IRAN WAR WATCH: US Assembles Largest Force Since Iraq War??? | America First Ep. 1643
U.S.A. QUARTER ZIP NOW AVAILABLE
https://fuentes.storeShow more Subscribe to the America First Archive!
https://americafirst.plus
Send a superchat:
https://entropystream.live/nickjfuentes
Support the America First Foundation:
https://americafirstfoundation.org/donate
https://x.com/AmericaFirstFdn
Support the show using crypto:
https://nicholasjfuentes.com/donate
Follow Nicholas J. Fuentes:
X: https://x.com/nickjfuentes
Kick: https://kick.com/nickfuentes
Telegram: https://t.me/nickjfuentes
Follow Fuentes Updates on X for clips and more:
https://x.com/fuentesupdates
Follow America First HQ for news:
X: https://x.com/AmFirstHQ
Telegram: https://t.me/AmericaFirstHQ
Watch the show on Cozy:
https://cozy.tv/nick Show less
People that are scrambling, trying to protect their ever-shrinking share of what they have are foolish.
It's all going.
It's all going away.
This country is being ripped apart and raped and looted.
We're being slowly poisoned and in some cases quickly murdered and assassinated.
And we're killing ourselves every day.
Inadvertently, with the kinds of things that we eat and breathe and drink and see.
People have got to start to radically begin to obey their conscience and tell the truth and do the right thing.
People have got to start to get courageous.
And this is the time for everybody to turn and look to God and to pray and to ask for strength and to ask for wisdom to get through this time and to transform and sanctify this country.
And the alternative is that there will be no country.
Is it really only as big as low gas prices?
Is it really only so big as bringing inflation and gas prices and the corporate tax rate back down?
It's not about waiting for someone to come in and change the policy and make it better.
It's a personal decision that we all have to make to become soldiers of Christ.
No one's allowed to say that the blood is a quintessential part of this, that the blood of our people is something that is essential.
That we are different.
that America was different because we are different.
Palantir is an AI data analytics company.
They use artificial intelligence to look at vast amounts of data and create insights.
If the government has an amount of data which is kind of unimaginable, if you've got every phone call, every email, every transaction, every photograph of a license plate on the highway, satellite data, it's too much data for a bureaucracy to sift through.
Palantir comes in and interprets the data using algorithms, using artificial intelligence, using software to make vast amounts of data usable.
That's what they are.
And so many of the people that worked with Elon that came into the government through Doge worked with Palantir.
Now that Doge is finished, Palantir seems to be just getting started.
Thank you so much, everybody.
And I just say, are you trusting me in that sense?
unidentified
Hello, I got places to be here Good evening, everybody You're watching America First.
My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.
We have a great show for you tonight.
You got the backpack, that's a lack of fun.
Are you winning, son?
This song's antum.
Shoot on partner, it broke shit with a ribbon.
But yeah, fluffin' all over, cause I'm young, listen, I'm hungry.
Be talk shit, then I'm banging, bang, yum, band off.
If we don't have freedom on the Internet in the age of AI, we are going to be mind raped every day forever.
Think about anything you've ever said or done in the vicinity of your phone's camera or microphone, everything you've ever put into your phone, and even things that are not necessarily so scandalous, but even things like your favorite restaurants, your geo location, because your phone also has a GPS.
They know where you are at all times.
They know where you go and when.
They know what you buy.
They have access to your bank account.
AI will literally know everything about you.
Everyone you know, your relationship to them, your tastes, your preferences, your habits, your whereabouts, your routines, your schedule, when you're asleep.
They know how much REM sleep you're getting.
They know your resting heart rate.
They know how many calories you consume.
Think about the ways that they can manipulate you.
You have a computer in your refrigerator, computer in your car, computer in your home security system, computer in your everything, computer in your clothes, your watch, your glasses, your VR headset, your alarm clock.
You have a smart home, economy of things.
It's like total, like, rape of everybody by the system forever.
My life is like a first-person video game, you know?
People that are scrambling, trying to protect their ever-shrinking share of what they have are foolish.
It's all going.
It's all going away.
This country is being ripped apart and raped and looted.
We're being slowly poisoned and in some cases quickly murdered and assassinated.
And we're killing ourselves every day.
Inadvertently, with the kinds of things that we eat and breathe and drink and see.
People have got to start to radically begin to obey their conscience and tell the truth and do the right thing.
