to the language here. | ||
| Has not been applied to anybody not from the Civil War. | ||
| So, we don't know 100% how they'll rule, but it seems likely that they will allow Trump to remain on the ballot. | ||
| But, we've talked about this premise before on the show. | ||
| Whether Trump is allowed to remain on the ballot or not, in some states or all states or any states, might not even be the point. | ||
| Might be entirely beside the point. | ||
| Because this is another form of lawfare, the same kind of lawfare we talked about last week when Donald Trump was ordered by the Attorney General in New York State to pay half a billion dollars, a half billion dollar fine, and that was after the 90 million dollars he was ordered to pay in damages and the defamation suit. | ||
| The point of lawfare Sometimes is to win and to extract a debilitating fine or it's to put somebody in jail or in this case it's to remove him from the ballot. | ||
| There can be a variety of penalties and in some of them the purpose is to impose that penalty. | ||
| But in many cases, the purpose of lawfare isn't even for the sought-after penalty. | ||
| So in this case, that penalty would be disqualification from the ballot. | ||
| But that might not even be the point. | ||
| It might not even be... Probably, attorneys have told, I'm sure legal counsel for these various organs of government have said, that there's no chance that this will hold up. | ||
| Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection or rebellion. | ||
| It can't be considered that. | ||
| And the 14th Amendment doesn't give election boards the discretion to determine such a matter. | ||
| So surely legal counsel for all these states have said with a degree of certainty that none of this will stand. | ||
| None of this will hold up when it inexorably arrives at the Supreme Court and is adjudicated. | ||
| But maybe that's not even the point. | ||
| Like so many other cases. | ||
| Every legal case demands serious financial resources. | ||
| For Donald Trump to have to contest his standing on the ballot in several states or dozens of states costs a lot of money. | ||
| It also causes him a lot of political problems. | ||
| He's engaged in a competitive primary right now, or at least it was considered competitive at one point. | ||
| And that would have been a serious argument against his electability. | ||
| Again, whether these challenges are successful or not, if there's a question, if there's even an open-ended question, which it is right now because it is yet unresolved, as to whether or not he will be able to appear on the ballot, it's a political problem. | ||
| It's a campaign problem. | ||
| And so, That's why, as I've said from the start, you can't consider any one of these pieces in isolation. | ||
| You can't regard the FISA warrant, or the special counsel with Russia, or the impeachment number one, or impeachment number two, or the defamation suit, the rape suit, the Fulton County charge, the Manhattan charge. | ||
| You can't look at any of that in isolation because it's all part of the same cacophony. | ||
| It's all part of the same tapestry. | ||
| And the purpose said simply is just maximum resistance. | ||
| What you see is the system resisting Trump, resisting his accession to power at every level and with every mode. | ||
| So that's civil suits, criminal suits, federal suits, suits in a state court or a local jurisdiction. | ||
| It's negative media attention. | ||
| It's civil suits having to do with rape. | ||
| It's suits having to do with his business. | ||
| It's funding Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis as a primary opponent. | ||
| It's banning him from Twitter. | ||
| It's banning him from YouTube and Facebook, it's all these things. | ||
| It's all part of the same effort. | ||
| So, it's almost not even the point about removing him from the ballot. | ||
| But it just goes to show, these are the lengths that they will go to to prevent him from winning office. | ||
| They literally want to get him off the ballot. | ||
| Nothing will be made easy, not even fair, in 2024 for Trump. | ||
| Where even for him to run is subject to a legal inquiry. | ||
| But we knew that going in. | ||
| That's how it goes. | ||
| Trump in 2016 was a hostile takeover. | ||
| They vowed and they committed themselves basically the day after the election that they would endeavor to make sure it could never happen again. | ||
| They subverted, delayed, procrastinated all these tactics to undermine Trump's first term, overthrew him with the mail-in ballots and all the funny business in 2020, and then they used January 6th as the pretext To crush him in the intervening four years between then and this upcoming election. | ||
| And that's the story of Trump. | ||
| But that is, as I said last week, what makes him the most consequential figure. | ||
| Because if he can get in, I mean, and this is the big if, this is the big open-ended question, if he can get in, he has an opportunity at totally transforming the executive branch of government. | ||
| And to truly become a transformational president. | ||
| We haven't had a transformational president arguably since Reagan or FDR. | ||
| This would be a big one. | ||
| But those are some pretty big ifs. | ||
| If he wins and if he's able to get the right people. | ||
| But I'm beginning to fear that what a lot of people have speculated about might come to pass, which is that maybe Trump will not be the nominee. | ||
| Because things are looking very good for him. | ||
| I posted the other day on Twitter, the Michigan primary was last night, which we covered. | ||
| And like I said last night, there were over 100,000, now that all the votes have been tallied, there were over 100,000 protest votes in the Democrat primary against Joe Biden. | ||
| Over 100,000 people voted not committed in the Democratic primary. | ||
| They got a Democratic slip and they voted not committed. | ||
| And as I said last night, the margin of victory in 2016 was 10,000. | ||
| In 2020 it was 150,000. | ||
| was 10,000. | ||
| In 2020, it was 150,000. | ||
| 100,000 people came out in the Democratic primary last night to vote in protest against Biden, which is a serious problem. | ||
| Not only that, so that's bad enough, and that's a result of an extremely active and large Arab community in northern Michigan. | ||
| I Not only that, but the polling isn't better. | ||
| If you go on the Real Clear Politics website, you can see the historic polling average. | ||
| In 2020, Joe Biden was leading in Michigan by five. | ||
| In 2016, Hillary Clinton was leading in Michigan by, I think, 4 or 5. | ||
| It's roughly the same. | ||
| The numbers are on my telegram. | ||
| Trump is currently leading in Michigan by 5 in this election. | ||
| And remember, Trump won in 2016. | ||
| Trump hardly lost Michigan in 2020. | ||
| I think he lost by 1%. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Lost. | |
| So even though the margin was 10 times greater, 15 times greater in 2020, the margin was still quite slim. | ||
| It might have been just over a percent. | ||
| So the polling favored Clinton and Biden by 5 or 6 in 2016 and 2020. | ||
| Trump 1 in 2016, barely lost in 2020. | ||
| In this cycle, he's up 5. | ||
| So what's the margin going to look like in November Especially with this huge protest vote. | ||
| It might be a blowout. | ||
| And if that's the margin in Michigan, I mean, first and foremost, that's 16 electoral votes, which goes a long way. | ||
| That's like, that's one of the better swing states that he can win. | ||
| But if that's the margin in Michigan, you have to ask yourself, what's the margin in Georgia, then? | ||
| What's the margin in Arizona? | ||
| Or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin? | ||
| Probably similar. | ||
| Which would indicate that Trump could be headed towards the biggest Republican electoral victory since 1988. | ||
| Which would be... When you start to suggest that, and, you know, maybe the polling is overestimating. | ||
| A lot can happen between now and Election Day, but that is what the polling says right now. | ||
| So, I mean, it's up to you to decide. | ||
| And you can draw your own conclusions. | ||
| Does that tell us anything meaningful about what the margin of victory will be on election day eight months from now? | ||
| The fact of the matter is, the polling favored the Democrats four years ago, eight years ago. | ||
| It favors Trump unequivocally in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. | ||
| If he wins all those states, he adds six. | ||
| To his Electoral College victory in 2016, and like I said, then becomes the biggest Republican winner in 30 years. | ||
| And what does that tell you about the system? | ||
| That not only is the biggest Republican winner in 30 years Donald Trump, but it's Donald Trump after he was charged by the federal government for insurrection, or for conspiracy to whatever. | ||
| What does that say? | ||
| That's a pretty substantial indictment. | ||