People have got to start to get courageous.
And this is the time for everybody to turn and look to God and to pray and to ask for strength and to ask for wisdom to get through this time and to transform and sanctify this country.
And the alternative is that there will be no country.
Is it really only as big as low gas prices?
Is it really only so big as bringing inflation and gas prices and the corporate tax rate back down?
It's not about waiting for someone to come in and change the policy and make it better.
It's a personal decision that we all have to make to become soldiers of Christ.
Because they voted for Kamala Harris.
People do not stab young girls on trains because they're born black.
People do not shoot Palestinians in the back of the head or cheer it on just because they're Jewish.
The people that do this are lost.
They have to be isolated and segregated out.
A new consensus must emerge.
Are you in favor of a society with meaning?
A society where life is sacred, where life has sanctity, where people's lives and their dignity and their integrity is respected.
Or are we going to live in a society that is a never-ending war between nihilistic tribes, warlords, savages, pagans?
I see an emerging consensus.
And I think that the mature people that actually love America, actually love our children, the people that recognize the division, the peril that we're in, we need to fortify a new consensus and rally the people of conscience, the people of decency, the people of humanity, the people of charity towards their fellow man,
against those that want to kill us, against those that laugh and celebrate when innocent people are harmed for any reason, for any ideological reason.
Against the people that are cruel, the people that are hateful.
And by that, I mean the people that are really cruel.
Not the people that say things you disagree with, not the people that are provocative, not the people that are sometimes angry, but the people that are really cruel and really evil.
What makes Christianity and Christ so different from the other religions is that our religion is based on the bearing of suffering for the sake of even those that persecute us.
An unconditional, absolute standard of love for all of God's children, even those that are misguided, even those that persecute us, even the most heinous among us.
That is what makes us different.
That is what makes us good.
unidentified
Canary Mission is an Israeli-funded blacklist, which since July 2025 has been confirmed to be used by the Trump administration to target students, professors, and professionals who oppose Israel and reside in the United States.
This idea is part of an initiative created by the Heritage Foundation, the same group responsible for the infamous Project 2025.
In their initiative, titled Project Esther, they state that students participating in pro-Palestinian protests and activism are supporting Hamas, a group that the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.
Therefore, pro-Palestinian students are considered to be supporting terrorism and are subject to the revocation of visas, frozen bank accounts, asset seizures, and the denial of basic constitutional rights.
In effect, the Canary mission serves as a means to circumvent constitutional protections, allowing the federal government to engage in intelligence gathering activities that would otherwise be considered unlawful.
But the Canary Mission is not alone.
Palantir, another company closely aligned with the state of Israel, uses AI-driven analytics to maintain private databases on U.S. citizens and currently works with four federal agencies.
While government contracting with the private sector is long-standing, the prominent influence of Jewish groups within these increasingly powerful organizations warrants careful examination.
I renew the call for all able-bodied young American men, all of our elite human capital, all of our geniuses, warriors, intelligent people to dedicate themselves to American sovereignty and independence as Christians, as Americans, as white people, as citizens of the United States.
And anybody that settles for anything less is just as much of an enemy.
I would actually consider them worse than our oppressors.
So on Independence Day, it's important to reflect on the fact that we are an occupied nation.
Now, just like then, we're being ruled by a small country across an ocean, serving itself at our expense.
And as long as that is the case, I will always be obsessed with that.
As long as that is the case, I will always be speaking out against that and fighting against that.
And I will always be anchored, understanding that that is the fundamental struggle.
As long as our presidents have to kiss the wall in Israel and wear a small hat, as long as they have to say that we want to make Israel great again and they're the greatest country ever, I will never be okay with that.
Ever.
And it doesn't matter what they offer me or us.
It doesn't matter how they might try to placate us or appease our interests, the concessions they'll make.
Barack Obama created the joint comprehensive plan of action, the JCPOA, or the Iranian nuclear deal.
And Barack Obama brought together China, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States and the European Union to enforce a nuclear deal that restricts Iran's enrichment of uranium.
The early talks were conducted in secret, and the Israelis were furious, furious about this.
They hated Obama.
Netanyahu went to a joint session of Congress and gave a speech in defiance of the American president and its nuclear deal, and Congress gave 37 standing ovations.
This is the background of Trump's first election.
2016 election happens.
Trump gets elected with the help of the Israelis.
You don't believe me?
There's a whole article about it.
It's an excerpt from James Bamford's book, Spy Fail.
It goes into great detail about the hidden collusion in the 2016 election.
It wasn't Trump and Russia.
It was Trump and Israel.
And why was Israel so hell-bent on getting a Republican elected in 2016?
Now the United States is in a shadow war with Iran.
It culminates by January 2020 in the assassination of Qasim Suleimani.
Suleimani was the architect of the axis of resistance.
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Suleimani built all of it.
Are you starting to see that?
Obama had this solved.
He made the deal.
The Israelis hated him for it.
They colluded with Trump to get him elected so that Trump would do maximum pressure and create a ladder of escalation, pulling us out of the deal, declaring the IRGC terrorists, then killing its leader, putting sanctions on the regime.
This is a war that started a long time ago, that Trump made hot in 2018 and has been going on for seven years.
People that are scrambling, trying to protect their ever-shrinking share of what they have are foolish.
It's all going.
It's all going away.
This country is being ripped apart and raped and looted.
We're being slowly poisoned and, in some cases, quickly murdered and assassinated.
And we're killing ourselves every day.
Inadvertently, with the kinds of things that we eat and breathe and drink and see.
People have got to start to radically begin to obey their conscience and tell the truth and do the right thing.
People have got to start to get courageous.
And this is the time for everybody to turn and look to God and to pray and to ask for strength and to ask for wisdom to get through this time and to transform and sanctify this country.
And the alternative is that there will be no country.
Is it really only as big as low gas prices?
Is it really only so big as bringing inflation and gas prices and the corporate tax rate back down?
It's not about waiting for someone to come in and change the policy and make it better.
It's a personal decision that we all have to make to become soldiers of Christ.
I told you so.
unidentified
When I get home, I want you Hello, I got places to be Evening, everybody You're watching America First.
that america was different because we are different palantir is an ai data analytics company
They use artificial intelligence to look at vast amounts of data and create insights.
If the government has an amount of data which is kind of unimaginable, if you've got every phone call, every email, every transaction, every photograph of a license plate on the highway, satellite data, it's too much data for a bureaucracy to sift through.
Palantir comes in and interprets the data using algorithm, using artificial intelligence, using software to make vast amounts of data usable.
That's what they are.
And so many of the people that worked with Elon that came into the government through Doge worked with Palantir.
Now that Doge is finished, Palantir seems to be just getting started.
Thank you so much, everybody.
Can I just say, are you trusting Brian and Adam?
unidentified
And I saw it for the first time partly.
Seems like my eyes are for the first time party.
Seems like my eyes are all better like the older.
When I get home, I want you.
Hello, I got places to be Evening everybody You're watching America First.
If we don't have freedom on the Internet in the age of AI, we are going to be mind raped every day forever.
Think about anything you've ever said or done in the vicinity of your phone's camera or microphone, everything you've ever put into your phone, and even things that are not necessarily so scandalous, but even things like your favorite restaurants, your geo location, because your phone also has a GPS.
They know where you are at all times.
They know where you go and when.
They know what you buy.
They have access to your bank account.
AI will literally know everything about you.
Everyone you know, your relationship to them, your tastes, your preferences, your habits, your whereabouts, your routines, your schedule, when you're asleep.
They know how much REM sleep you're getting.
They know your resting heart rate.
They know how many calories you consume.
Think about the ways that they can manipulate you.
You have a computer in your refrigerator, computer in your car, computer in your home security system, computer in your everything, computer in your clothes, your watch, your glasses, your VR headset, your alarm clock.
You have a smart home, economy of things.
It's like total, like, rape of everybody by the system forever.
My life is like a first-person video game, you know?
People that are scrambling, trying to protect their ever-shrinking share of what they have are foolish.
It's all going.
It's all going away.
This country is being ripped apart and raped and looted.
We're being slowly poisoned and in some cases quickly murdered and assassinated.
And we're killing ourselves every day.
Inadvertently, with the kinds of things that we eat and breathe and drink and see.
People have got to start to radically begin to obey their conscience and tell the truth and do the right thing.
People have got to start to get courageous.
And this is the time for everybody to turn and look to God and to pray and to ask for strength and to ask for wisdom to get through this time and to transform and sanctify this country.
And the alternative is that there will be no country.
Is it really only as big as low gas prices?
Is it really only so big as bringing inflation and gas prices and the corporate tax rate back down?