| Far more damning than the one in 2016. | ||
| Trump winning in 2016 is a big deal. | ||
| If Trump expands his margin of victory in 2024, in an historic Republican election, that's like the country's over. | ||
| The way the country used to be is over. | ||
| Because again, that's after Trump went out there in 2020 and resisted the result of the election, and the peaceful transfer of power, and 1,100 of his supporters got rounded up, and he got charged, and they try to keep him off the ballot. | ||
| I mean, this guy's like an enemy of the state, and he's gonna win. | ||
| At least that's what the polls say right now. | ||
| And when you start to think about that, the converse is also true, which is that I don't know that the government would ever allow that. | ||
| And certainly that's why they're doing everything they can to prevent him from funding his campaign, appearing on the ballot. | ||
| I mean, they're trying to prevent this guy from, they're really trying to prevent him from doing anything. | ||
| They're trying to paralyze him by having him show up in court and pay all this money and paralyzing his business. | ||
| And if he doesn't stop, if he's not dethroned, if he makes it to the convention, one has to wonder if he'll make it to election day. | ||
| I'm just saying and you know I pray that Trump is able to make it through and win this time but the stakes couldn't be higher right now and that is a it's kind of a scary thought actually so so that's Trump that's the Illinois decision and we'll see what happens like I said a stay was issued so it's not enforced until after Friday the Supreme Court might take it up And it may be challenged. | ||
| So we'll see what they decide. | ||
| But, I mean, fundamentally, there's just no legal standing for any of this. | ||
| So my prediction is that this will all be struck down eventually in the courts. | ||
| But like I said, that's almost not even the point. | ||
| The bigger point is to signal maximum pressure to extract resources. | ||
| It's very much the same thing that we're doing in Russia. | ||
| People say, why are we fighting in Russia? | ||
| We're never going to win. | ||
| They say, why are we fighting in Ukraine? | ||
| We're never going to roll back the Russian advance. | ||
| Kiev will never control Crimea. | ||
| They'll never get the Donbass. | ||
| It's just not going to happen. | ||
| So, they say, why do we continue to fight if we can't win? | ||
| But the government says we're not trying to, I mean, they do say that they're trying to win. | ||
| But a lot of the experts will say, well, they're not trying to roll back the territorial advance. | ||
| What we're doing now is just degrading the Russian military. | ||
| The longer the war goes on, the more costly it is for Russia. | ||
| The more equipment of theirs gets destroyed, the more soldiers die. | ||
| It's just costly for them to keep it going. | ||
| So we're pouring money in there so that we can keep blowing up their equipment so they have to replace it. | ||
| And that's kind of the same principle at work here. | ||
| That's kind of the principle of how the state works these days. | ||
| They've got limitless resources. | ||
| They have the printer. | ||
| So the government can print as much resources as they need. | ||
| The system can produce as much cash as they need to do whatever they want. | ||
| It's all the people that live in reality that get messed with. | ||
| Trump doesn't have unlimited resources. | ||
| He can't pay half a billion in cash and 90 million dollars to the defamation case, and run a presidential campaign, and defeat all these challenges for him to appear on the ballot, and they're going to appoint a monitor to spy on his business, and his family can't run it, and it just goes on and on. | ||
| That's what maximum pressure actually looks like. | ||
| So anyway, that's that. | ||
| I want to move on. | ||
| We're going to get into the other Supreme Court case. | ||
| And like I said, I've been threatening to talk about this for the past two days, but we're finally going to get into it. | ||
| So our other big story tonight is about two other Supreme Court cases. | ||
| The United States Supreme Court has taken up two cases regarding two separate state anti-tax censorship laws. | ||
| And you may remember, because I believe, I know that we covered the Florida law. | ||
| I don't remember if we covered the Texas law. | ||
| But I'm about to tell you the whole story of tax censorship, or a big part of it, or a big piece of it. | ||
| So, of course, January 6th, 2021, insurrection happens. | ||
| Donald Trump, within two weeks, is banned from all social media. | ||
| And at the time, he's the sitting president, so he's not the former president yet. | ||
| He's the impeached and badly damaged sitting president of the United States, and he was banned within weeks from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, everything. | ||
| Even banned from back-end services people are less familiar with. | ||
| He was banned from everything. | ||
| And I said at that time, I said that this was the beginning of the end for the tech censorship regime. | ||
| I said this may be the best possible outcome. | ||
| Because taking Trump down, Trump is almost too big to fail in a very narrow sense. | ||
| In the sense that Trump commands a massive loyal following such that somebody who stands to profit will try to get in that space and it will be lucrative. | ||
| It could be lucrative. | ||
| What I mean by that is, if Twitter bans Nick Fuentes, I have a lot of fans. | ||
| I don't have enough fans to support a Twitter alternative. | ||
| Not enough to make it profitable or lucrative or viable. | ||
| The user base wouldn't be big enough and nobody would even... no business would want to be a part of that. | ||
| It would not be able to make money and even if it could, it wouldn't be able to exist because the user base wouldn't be big enough. | ||
| Network effect wouldn't be there. | ||
| There'd be a lot... and there'd be other bottlenecks too on the App Store, other things. | ||
| There's just no way. | ||
| And Twitter could ban everybody else. | ||
| Twitter could ban me, Jared Taylor, Gavin. | ||
| They could ban everybody. | ||
| No dice. | ||
| If you ban Trump, as evidenced by the creation of True Social and other platforms, he could go and take his business to another platform and get 10 million people to come over. | ||
| And it won't be the biggest platform and it won't compete with Twitter, but it will be viable. | ||
| It might be profitable. | ||
| It might be able to attract some investment. | ||
| And somebody has an interest in backing that for political or financial reasons. | ||
| So I said after the 6th, this may be the best thing. | ||
| This may be the end of censorship. | ||
| Because now there will be remedies. | ||
| And by the way, not only from the private sector in the form of alternative tech. | ||
| Because it will be financially viable or there will be some political reason to back that as a project. | ||
| But also, I said there might be a legal remedy. | ||
| Because now, maybe a legal group will have an interest in challenging censorship. | ||
| Or, I said a state will pass a law under political pressure from Republicans or from Trump, and maybe that could be the source of a legal remedy. | ||
| So, if you go back and watch my show from January 21, not to make it about me, but I did say that that is precisely what would happen, and that is what happened. | ||
| So after January 2021, True Social came around and Rumble received investment from Peter Thiel and merged with Locals and all these things started to happen. | ||
| Elon Musk, I think that might be what inspired Elon Musk to take an interest in purchasing Twitter, which he announced his intention to do that just a year later in the beginning of 2022. | ||
| So I really think that was the beginning of many conversations about a viable alternative tech solution to censorship, which came in the form of the Trump Media Entertainment Group, Rumble, and the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. | ||
| On the other hand, on the public front, there was an effort by Ron DeSantis as governor of Florida at that time to get a law through the Florida State Legislature banning censorship. | ||
| This was in spring 2021. | ||
| I think they passed it May 2021. | ||
| And the Florida anti-tech censorship law said that nobody who is running for office can be banned from social media. | ||
| It would impose a, I think, $10 million per day per person fine on a tech company that did that. | ||
| So that was the first shot. | ||
| Then Texas passed a similar law a few months later. | ||
| And Texas said that if somebody is banned from social media for viewpoint discrimination, Then that user could take the platform to court and they can get their account back if they could prove that it was viewpoint discrimination. | ||
| And so both laws were immediately challenged. | ||