It's not about waiting for someone to come in and change the policy and make it better.
It's a personal decision that we all have to make to become soldiers of Christ.
Because they voted for Kamala Harris.
People do not stab young girls on trains because they're born black.
People do not shoot Palestinians in the back of the head or cheer it on just because they're Jewish.
The people that do this are lost.
They have to be isolated and segregated out.
A new consensus must emerge.
Are you in favor of a society with meaning?
A society where life is sacred, where life has sanctity, where people's lives and their dignity and their integrity is respected.
Or are we going to live in a society that is a never-ending war between nihilistic tribes, warlords, savages, pagans?
I see an emerging consensus.
And I think that the mature people that actually love America, actually love our children, the people that recognize the division, the peril that we're in, we need to fortify a new consensus and rally the people of conscience, the people of decency, the people of humanity, the people of charity towards their fellow man,
against those that want to kill us, against those that laugh and celebrate when innocent people are harmed for any reason, for any ideological reason.
Against the people that are cruel, the people that are hateful.
And by that, I mean the people that are really cruel.
Not the people that say things you disagree with, not the people that are provocative, not the people that are sometimes angry, but the people that are really cruel and really evil.
It's Christianity and Christ so different from the other religions.
It's our religion is based on the bearing of suffering for the sake of even those that persecute us.
An unconditional, absolute standard of love for all of God's children, even those that are misguided, even those that persecute us, even the most heinous among us.
That is what makes us different.
That is what makes us good.
unidentified
Canary Mission is an Israeli-funded blacklist, which since July 2025 has been confirmed to be used by the Trump administration to target students, professors, and professionals who oppose Israel and reside in the United States.
This idea is part of an initiative created by the Heritage Foundation, the same group responsible for the infamous Project 2025.
In their initiative, titled Project Esther, they state that students participating in pro-Palestinian protests and activism are supporting Hamas, a group that the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.
Therefore, pro-Palestinian students are considered to be supporting terrorism and are subject to the revocation of visas, frozen bank accounts, asset seizures, and the denial of basic constitutional rights.
In effect, the Canary mission serves as a means to circumvent constitutional protections, allowing the federal government to engage in intelligence gathering activities that would otherwise be considered unlawful.
But the Canary Mission is not alone.
Palantir, another company closely aligned with the state of Israel, uses AI-driven analytics to maintain private databases on U.S. citizens and currently works with four federal agencies.
While government contracting with the private sector is long-standing, the prominent influence of Jewish groups within these increasingly powerful organizations warrants careful examination.
I renew the call for all able-bodied young American men, all of our elite human capital, all of our geniuses, warriors, intelligent people to dedicate themselves to American sovereignty and independence as Christians, as Americans, as white people, as citizens of the United States.
And anybody that settles for anything less is just as much of an enemy.
I would actually consider them worse than our oppressors.
So on Independence Day, it's important to reflect on the fact that we are an occupied nation.
Now, just like then, we're being ruled by a small country across an ocean, serving itself at our expense.
And as long as that is the case, I will always be obsessed with that.
As long as that is the case, I will always be speaking out against that and fighting against that.
And I will always be anchored, understanding that that is the fundamental struggle.
As long as our presidents have to kiss the wall in Israel and wear a small hat, as long as they have to say that we want to make Israel great again and they're the greatest country ever, I will never be okay with that.
Ever.
And it doesn't matter what they offer me or us.
It doesn't matter how they might try to placate us or appease our interests, the concessions they'll make.
Barack Obama created the joint comprehensive plan of action, the JCPOA, or the Iranian nuclear deal.
And Barack Obama brought together China, Russia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States and the European Union to enforce a nuclear deal that restricts Iran's enrichment of uranium.
The early talks were conducted in secret, and the Israelis were furious, furious about this.
They hated Obama.
Netanyahu went to a joint session of Congress and gave a speech in defiance of the American president and its nuclear deal.
And Congress gave 37 standing ovations.
This is the background of Trump's first election.
2016 election happens.
Trump gets elected with the help of the Israelis.
You don't believe me?
There's a whole article about it.
It's an excerpt from James Bamford's book, Spy Fail.
It goes into great detail about the hidden collusion in the 2016 election.
It wasn't Trump and Russia.
It was Trump and Israel.
And why was Israel so hell-bent on getting a Republican elected in 16?
Now the United States is in a shadow war with Iran.
It culminates by January 2020 in the assassination of Qasim Suleimani.
Suleimani was the architect of the axis of resistance.
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Suleimani built all of it.
Are you starting to see that?
Obama had this solved.
He made the deal.
The Israelis hated him for it.
They colluded with Trump to get him elected so that Trump would do maximum pressure and create a ladder of escalation, pulling us out of the deal, declaring the IRGC terrorists, then killing its leader, putting sanctions on the regime.
This is a war that started a long time ago, that Trump made hot in 2018 and has been going on for seven years.
That's the nature of forever wars.
Just like in Iraq, which went from 1990 until today, just like Libya, which went from 2011 to today.
Syria, which went from 2011 to today, and Iran, which went from 2018 until today.
That's the nature of forever wars.
And if you're not paying attention to those underlying forces, you're going to fall for it again and again.
You're going to be surprised and confused and coping over and over.
And people are just tripping over themselves to do it again.
Very excited to be back here with you tonight on Wednesday.
We have a lot to talk about tonight.
Lots to get into big show.
Our featured story: we are once again watching the imminent war in Iran.
And we covered this last night, but we're going to give you some updates on what has been going on, and it's not looking good.
I analyzed this a little bit last night, and we've been talking about this basically since the first U.S. strikes against Iran last June.
But the difference is that now we actually have the force package in place.
And so I'm sure you've seen this on Twitter.
There's been even some rumors on 4chan, as always.
But we now have, and this is official from Wall Street Journal, New York Times.
We now have the largest force assembled off the coast of Iran in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
We're talking about two aircraft carriers, over a dozen missile destroyers.
We're talking about many squadrons of attack aircraft, fighter jets, strike aircraft.
And I think it is basically a certainty that something is going to happen imminently.
And that is really the big question.
Is it going to be something?
Is it going to be nothing?
I think we can establish at this point, as of today, that yes, something is going to happen.
People say nothing ever happens.
I think this time we're going to get something.
Now, the big question is: what is that actually going to be?
Of course, up to this point, it's been a question of whether the United States will act.
We declined to intervene in Iran during the protest in January.
But now that we have forward-deployed two aircraft carriers, dozens of attack aircraft, now the question is: well, what is it going to look like?
What's it actually going to, what's it actually going to be when we make the move?
And it seems like all signs are pointing towards a weeks-long air campaign.
We talked a little bit about this last night, but it's looking very likely like it will not be a ground operation, doesn't look like special forces.
It may not even be what Trump has been requesting, which is a decisive confrontation.
It's not going to be a once and for all strike that's going to topple the regime.
But it does look like at the minimum, it is going to be a weeks-long, maybe multiple weeks-long attack in order to degrade Iran's nuclear capability and its missile capability.
And it seems like this can happen at any point in the next few days.
And maybe you could say at the furthest extent, it will happen within two weeks.
That looks like roughly the timeline right now.
And we're going to talk tonight all about why that is.
We'll talk about the kind of force package that has been assembled because the type of force and the amount of force is indicative of how they're going to use it.
We were able to predict a little bit of what happened in Venezuela based on the number of personnel that were involved and the number of warships.
And I think that similarly, we can look at the force package in the Middle East and we can make some educated guesses about what they are actually there to do and what the plan is.
And then, therefore, based on that, if we can determine what kind of strike it will be and the scope and scale of it, we can figure out what the Trump administration's endgame is.
What is the actual goal here?
Because that seems to be shrouded in a little bit of uncertainty as well.
So, we're going to talk all about that tonight.
We're going to break it down.
We're going to look at the numbers.
We're going to look at the types of weapons in place, like I said, and we will be making some informed guesses about the timeline, about the goal, and about the mode.
How's it going to play out?
That'll be our main story.
We're also going to look tonight at an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which I saw tonight.
Kind of a slow news day, so there's not too much going on, but I do think this is really worthy of consideration because this absolutely vindicates what I predicted about deportations a couple of years ago.
And so, I'm reading the Wall Street Journal today, and there's an editorial, there's an opinion piece, and it's talking about mass deportations.
And we've been talking a lot about the mass deportations.
We've talked about how they are not really even happening to begin with.
But the mass deportations that are not happening are also grinding to a halt.
Go figure.
No mass deportations, and yet they are also simultaneously grinding to a screeching halt.
And we witnessed this with the withdrawal from Minneapolis and the apparent change in policy from the White House, which is that they're no longer even calling it that.