| They were challenged by a lobbying group that had been contracted by the big tech firms. | ||
| And this case has made its way up the federal court system. | ||
| Now it's being taken up by the U.S. | ||
| Supreme Court. | ||
| And of course, in the intervening years, many things have happened. | ||
| Elon Musk bought Twitter, turned it into X, transformed it completely. | ||
| Rumble has taken off with investment from Peter Thiel, and from JD Vance, and actually Vivek is an investor. | ||
| I know some other investors. | ||
| And so other things have happened. | ||
| But of course, I think, and I've talked about this especially in the past couple months, this beachhead that we have is compromised. | ||
| Because ultimately, the tech censorship problem cannot be solved through private means. | ||
| We've seen the limitations of that. | ||
| Rumble has been under enormous pressure to ban me. | ||
| They've been under pressure from Media Matters, they've been under pressure, I would imagine, from others. | ||
| So Rumble is Although they're good for now, I mean, they happen under pressure. | ||
| They exist in an environment where there's constant intense pressure to restrict speech. | ||
| We've seen the limitations of this on Twitter, where Elon Musk has completely backed off of his initial creed on Twitter. | ||
| He said that he was going to enshrine in the Terms of Service, basically the First Amendment, that anything that is lawful will be permitted and anything that isn't will be censored. | ||
| But he said that would be the extent of censorship. | ||
| He has not made good on that. | ||
| It has been a year and a half since he took over the platform and they're still banning things based on hate or conspiracy theories or I mean whatever the same kind of nonsense TOS from the previous regime and that was under pressure after the October 7th attack. | ||
| So we've seen the limitations on all sides, on True Social, on Rumble, on Twitter, and like I said, these other laws passed in the Texas and Florida legislature, they were stayed. | ||
| An injunction was filed on both of them after they were challenged in the court by the lobbyists for Big Tech. | ||
| So what has to happen is that the Supreme Court must set the precedent. | ||
| Either the U.S. | ||
| Congress passes a law, Tech Bill of Rights or something like that, or there is a Supreme Court precedent. | ||
| And that's what's happening now. | ||
| So the Supreme Court is hearing these two cases, and I'll read, this is the article about this. | ||
| It says, quote, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Monday of laws in Florida and Texas that bar major social media companies from making editorial judgments about which messages to allow. | ||
| The laws were enacted in an effort to shield conservative voices on their sites, but a decision by the court expected by June will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the Internet era, with broad political and economic implications. | ||
| Though a ruling in favor of big platforms like Facebook and YouTube appeared likely, The court also seemed poised to return the cases to the lower courts to answer questions about how the laws apply to sites that do not moderate user speech in the same way like Gmail, Venmo, Uber, and Etsy. | ||
| And so you understand, the crux of the case is as follows. | ||
| The big tech companies have contracted a firm, I think it's called Net Solutions or Net... it's Net something. | ||
| But the argument from the big tech lobbying firm is this. | ||
| They say that Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, when they choose to censor editorial content, they say that that act of censorship is a form of speech. | ||
| That Twitter gets to decide what appears on its website or what doesn't appear on its website in the same way that the New York Times decides what they publish on their website or not publish on their website. | ||
| And so the platforms are effectively arguing that they are a publisher. | ||
| And that choosing to publish or not to publish is speech. | ||
| It's protected, ironically, by the First Amendment. | ||
| Their right to censor, their right to not publish certain content by banning accounts, interfering with the algorithm, and manipulating in other ways, they say that is speech protected by the First Amendment, ironically. | ||
| You getting banned by giant tech monopolies is the First Amendment at work because these companies have a First Amendment right to ban you so that you don't get to post on their platform. | ||
| And this is where people say that as a private platform, as a privately owned platform, they get to determine that. | ||
| That's what people mean. | ||
| They say the First Amendment protects speech from government, but it doesn't protect speech from a private entity. | ||
| You don't have a right to use Twitter's platform for speech because Twitter has a right, their own free speech right, to publish what they want and to censor what they don't want. | ||
| And maybe that sounds like a good argument, but here's the problem. | ||
| When the social media companies are search engines, it actually really predates the social media companies. | ||
| The Communications Decency Act in 1996 has a famous provision, it's called Section 230, and in 1996 there's a federal law that says that big tech companies will be protected from liability For what is posted or published on their platform. | ||
| Because there's a free speech interest in having large platforms. | ||
| And they're really acting as platforms rather than publishers. | ||
| Meaning that if I go on Facebook and I commit a crime on Facebook, like let's say I stream a mass shooting or let's say I say, hey let's go kill everybody and people do it. | ||
| The Communications Decency Act Section 230 says Facebook cannot be held liable even though they publish that content, it's my content. | ||
| And since it's such a large platform and I posted it there, they're technically classifying Facebook as a platform, as a conduit for me to publish. | ||
| So Facebook isn't the one publishing it and therefore does not have liability. | ||
| Since I posted it on a very large platform, the liability belongs to me alone because I'm the creator of the content. | ||
| So this is the provision in 1996, section 230 of the CDA. | ||
| And the reason that this law was passed is because the federal government argues that there isn't a free speech interest. | ||
| For the purpose of promoting a free speech culture in America, for the purpose of our politics, They said that we should extend this special protection from liability to internet platforms. | ||
| That was the argument. | ||
| But this is in contradiction with the argument from The lobbying firms for big tech, because the lobbying firms are saying, well we get to censor because we're a publisher like the New York Times. | ||
| We get to censor because we have a right to speech, and we have a right to determine what's on our platform. | ||
| But if they're a publisher, and in essence they're owning or taking responsibility for every post that is allowed or not allowed, Then they can't claim the protection from liability by Section 230. | ||
| Because Section 230 absolves them of the legal responsibility or legal liability from the content. | ||
| So which is it? | ||
| Are you a platform? | ||
| In which case everything that's posted is really published by the users? | ||
| And therefore, you're not liable for it? | ||
| Or are you a publisher? | ||
| In which case, everything that people post is at your editorial discretion. | ||
| And since you get to determine what's on there and what's not on there, then you have to be liable for all that. | ||
| Then that makes you the publisher. | ||
| New York Times is liable for what they publish. | ||
| Washington Post is liable for what they publish. | ||
| They don't get to determine Or claim rather, that their individual writers are just using New York Times as a platform and if someone defames somebody that New York Times isn't liable. | ||
| And this is a big, I mean especially lately this is a big issue with this Dominion voting system lawsuit against Fox News and Newsmax and other media companies. | ||
| They sued Fox, Newsmax, Newsmax, a few others, because their anchors and hosts promulgated a conspiracy theory about Dominion. | ||
| It's a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. | ||
| So, is Twitter like Fox News and the New York Times, or is it a platform? | ||
| If it's like Fox and New York Times, then they've got to be sued for everything that's on there. | ||
| And understand, that's a really big deal, because if those Section 230 protections did not prevail, Then they would be insolvent tomorrow because of course Facebook and YouTube and Twitter, so many posts are published every day. | ||
| There would be so much lawbreaking, so much defamation, a lot of other stuff. | ||
| If they had to pay for everything that was on the platform, they would be bankrupt. | ||
| It would no longer be profitable. | ||
| It's barely profitable as it is. | ||
| Let alone if they were legally liable for everything that was on there. | ||
| And now it'd be a boon. | ||
| To any lawyer who wanted to bring a case against any of these major platforms. | ||
| So that's the crux of the argument. | ||
| I'll continue reading from the New York Times. | ||
| It talks a little bit about this. | ||
| It says, quote, several justices said that the states violated the First Amendment by telling a handful of major platforms that they could not moderate their users' posts, drawing distinctions between government censorship prohibited by the First Amendment and actions by private companies to determine what speech to include on their sites. | ||
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, I have a problem with laws that are so broad they stifle speech just on their face. | ||
| And she's referring to the laws that would be against tech censorship. | ||
| She says that prohibiting platforms from censoring, that is stifling speech. | ||
| Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee, read a sentence from a 1976 campaign finance decision that has long been a touchstone for him, which says, quote, The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is foreign to the First Amendment, he said, indicating that he rejected the state's argument that they may regulate the fairness of public debate in private settings. | ||
| So Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are in favor of big tech. | ||
| Good appointment by the way. | ||
| I'm really glad that Donald Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh from the Federalist Society and everybody fought to confirm him so that he could doom us to internet hell and no free speech in the modern world. | ||
| Thanks a lot. | ||
| Remember everybody had a t-shirt that said, I like beer. | ||
| I still like beer. | ||
| Kavanaugh has been a fucking loser from the start, okay? | ||
| Huge loser. | ||
| He's one of these people you would be better off putting Rush Limbaugh on the Supreme Court than Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. | ||
| These people were a joke. | ||
| Because Kavanaugh and Barrett are spooks. | ||
| They have been around forever. | ||
| They got recommended by the Federalist Society. | ||
| I think Kavanaugh was working with Bush. | ||
| So, they suck. | ||
| And they're young. | ||
| So, back then everybody said, oh it's so great, we're appointing these young justices and they're gonna help Trump and they'll be around forever. | ||
| On the contrary, they suck. | ||
| They're barely conservative. | ||
| And we're gonna have them for 30 years. | ||
| So that's great. | ||
| Henry Whitaker, Florida Solicitor General, responded that the state has an interest, a First Amendment interest, in promoting and ensuring the free dissemination of ideas, which is true. | ||
| There is a spirit of the First Amendment. | ||
| If all of the public square is on mass digital media, and it's a monopoly or an oligopoly, And those oligarchic companies are able to censor with discretion whatever they want. | ||
| You don't have free speech. | ||
| Now you can read into it and say, well, but the First Amendment doesn't talk about Twitter. | ||
| Okay, but we won't have free speech in society if Facebook gets to control who gets to have a Facebook account. | ||
| So it kind of defeats the whole purpose. | ||
| Justice Elena Kagan said the major platforms had good reasons to reject posts inciting insurrection, endangering public health, and spreading hate speech. | ||
| Why isn't that a First Amendment judgment, she said. | ||
| The court's three most conservative members, Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, were sympathetic to the state laws. | ||
| All three said phrases like content moderation were euphemisms for censorship. | ||
| Justice Kagan asked whether states could tell services like Venmo, Dropbox, and Uber that they may not discriminate on the basis of their users' viewpoints. | ||
| Paul Clement, a lawyer for the challengers, said, wouldn't that be all right? | ||
| Mr. Clement said no, responding that all of those services are still in the expressive business, meaning that speech is part of their core activities in ways not true of a gas station or an ice cream stand. | ||
| Justice Alito asked Mr. Clement, does Gmail have a First Amendment right to delete Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow's Gmail accounts if they don't agree with his or her viewpoints? | ||
| Mr. Clement responded that the service might be able to do that, adding that such questions had not been the focus of the litigation. | ||
| He added that forbidding the platforms to make distinctions based on viewpoint would destroy their business. | ||
| So they're effectively arguing that any tech company can go after anybody. | ||
| So they can turn off your Uber, your Venmo, your Gmail. | ||
| I mean, we're just screwed. | ||
| Big Tech is writing the laws, the legal decisions. | ||
| The laws from Florida and Texas differ in their details. | ||
| Florida's law prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state, while Texas law prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user's viewpoint. | ||
| The two trade associations challenging the state laws, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, said that the actions Judge Oldham called censorship were editorial choices protected by the First Amendment, which generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint. | ||
| The groups said that social media companies were entitled to the same constitutional protections enjoyed by newspapers, which are free to publish what they like without government interference. | ||
| Justice Kavanaugh embraced that position. | ||
| Again, awesome. | ||
| That's great. | ||
| Asking Mr. Whitaker, the lawyer representing Florida, whether states could tell publishing houses, printing presses, movie theaters, bookstores, and newsstands what to feature. | ||
| Mr. Whitaker said that newspapers and bookstores are engaged in inherently expressive conduct while our whole point is that these social media platforms are not like those. | ||
| He said that indeed the platforms were common carriers required to transmit everyone's messages and that the Florida law protected free speech by ensuring that users have access to many points of view. | ||
| So Justice Kavanaugh, a conservative, is saying that Google is the same as The Houston Chronicle. | ||
| So, Facebook, which has 3 billion users, okay, that's the same as the Houston Chronicle, which has a readership of, what, 100,000 people? | ||
| They're the same. | ||
| Houston Chronicle, which has a staff of 100 people, and, you know, who knows what their revenue is, and maybe they have a readership in the hundreds of thousands, and their writers write what their editors tell them to, They have the same legal protections as Google, which has 95% of the search results in America and is the dominant search platform in just about every country in the world for billions of people. | ||
| That everybody uses. | ||
| That is a total monopoly. | ||
| And enjoys special protection from the government. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And it's a federal contractor, by the way. | |
| And they say, well, that's the same. | ||
| That's the same. | ||
| If you're writing for the Houston Chronicle, you should be protected from government interference, just like Google should, which enjoys Section 230 protection, so they have no legal liability, and enjoys massive federal contracts, and has near monopoly status. | ||
| It's the same, says Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative Trump appointee. | ||
| Seriously? | ||
| Thankfully, other judges stepped in on this. | ||
| This is New York Times. | ||
| It says, quote, Several justices said it was hard to reconcile the platform's argument on Monday with what they had said last year in cases concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media companies from liability for what their users post. | ||
| In those cases, Justice Thomas said, the platforms maintained that they were merely conduits for others' speech. | ||
| Now you're saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct? | ||
| He told Mr. Clement. | ||
| Doesn't that seem to undermine your Section 230 argument? | ||
| Mr. Clement responded that a key part of the provision was meant to protect platforms from liability for making editorial judgments. | ||
| Federal appeals courts reached conflicting conclusions in 2022 about the constitutionality of the two laws. | ||
| A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. | ||
| Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida's law. | ||
| Judge Kevin Newsom wrote for the panel, "Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive. | ||