They're now talking about removing all of the criminal illegal aliens.
Crossing into the country illegally is a crime.
I guess they mean people that have committed crimes on top of that.
So you cross into the country illegally, you're fine, but only if you commit a violent rape or a murder, well, now you're going to be deported.
This is an Obama-era policy, but this has now taken the place of mass deportations.
In any case, we have talked about the pushback from the media.
We have talked about the pressure from the Republicans, actually, from the Republican Party and from the conference in Congress because of the upcoming midterms.
We talked about the government shutdown on Monday.
But here's the angle that a lot of people are not focusing on.
It is the economic angle.
Where is the real pressure coming from against mass deportations?
It's an open secret.
The real pressure against mass deportations is coming from the Chamber of Commerce.
It is coming from the business interests.
It is coming from Wall Street.
And I said this in 2024.
The strongest evidence or maybe the strongest predictor of whether you will get deportations actually has nothing to do with any of the rhetoric surrounding the deportations.
People talk about whether it's humane and whether it's cruel.
People talk about whether it's feasible or whether it's impractical.
But the number one indicator, the number one predictor, how you knew you were not going to get deportations is because of the effect on the economy.
Because of the effect on spending, on labor, on wages, and ultimately then on the effect of the effect rather on profits for Wall Street.
And so I said back in 2024, the reason you're not going to get mass deportations is because the big businesses don't want this to happen.
The big businesses employ the illegal immigrants, and those illegal immigrants spend their money, which keeps the big businesses going.
Big business profits from illegal immigration, to put it succinctly.
And so there's a big editorial in the Wall Street Journal that says, do not do mass deportations.
Why?
Because it will hurt the economy.
And so we'll read through this editorial.
This spells it out as simply as it can possibly be said.
And a lot of people think about politics and talk about politics.
And for a lot of people, this is based on sentiment and this is based on vibes.
I remember in the beginning of 2025, people were having this discussion.
Will there be mass deportations?
Do you think Trump is going to do it?
And people said, I don't know.
I think he will.
I think he won't.
Maybe.
I feel like he's going to do it.
And this gets to the structural analysis of how power works in the country.
We've been talking about this.
You need to understand the anatomy of our power structure, where the true seat of power resides.
And once you begin to understand this, once you begin to think about that category, that subject, you realize how silly it is to talk with all these other kinds of words and phrases and sentiment.
People say, I think Trump wants to do mass deportations.
These kinds of words don't actually have any meaning.
I think he's going to.
I think he won't.
I think he wants it.
Stephen Miller is autistically fixated on deportations.
This is not political science.
This is not actually doing anything.
When we consider political outcomes, we have to think about the political actors involved and their incentives.
And so we'll get into a little bit of that tonight and we'll talk about this editorial.
But it's going to be a good show.
Good to be back with you here on Ash Wednesday.
Before we get into the news, I want to remind you to smash the follow button on Rumble, smash a like button, leave a comment, let me know what you think about the show.
Remember to check out our merch store at Fuentes.store.
We have hats, sweatshirts, t-shirts.
We got the Epstein quarter zip still.
We're probably going to get rid of it soon.
Not because of any pressure or anything like that, but I don't know.
I feel like it's going out of season.
So get it while you can.
Epstein quarterzip.
You heard it here first.
Limited time only.
Epstein quarterzip, Fuentes.store.
Check it out.
Become a plus subscriber.
If you really love the show, you want to support it.
So many people are obsessed with the show and they're subscribed on Rumble, but they're not subscribed on the website.
Well, what the fuck kind of fan are you?
You watch this show for free every night.
You tune in.
You demand more content, more energy, more topics, more stuff.
15 bucks a month just to keep the lights on over here.
Okay, just for our Lenten fast, just for the fish sandwiches, pepper and egg sandwiches.
Doesn't grow on trees around here.
AmericaFirst.plus, 15 bucks a month, you get the archive.
100 bucks a month, you get to be in the group chat.
That's for the high rollers.
That's for the rich people.
I don't want to see any mouth-breathing, impoverished people.
I don't want to see unemployed people.
$100 a month.
And you get to be in the group chat with me.
All the high rollers and the big nigga.
And I was in there all day today dropping voice messages.
I was talking about a lot of different stuff in there today.
I'm always in there.
So anybody will tell you the testimonials are very positive.
I'm basically doing a second show for the rich.
It's the most rewarding work that I do.
You know, I do this show and it's okay, but really the most rewarding and fulfilling work that I do is when I do the show for the rich because I know they appreciate it more because they're smarter.
But that's AmericaFirst.plus.
We're going to get into it.
We're going to dive into it.
There's not too much.
Usually I like to stall a little bit and procrastinate, but there's literally nothing else going on.
I don't think there's even one other thing going on in the news to even talk about other than the situation with Iran.
Here's what I will say.
Okay, here's one thing that I just remembered.
What is absolutely amazing and truly shocking.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised or shocked by anything at this point.
But you have to think about where we are.
And we're going to get into this a little bit later.
But like I said, tonight we're going to get into this military buildup in Iran.
We'll get to all the details.
Consider where we are, though.
Take a step back and think about it.
We are on our way to bombing Iran a second time.
I can't get over this.
I feel like everybody has accepted it.
I feel like everybody looks at the situation and just says, yeah, I guess that's just where we are now.
I really still have a hard time getting over it.
Because if you are an OG Trump supporter, if you were there in 2015, 2016, if you were there for the original MAGA America First, opposing the Iraq war was like one of the central planks.
That was like one of the number one staples of the MAGA movement.
That is the basis upon which Trump was attacking Jeb Bush, who was at one time the frontrunner for the Republican nomination a long time ago.
And so it's truly amazing that 10 years later, on the other side of all of these battles, this struggle, it is truly unthinkable that we are now literally repeating the exact same thing.
We talked about it a little bit last night.
What was the war in Iraq?
Well, for starters, it was a war for Israel.
This is one of Israel's enemies, not really a major enemy of ours.
At least they don't threaten us.
It was not only that, a regime change war.
And these are very messy because you change the regime.
And if you don't have a replacement government, then you break it, you buy it.
You either have to come in and stabilize the country, and that's very expensive and time consuming and deadly.
Otherwise, you get a failed state like Libya, and you're back to square one.
It becomes a springboard for terrorism, like was the case with ISIS.
So it's a regime change war.
And this has a very bad track record throughout history.
Thirdly, and this is maybe the richest part of it, it was sold to us under the false pretext about weapons of mass destruction.
Remember, they said it's nuclear weapons.
That's why it's urgent.
We have to intervene.
And this is literally the exact same thing.
It's a war for Israel against a country that does not threaten us.
It's a regime change war.
This one way more ambitious, actually.
Way more ambitious.
Iran is geographically bigger, more populous, bigger military, stronger government.
It's a much bigger undertaking in literally every quantifiable way.
And once again, it's literally the same story.
It's actually the exact same story, which is they're killing their own people.
They have a weapons of mass destruction program.
They're this tyrannical pariah state in the Middle East.
It's the exact same story.
And it's truly amazing.
Now, here's the point.
I'm not just restating what I said last night.
What's truly remarkable is that in spite of this, this should be as cut and dry and open and shut and black and white as it could possibly be.
In 2015, Trump said the war in Iraq was a mistake.
They said there were weapons of mass destruction.
There weren't any.
We spent all this money.
We don't even have it.
Like that was the story in 2015.
Now he's doing the exact same thing.
He's doing the opposite of that.
The literal opposite, as I've just demonstrated.
The war which he once criticized, he's now selling.
Now, here's the amazing thing.
As black and white as this is, you still have, and I have seen it on my timeline all week, hundreds, if not thousands of pro-Trump shills on Twitter that are supporting this.
How is it possible?
I tweeted this today.
I said, if we get a war with Iran, forget it.
I'm not voting in 26.
I'm not voting for any member of this cabinet in 28, and nobody else should either.
Why would we vote for the party that brings us Iraq too?
Not only is that a stupid idea, but it's also actually a complete betrayal of what this entire movement is about.
So I put on Twitter today, I said, if we get this second Iran strike, if we're in a war with Iran, what's even the proposition?
Just forget it.
I won't vote for it.
I won't vote for it in the midterms.
I'm not going to vote for the vice president and secretary of state that have given this to us.
And that's what they want the ticket to be: Vance and Rubio.
War in Iran brought to you by Vance and Rubio.
Now get on board and vote for them in 28.
So I put this on Twitter and literally go look at my replies.
Go look at the replies.
Look at the top replies by likes.
Look at the quote tweets.