| When platforms choose to remove users or posts, deprioritize content in viewers' feeds or search results, or sanction breaches of their community standards, they engage in First Amendment protected activity." But a divided three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit refers to lower court's order blocking the Texas law. | ||
| Judge Oldham wrote for the majority, quote, We reject the platform's attempt to extract a freewheeling censorship right from the Constitution's free speech guarantee. | ||
| The platforms are not newspapers. | ||
| Their censorship is not speech. | ||
| So finally, this is the Supreme Court case that we have all been waiting for. | ||
| Now we don't know what the decision will be, but this is the fundamental question that we've been talking about going back even before 2021, going back years. | ||
| Section 230 was the original basis. | ||
| Nancy Pelosi talked about employing that on the Democratic side. | ||
| Many Republicans talked about using it in various ways. | ||
| There was the last-ditch effort in the final year of the Trump administration to use the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 in such a way that it would force the platforms to refrain from censorship. | ||
| But ultimately it was too little too late from Trump, too little too late from Republicans in Congress, or really nothing at all. | ||
| So we suffered basically five or six or seven years of tax censorship before there was any kind of real recourse or response from Republicans. | ||
| They passed these state laws. | ||
| It took years for them to matriculate through, is that the right word? | ||
| But it took years for them to work their way up through the court system. | ||
| Now they're in the Supreme Court. | ||
| And it looks like we won't even get what we want. | ||
| Because it is three, maybe four, out of the nine justices that seem to be sympathetic with the argument against censorship. | ||
| It seems like it's Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, maybe Kagan. | ||
| You got four out of nine. | ||
| But it's Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, and we haven't heard from the others, but presumably the others will be against. | ||
| So they'll be ruling on the side of Big Tech. | ||
| Could be a landmark decision which would basically forever enshrine the right of Big Tech to censor. | ||
| But the substance of the matter, as I've said from the beginning of this entire show, tells you that you can expect nothing, nothing from the government. | ||
| Nothing from Republicans. | ||
| Because this is what they always do. | ||
| How does this even make any sense? | ||
| Google, Meta, They're near monopolies. | ||
| They're as close to a monopoly as you get. | ||
| They are the most valuable companies on the stock exchange right now, or among them. | ||
| $100 trillion market cap each, alphabet and meta. | ||
| And to some extent, some of the others I suppose, although Twitter is private and you know, whatever. | ||
| Amazon engages in a form of censorship in a certain way and they're number one, right? | ||
| Or number one or number two. | ||
| Apple engages in censorship with its proprietary App Store. | ||
| Again, $2-$3 trillion valuation. | ||
| And the Supreme Court is saying that when these near monopolies, which again are protected by the state, they're not just any, they're not an organic monopoly, if those even exist. | ||
| These are monopolies that are only allowed to exist by favorable treatment from the government, how they were classified by the Communications Decency Act. | ||
| I think it was 1994 actually, now that I'm saying it. | ||
| It was 94 or 96. | ||
| And Conservative Federalist Supreme Court judges are defining mass censorship by the biggest companies in the world, by the monopolies in the communications and media space, which have billions of users, and they are now the digital public square. | ||
| The argument from conservatives is that when those entities censor, that's speech. | ||
| Free speech is when Google can censor you. | ||
| Make that one make sense. | ||
| When Google, again, one of the biggest companies in the world, they're engaged in artificial intelligence, search queries, they got YouTube, I mean these are serious businesses to be engaged in. | ||
| The advertising business online, this is a massive business. | ||
| When they censor you, when they delist certain things in the search results, when they ban people from YouTube, that's free speech. | ||
| That's the First Amendment, says Brett Kavanaugh, says the defenders of liberal democracy and the Constitution and all that, you know, all that bullshit. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Protecting censorship is now free speech. | ||
| And if we get to that point, it's like, okay, what else can you do at that point? | ||
| Other than elect a president and just, like, dismiss everybody in government. | ||
| Like, literally seize power. | ||
| Get a president in there, appoint a hundred Supreme Court justices that will just do whatever the president says. | ||
| Dissolve Congress or, you know, change all the laws. | ||
| But it just goes to show that it's a completely rigged game. | ||
| It's all rigged. | ||
| In 2020, when the Hunter Biden laptop somehow got in the hands of journalists, because that should have been public information, but the Hunter Biden laptop somehow makes its way to the public, and what do they do? | ||
| The intelligence community goes to the tech platforms and lies and says, so that's Russian disinformation and all the platforms suppress it. | ||
| Have you ever heard of such a thing? | ||
| This is insane! | ||
| The feds, the spies, literal American government secret police goes to the tech companies that control all the information and says you need to suppress this because this is a foreign subversion and they do and it turns out to be real and it influences the election. | ||
| The suppression of it influences the outcome of the election. | ||
| Then you have the mail-in ballot thing, where state supreme courts and everybody is just changing the laws, making it up as they go along. | ||
| We're just going to send a ballot to everybody. | ||
| What could go wrong? | ||
| Let's send a ballot to everybody and just deliver it to their house. | ||
| Drop it off when you get a chance. | ||
| Anytime between now and election day, six months away, at a drop box that's open 24 hours with no supervision. | ||
| And then we'll count them all. | ||
| That's an election now. | ||
| It's just getting too ridiculous. | ||
| And then Biden gets in somehow. | ||
| The guy's out to lunch. | ||
| He's retarded. | ||
| We all see it. | ||
| They can't even hide it anymore. | ||
| And they just threw the borders open. | ||
| How are we going to beat Trump in 2024? | ||
| How are we going to defeat Republicans by the next census in 2030? | ||
| I mean literally just throw open the border and invite six or seven million people into the country in a four-year period. | ||
| Just don't even try to enforce. | ||
| Pick them up, ship them out, get them to every state in the country. | ||
| You know they're going to be voting. | ||
| You know they're going to be voting. | ||
| And if they're not voting, they're going to be counted in the next census, where they will be living, where their children will be, and then their children are going to be voting. | ||
| So it's like, the whole thing is just totally rigged. | ||
| It's just screwed. | ||
| Whole thing's just totally messed up. | ||
| And, uh, this proves it. | ||
| If you thought that the judge, because everybody has some, everybody has some holdout hope that an institution is going to come in and save us. | ||
| They really, that is what I would call it. | ||
| That is how I would categorize that. | ||
| Because, here's what I mean by that. | ||
| People have no faith in the presidency because they see the presidency for what it is. | ||
| It's a sham. | ||
| The people that really run the executive branch are the bureaucrats, the permanent bureaucrats in all the federal agencies and departments. | ||
| The President really has no control. | ||
| Trump proved that. | ||
| Because Trump would tell them to do things and they would ignore it. | ||
| They would lie to him, they would disobey him. | ||
| They were actively undermining the whole thing the entire time. | ||
| They wrote about it in the front page of the New York Times. | ||
| I'm in the Trump White House, I'm the Deep State, and I'm working every day to undermine his agenda. | ||
| That happened actually twice during the Trump administration. | ||
| That's just one or two examples. | ||
| So, people look at the presidency and on some level they say, well, the presidency is impotent. | ||
| People look at the legislature and they have rightly determined that these legislators, they don't write the laws, they don't read the laws, they don't even understand the laws. | ||
| They'll pass a spending bill that is 5,000 pages, it gets finished the day before the vote, and it gets passed 400 to nothing, 400 to 35. | ||
| How did they read it in that? | ||
| They don't read it. | ||
| They don't even write it. | ||
| They don't even know what's in it. | ||
| Because the people that are writing it, it's lobbyists, it's think tanks, it's legislative directors, it's the staff. | ||
| And who even knows who the fuck those people are? | ||
| Who knows who the legislative director is for one or another congressman? | ||
| So people recognize Congress isn't it either. | ||
| But many people in this country have this Antiquated, anachronistic idea that the judges... Lady Justice is blind with the scales. | ||
| That institution is totally protected from political bias or machinations. | ||
| But then, what have we seen over the past five or six years? | ||
| You have an Attorney General in New York says, I'm gonna get him. | ||
| Trump is too white. | ||
| What did she say? | ||
| Too stale, too pale. | ||
| And I'm gonna get him and I'm gonna make him pay. | ||
| And then she's bragging about how much money she's extracting from him. | ||
| Here's your justice. | ||
| And then Trump gets charged with conspiracy and the Fulton County stuff and New York legislature passes a bill about rape claims and one is brought forward from 40 years ago and they award a 90 million dollar damages. | ||
| Same thing with Alex Jones. | ||
| Alex Jones is ordered to pay a trillion dollars to the Sandy Hook families. | ||
| And then, if all that is not good enough, you see the extent to which it's been weaponized and politicized. | ||
| Now, The Supreme Court, with Trump-appointed judges, is going to tell us, actually, when Facebook censors people, that's free speech. | ||
| They have a free speech right to censor millions of people in America. | ||
| They're a publisher when they're protected from liability. | ||
| They're a platform, or rather, vice versa. | ||
| They're a platform when they're protected from liability. | ||
| They're a publisher when it comes to their First Amendment right to censor everybody. | ||
| So the entire thing's rigged. | ||
| The intelligence agencies, the federal law enforcement, rigged. | ||
| Weaponized. | ||
| The justice system, rigged. | ||
| Weaponized. | ||
| Legislature, rigged. | ||
| Weaponized. | ||
| Presidency, executive branch, rigged. | ||
| Weaponized. | ||
| And yes, the courts too. | ||
| The federal courts, the Supreme Court, it's all rigged. | ||
| And what do you do in that situation? | ||
| Well, that's what everybody's trying to figure out. | ||
| That's what everybody's trying to figure out is what's the next step when you're basically thoroughly screwed. | ||
| But you realize that it's a big club. | ||
| It's a big network and we really have no say. | ||
| That's what people are fundamentally realizing, like I talked about last week, is that the government's not legitimate because we have no say. | ||
| We have no sovereignty. | ||
| The vote doesn't mean anything. | ||
| There is no free speech. | ||
| There is no free press. | ||
| There is no freedom of assembly. | ||
| None of that stuff exists. | ||
| You know, they're hunting people down from Charlottesville seven years later and charging them with holding a torch with intention to intimidate. | ||
| Seven years later. | ||
| So you can't assemble if they don't like you. | ||
| You don't have free speech if they don't like you. | ||
| You can't own a bank account if they don't like you. | ||
| They spy on your text messages if they don't like you. | ||
| So, Texas tries to control the border. | ||
| The feds come in and destroy the border barriers the state of Texas built. | ||
| The fix is in. | ||
| The only way that we are going to be able to solve this is by building a parallel society. | ||
| And that means that we need people that are willing to die for our cause, that have a completely opposite or completely different metaphysics. | ||
| I mean, we really need, like, Catholic zealots. | ||
| To rise up through the system and form an independent network. | ||
| I mean, because what we're lacking is true political power. | ||
| We have no political power to make any decisions. | ||
| Because let's say, for example, let's say we had a sleeper cell who went to, where did Kavanaugh go? | ||
| Princeton or Yale? | ||
| Let's say they went to Princeton or Yale, they clerked for a Supreme Court judge, they got on the Federalist list, they got to the Supreme Court, and let's say now was the moment to flip that switch. | ||
| Now is the moment, I mean maybe Google would murder them or whatever, but maybe now is the moment when they flip the switch and they deliver that decisive blow. | ||
| And it changes the world. | ||
| But that's political power. | ||
| And there are various critical junctures there where the right person placed in the right position at the right time could make the right call. | ||
| That's political power. | ||
| But political power does not come from voting for the same people that you don't even understand. | ||
| You think you can influence politics? | ||
| You don't even understand politics. | ||
| You think you can talk about politics? | ||
| You don't even understand politics. | ||
| You don't even understand how any of this works. | ||
| You don't understand the nature of power. | ||
| And so people say, vote for Republicans because we need to hold the line. | ||
| It's like you don't even know what you're talking about. | ||
| Vote for Trump because he'll appoint federal judges and that's the most important part of his legacy. | ||
| I remember some boomer told me that. | ||
| And I said, I mean, that's almost the opposite of true. | ||
| That may be the worst aspect of his legacy. | ||
| Because all these judges from the Federalist Society are spies. | ||
| They all came from the Ivy Leagues. | ||
| I mean, they're all compromised in some way. | ||
| They will not deliver the victory. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So... | |
| What needs to happen is that we need that nomenclatura, we need the cadre of Groyper, Catholic, rape, kill and die types that are willing to hold it close to the chest for their whole life and place themselves in high positions of power. | ||
| But I don't even know how they do it, because I'm thinking about the model of the Jews. | ||
| I mean, of course, this is what the Jews have done, but the Jews had the backing of the State of Israel, and they had the backing of the banksters. | ||
| So, I don't even know the Wikicargo called what the Jews have done in our country. | ||
| You know, maybe we're just screwed. | ||
| But it reveals the depth of the problem, which is that you appoint justices and you still can't count on them. | ||
| They're compromised. | ||
| They're in on it. | ||
| They don't deliver the right decision. | ||
| And this was like the all-important thing. | ||
| If they could get the tech companies to be treated like a public utility and protect everybody like us from talking, we would be in a really good position. | ||
| We would be very well positioned to make political change. | ||
| Without access to the means of mass communication, it's a huge problem. | ||
| And if they rule this way, it'll be a major setback. | ||
| It means it basically will never be resolved. | ||
| Or not anytime soon. | ||
| We're not going to get another conservative majority in the Supreme Court. | ||
| It won't be overturned for another generation if that's how they rule. | ||
| So we better really hope that they make the right call. | ||
| They haven't made the call yet, but it's not going well. | ||
| It's going very badly so far. | ||
| And it's ominous. | ||
| So, there's your black pill for tonight. | ||
| But that's that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So, boo! | |
| Brett Kavanaugh, you suck. | ||
| Fuck you. | ||
| If you make the wrong decision on this. | ||
| And it looks like that's where he's leaning. | ||
| Terrible. | ||
| Absolutely terrible. | ||
| But that's the kind of double-think that you have going on. | ||
| Well, we're a platform, we're a publisher, we're both at the same time, and the right to censor is a free speech right. | ||
| Oh, okay. | ||
| Yep, that's how it goes though. | ||
| Country's over, pack it up. | ||
| No, no, we'll keep fighting, but it is frustrating. | ||
| Okay, so that's that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I want to move on. | |
| I want to take a look at our Super Chats. | ||
| We'll see what you guys have to say about all this. | ||
| But what's your take? | ||
| I want to hear from you. | ||
| Let me get my water and get all set up here. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We'll take a look. | |
| See what we got going on here. | ||
|
unidentified
|
here. | |
| All right. | ||
| Thank you! | ||
| - Thank you. | ||
| Appreciate it. - Aaron Bushnell sent $3. | ||
| There are a lot of questions. - Thank you. - I appreciate it. - Aaron Bushnell sent $3. | ||
| You're not wrong about our shells being more accurate. | ||
| fragmentation, guided, et cetera, comparing Russian spray and pray tactics to American precision is apples to oranges. | ||
| It's a low IQ talking point. - I don't think it's a, no, you're wrong about that. | ||
| You're not wrong about our shells being more accurate, but you are wrong about the idea that Russia having a vastly superior industrial base to the West, like that's irrelevant. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It isn't. | |
| Pretty fly white guy sent $3, 318. | ||
| Some imposter used my name. | ||
| At least get the number right, nigga. | ||
| Was that really an imposter? | ||
| BWC master sent $25. | ||
| I fucked John Doyle's sister and sent him the tapes. | ||
| That's why he can't shut the fuck up about his crippling incest porn addiction. | ||
| Thank you for that. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| Seamaster sent $20. | ||
| There's not a single potent pro-white player on the world stage. | ||
| COVID and the vax was bioengineered to spare the Jews' RFK. | ||
| African Americans in your auto-generated LOTR fantasy? | ||
| Try Jews having total control of productivity and no need for the goyim, able to wipe them out with a virus because they own all the genetics companies. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| You're right about that, but that's... | ||
| Elon Musk, I would say, is pro-white. | ||
| PMT Zone sent $3. | ||
| We came, we cacked, he jajed. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nice. | |
| PMTZone sent $3. | ||
| It's very respectable and rather Aryan of you to call that song off of Vulture's Fuck Something instead of its proper name. | ||
| Yeah, I don't like the wigger talk. | ||
| The wigger talk, as I get older, it's just becoming completely intolerable to me. | ||
| Especially when white people use it. | ||
| When black people use it, it is what it is, but white people... When white people talk like blacks, I just... I can't even anymore. | ||
| I refuse to talk to people like this. | ||
| So... When people say that, I just want to murder them on the spot. | ||
| I want to punch them in the face. | ||
| So... Like, I'm sorry, what are you, an ignorant... | ||
| Uh, something? | ||
| I bet! | ||
| People say, I bet. | ||
| Don't fucking tell me bet. | ||
| Don't tell me bet. | ||
| This rotating slang, it just drives me crazy. | ||
| Talk like a fucking white person. | ||
| We're white. | ||
| That doesn't mean you have to speak, you know, extremely proper, but you're not one of them. | ||
| Don't talk like one of them. | ||
| PMTZone sent $3. | ||
| Have you ever been wronged by a Lebanese? | ||
| I have. | ||
| Yeah, I have actually. | ||
| The girl who ran the Leadership Institute training that I went to in August 2018, she was Lebanese. | ||
| And she disqualified me the first day because I said I want to send immigrants back. | ||
| So yeah, I have. | ||
| Based on $0.03, I can't believe I used to be able to pay $3 to make you say something. | ||
| Now I just pay for a robot to read it. | ||
| Then you abuse me. | ||
| Yeah, crazy, right? | ||
| FieldGroper sent $5 for our Rumble stream in AF tonight. | ||
| You spoil us, Nick. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Yeah, I'm good to you. | ||
| But you were all complaining because the show last night was short. | ||
| Oh, you only did a monologue for 50 minutes. | ||
| Then I go and drop... | ||
| Six hours of content. | ||
| $5 super chat. | ||
| Oh, we're so spoiled. | ||
| Yeah, he called them out. | ||
| I did. | ||
| Yeah, he called them out. | ||
| He called them out on that Clubhouse interview. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I was cocked. | |
| I don't know what I'd do. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Maybe. | ||
| Thank you! | ||
| And even better, no message. | ||
| W. Okay. | ||
| Hey Nick, would you run for office? | ||
| If so, what position other than president of course and would you consider being a representative or something local? | ||
| Keep up the good work and Christ is king. - I don't know what I'd do, okay, maybe. - Divorced sent $25, no message. - Thank you, and even better, no message, W. - Therod so far, $97, sent $3, Moonlight by Juice WRLD. - Okay, thanks for Moonlight by Juice WRLD. - Okay, thanks for that. | ||
| You know, you people just pry. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I talk about a handful of things. | |
| Can we see it? | ||
| Can we see it? | ||
| willing/interested in publishing some of the notes you are taking and working on, even if it's behind a paywall or something. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No! | |
| Sounded pretty interesting. | ||
| 1,626. | ||
| Lay off. | ||
| You know, you people just pry. | ||
| I talk about a handful of things. | ||
| Can we see it? | ||
| Can we see it? | ||
| No, get away from me. | ||
| Can we see it? | ||
| Can we pay to see it? | ||
| It's like, why don't I, why don't you just sit back and relax, okay? | ||
| Like I'm withholding anything. | ||
| I'm not withholding anything from you! | ||
| You wanna just come in and just watch, you wanna come in and watch me live? | ||
| Should I set up cameras inside my house and you could just look at me at all times? | ||
| Should I set up a camera in my fucking toilet? | ||
| Toilet camera? | ||
| You could look at my asshole when I shit? | ||
| Can we see your notes? | ||
| Can we- My notes! | ||
| I do a show every day! | ||
| You wanna see the notes too? | ||
| Why don't I just cut my cranium off? | ||
| And he can look at my brain as I think the thoughts. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's never enough. | |
| *phone rings* Stupid idiot faggot sent $3, Mr. Trump. | ||
| Come on. | ||
| All this happening to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
We need TKD. | |
| Build. | ||
| Back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Better. | |
| I don't know what that means, but thank you. | ||
| LoneStarGroper sent $3, love you brother. | ||
| Margaret Sanger had some good points. | ||
| No, dude. | ||
| Nope. | ||
| Don't love you back, creep. | ||
| Chinese Catholic Millennial sent $3, half agree, Growipers should aim for top colleges first. | ||
| Helpful to know that most Ivy Leagues and NESCAC schools are need blind. | ||
| The colleges will cover your costs based on need. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yup. | |
| Cybertruck sent $3, why is it that you talk about the Jewish BAP network so often? | ||
| I'm not saying your criticisms are incorrect or that they aren't a problem, but why do you think they deserve such frequent criticism? | ||
| Well, look, if you don't know the answer, you're stupid, but it's not just about BAP. | ||
| That's the part that you're missing. | ||
| BAP represents one part of a bigger thing, which is that there is a very active, like a new neocon subversion of the right. | ||
| BAP represents this Jewish subversion of the dissident right, but he's not the only one. | ||
| There's many others involved. | ||
| Curtis Yarvin is another one. | ||
| Peter Thiel is funding a lot of it. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| It's a huge network. | ||
| And, you know, BAP is just one node. | ||
| And he's not even a central node, I would say, but he's representative of something that's going on. | ||
| Which is, here is this guy that is being sold to American dissidents as like a fascist, cool, bodybuilder thing. | ||
| Oh, he's an interesting philosophy bro, whatever. | ||
| But you peel back the layers and he's about as Jewish as it gets. | ||
| I mean, he grew up down the street from a, what do they call those? | ||
| Solomon something, Solomon Schechter daycare, okay? | ||
| This guy grew up down the street from where the Rothschilds are buried in a Jewish cemetery. | ||
| Newton, Massachusetts. | ||
| So this guy's as Jewish as it gets. | ||
| As Jewish as Jewish gets. | ||
| Mentored by David Sidorsky. | ||
| And the guy is just like a hardcore Straussian Jew. | ||
| And he is anonymous for that reason. | ||
| And he comes on the scene as basically a Jewish-Israeli operative and says, I'm a fascist body, I'm a mysterious fascist bodybuilder, exotic, esoteric, etc. | ||
| And the point is to rip off this goyish mask, this goy name thing, And to say, no, this guy's Ben Shapiro. | ||
| This guy's Ben Shapiro pretending to be David Duke. | ||
| Or he's Ben Shapiro, not David Duke, he's Ben Shapiro pretending to be Hitler or something. | ||
| He's not. | ||
| So, it's to put people on guard about the kind of subversion that's happening all the time. | ||
| You have all these people, they're Jewish, or they have a Jewish mentor, and they come on the scene and say, no, no, no, don't worry about Jews and Israel, worry about something else. | ||
| And I'm here to say, okay, the person that's saying that is Jewish. | ||
| I compared it the other day. | ||
| It's like when you see those Chick-fil-A billboards and it's a cow putting up a billboard that says eat more chicken. | ||
| Now why does the cow want you to eat chicken? | ||
| Because the cow doesn't want you eating hamburgers because he's hamburger! | ||
| Similarly, you have all these Jews and they're putting up billboards on Twitter that say don't blame the Jews. | ||
| Blame leftists, communists, globalists, some other group, black people. | ||
| Blame them! | ||
| And people go, yeah, seems legit. | ||
| And it's like, no, they're saying, don't blame the Jews, blame everybody else, because they're Jewish. | ||
| And they're not, they don't just happen to be Jewish, their Jewishness is important to them. | ||
| You know, Curtis Yarvin isn't a guy who happens to be Jewish. | ||
| It's not a footnote. | ||
| He's a Jewish supremacist. | ||
| Same with Kostadalom, are you? | ||
| So... | ||
| It's to show people that they're being tricked. | ||
| But he's just emblematic of it. | ||
| He's the perfect example because he champions this like, oh, I'm a fascist, extremist, blah, blah, blah. | ||
| But also, we should be colorblind and really, we don't need to worry about Israel. | ||
| If Israel were destroyed, that wouldn't help us, blah, blah, blah. | ||
| And then you find out what he's really about and he's like the most Jewish person you've ever seen. | ||
| So, but his network, he's part of a vast network that involves Teal, and Palantir, and Andresen, and Yarvin, and it's, and ultimately the State of Israel. | ||
| So, but if you don't see that, you just don't get it. | ||
| Chinese Catholic Millennial sent $3, 2 halves if you can get into an Ivy or NESCAC, don't go to community college. | ||
| Some of the best networking is done in your freshman cohort. | ||
| Beware of degeneracy, fornication, and alcoholic gluttony. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, thanks for that. | |
| Chinese Catholic Millennial sent $3, actually on second thought, avoid small royal liberal arts schools like the NESCACS. | ||
| There is no Catholic community and the draw of degeneracy is strong. | ||
| Ivy Leagues have some devout Catholics. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, okay. | |
| Thank you for all your advice. | ||
| Yeah, there's probably some truth to that. | ||
| I would say. | ||
| So, maybe it's a blessing in disguise. | ||
| that if you weren't so censored, your natural ability to inform slash inspire the masses would mark you for death slash destruction by your enemies? | ||
| It's bittersweet because I want your message available to everyone but know that could put you in danger. | ||
| Regardless, God bless, brother. | ||
| Yeah, there's probably some truth to that, I would say. | ||
| So maybe it's a blessing in disguise. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Maybe God is letting me live a little bit longer. | |
| Okay, hang on. | ||
| I was playing Call of War. | ||
| Had I been born exactly one year earlier than I was, I would be celebrating my ninth beady in the year of our Lord, 2024. | ||
| However, I wasn't. | ||
| What's my actual birthday with year? | ||
| Hint, I'm older than Jesus when he died and think today. | ||
| Okay, hang on. | ||
| I was playing Call of War. | ||
| Had I been born exactly one year earlier than I was, I would be celebrating my birthday in the year of our Lord, 2024. | ||
| So if you were born earlier, one year earlier than you actually were, you'd be celebrating your ninth birthday. | ||
|
unidentified
|
day. | |
| So that means you would have been born in 2016? | ||
| Well, no, because of how you added up. | ||
| So you would turn... let me think. | ||
| If you're born in 2015, you turn 1 in 16, 2 in 17, 3 in 18, 4 in 19, 5 in 20, 6 in 21, 7 in 22, 8 in 23, 9 in 24. | ||
| Okay, when did I start 2015? | ||
| Okay, so my math is right. | ||
| However, I wasn't. | ||
| What's my actual birthday with year? | ||
| Hint, I'm older than Jesus was when he died and think today. | ||
| 8 and 23 9 and 24 Okay, when did I start? | ||
| 2015? | ||
| Okay, so my math is right However, I wasn't What's my actual birthday with year? | ||
| Hint, I'm older than Jesus was when he died And think today 9th birthday But you weren't You were born in 2016. | ||
| I'm older than Jesus when he died. | ||
| How old was Jesus when he died? | ||
|
unidentified
|
33? | |
| Oh, you're talking about leap years. | ||
| So it'd be your... Well, no, because leap year happens every four years. | ||
| You'd be three. | ||
| Oh, no, the ape! | ||
| Ah, I see, I see. | ||
| No, wait, no, never mind. | ||
| What's my actual birthday with year? | ||
| And I'm older than Jesus when he died and think today. | ||
| So leap year. | ||
| So it'd be February 29th. | ||
| And it would be eight times four, be 32. | ||
| So it'd be, what was another leap year? | ||
| What, 96? | ||
| Or 2000? | ||
| February 29, 2000? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, that's not right. | |
| Leap years every four years. | ||
| But how old was Jesus when he died? | ||
| Wasn't he 33? | ||
| Or was he older? | ||
| That's the part that's throwing me. | ||
| Because you're saying 8th birthday, 9th birthday... Oh! | ||
| Older, not younger! | ||
| Older! | ||
| Okay, okay. | ||
| So... 8 times 4... 32... | ||
|
unidentified
|
1988. | |
| February 29, 1988. | ||
| Final answer. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Am I right? | |
| He was 38, people say. | ||
| 1988 final answer am I right? | ||
| He was 38 people say I thought he was 33 Yeah, cuz if you're in 1988 then be Let me restart that. | ||
| 92 would be 1, 96 would be 2, 2000 would be 3, 2004 would be 4, 2008 would be 5, 2012 would be 6, 2016 would be 7, 2020 would be 8. | ||
| Oh no! | ||
|
unidentified
|
So it'd be 92. | |
| start that it was like 92 would be 1 96 would be 2 2000 would be 3 2004 would be 4 2008 would be 5 2012 would be 6 2016 would be 7 2020 would be 8 oh no so it'd be 92 so it'd be february 29 1992 final answer February 29, 1992 would make you... No, but that would, uh, that would make you 32. | ||
| Oh, but you're older! | ||
| No, so it'd have to be 1988, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, but 9th doesn't work. | |
| No, maybe I'm wrong about the leap year thing. | ||
| The hint is throwing you're saying think today well today is leap day so I'm thinking that but if you're one year earlier it wouldn't be a leap day it would be a non-leap day year so you wouldn't turn nine in 2024. | ||
| I don't know this this doesn't make sense. | ||
| I'm gonna say February 29, 1988. | ||
| Difficult, difficult riddle, but I don't have pen and paper. | ||
| I'm on the spot. | ||
| I'm on a camera. | ||
| Okay, great. | ||
| Thank you for that. | ||
| - Marzine Froggy sent $5. | ||
| I am a Judeo-Christian. | ||
| I am conservative liberal. | ||
| I am a dumbass. - Okay, great. | ||
| Thank you for that. - Malabar Gro-Iper sent $5. | ||
| Real black pill for a 1,300th episode. - Yeah, you're right about that. | ||
| Hey! | ||
| W. Thank you for that. | ||
| Yeah, I hope all our Bitcoin chads are feeling good. | ||
| Feeling the bull run. | ||
| I've seen some of his TikToks. | ||
| My dad's are feeling good, feeling the bull run. - Khaki shorts enthusiast sent $3. | ||
| Thoughts on John McKendie? | ||
| He posts boomer tier TikToks on his date right stuff account, but saw one where he was against funding Ukraine and Israel. - I've seen some of his TikToks. | ||
| They're pretty funny. | ||
| I did notice that. | ||
| Yeah, he said something like, um... I saw one the other day. | ||
| He's like, be sure to claim all your dependents. | ||
| Your son, your daughter, Ukraine, Israel. | ||
| That was a little edgy. | ||
| That was a little edgy. | ||
| So... I do know that he running PPO was very effective. | ||
| So... I like him at least for that. | ||
| I don't know how red-pilled he is, but... But yeah, I noticed that too. | ||
| Good catch. | ||
| Greekoid sent $14, thank you for the two shows today Nicky Poo. | ||
| Great content today and a great show as always, love you. | ||
| American Matt sent $10, allegedly Alexander Hamilton was Jewish? | ||
| His mother was a Jewish convert and he attended a Jewish school as a kid. | ||
| No I don't think that's true. | ||
| SloppyZog sent $5. | ||
| Yo, did you see JLP was on H3? | ||
| It was another crescendo of a hit job. | ||
| JLP should know better than to go on there. | ||
| It's what they do to everybody. | ||
| I didn't watch the whole thing. | ||
| I saw the first part when he asked about Ethan's brother, but I didn't see the rest of it. | ||
| Okay, that's our last Super Chat. | ||
| That's gonna do it for me tonight. | ||
| Let me just do this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| All right. | ||
| I will see you tomorrow then. | ||
| As always, remember to follow me here on Rumble and Cozy. | ||
| Get a push notification whenever I go live. | ||
| I'm on the air Monday through Friday. | ||
| As always, thanks to our Super Chatters. | ||
| In particular, I'm Hoplite. | ||
| Special thanks to him. | ||
| But thanks to all our Super Chatters, 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. | ||
| With respect, the respect that we deserve. | ||
| From today... | ||
| From this day forward, it's going to be only America first. |
Export Selection