And there are no shortage of pro-Trump accounts, some of them boomers, some of them even Zoomers.
And they're saying, well, you know, I trust Trump.
One guy says, I voted for Trump to put America first.
If he thinks we should go to war with Iran, then we should go to war with Iran.
This is the discourse.
This is what's being said.
This is what I see in my replies.
You're a Democrat plant.
How could you say that?
And this vindicates what I said about Trump in 24.
Herein lies the problem with the Trump victory.
And I will keep saying this because it is true.
The problem with Trump at this point is that whatever he does, no matter what it is, a significant percentage of middle American radicals will support it.
Maybe most of them, maybe all of them.
It doesn't matter what Trump does, what he says.
It could be a complete betrayal of his own promises, of his own movement, of everything.
It doesn't matter.
Cover up the Epstein files.
Go to war with Iran.
Give up on mass deportations.
70% of the GOP base will defend it because it's him.
That's the danger.
And suddenly you go from a country which is primed to be radicalized.
It's primed for right-wing populism.
It's primed for an America-first movement.
And all of a sudden, now that Trump is thrust into the White House, now all of that revolutionary fervor is deflated.
If Trump is doing it, they will eat it up.
And that would not be true in the alternative case.
And what I mean by that is, had Kamala won, let's say for the sake of example, she would be bringing us to war in Iran as well, without a doubt.
The Israelis would be pushing her.
The same interests would be pushing her.
But if Kamala was bringing us to war in Iran, would any Republican support it?
Not even Trump would support it.
Not even Trump himself would support it.
Trump would be on true social, or I guess he would be in prison, but Trump would be against it.
100% of Republicans would be against it.
Certainly National Review would be cheering it on.
They would say, today is the day Kamala became the president when she bombed Iran.
But you know that the right-wing populists, the majority of them, almost to a man, would be saying, wow, this is the deep state.
This is the Clinton Kamala machine.
They just want endless wars.
If she didn't release the Epstein files, they would be outraged.
It'd be Magonite at the White House.
And that is the difference.
Now, hear me out here.
A lot of people are going to watch this clip, mark my words, and they're going to say, wow, he wanted Kamala to win.
This guy's a Democrat.
He can't let it go.
He seriously thinks Kamala should have won.
There would have been 3 million more illegals here by now.
People are going to say that.
The reason I am telling you this, and by the way, you know this is a fact.
However, this makes you feel, whatever the implications of this might be, you know, this is a fact.
What I am telling you is a fact.
That much is indisputable.
If Trump pushes something, 80% of Republicans will support it no matter what it is, even if it's a war with Iran.
If Kamala did the exact same thing, 80% of Republicans would be against it.
That is a fact.
You cannot dispute this.
When Trump brings us to war in Iran, as he did last June, 70, 80% Republicans supported it.
If Biden or Harris did it, they would be against it.
You may not like the implications of this.
It might make you uncomfortable, but that is true.
And what does that tell you?
It tells you something about the psychology and the game theory of voting for Republicans.
We have this idea in our heads that we have to vote for the least bad option.
We have to vote for the better option.
You're given two choices.
We have to vote for the one that is the least bad, and that's always the right play.
The Democrats are going to be measurably worse.
So we got to vote for the alternative because there's only two choices.
But this is actually a lie because time actually goes on after the election.
And so you might think, well, we have a choice of Republican and Democrat in this election.
And who are you with?
And you might say, well, I don't like either of them.
And people are going to say, well, that's a vote for the other side.
But time goes on.
Somebody gets elected.
And then there are second order consequences.
You see?
There are actually many permutations.
There are trees of possibilities.
You understand?
So it's not just we get one or the other.
Whether we get one or the other and how we get one or the other actually has ramifications.
There are reactions to this.
There are other dominoes that fall.
Here's the point.
If in every single cycle you say, oh, well, hold our nose, vote for the lesser two evils.
Oh, well, vote for the lesser.
Oh, well, vote for the least bad option.
If you do that every time, you're never going to get anything different.
But if one time you say, I'm not going to vote for that, and then Kamala has the bad war with Iran, she has to cover up the Epstein files, whatever, then maybe it changes the outcome of what type of option you get on the right, what the offering will be in the next cycle.
You see?
So all of this is to say, if you're voting for something that is against your interest, how does that take us to a place where we ever get what we want?
If Trump is telling us we're going to war with Iran and we vote for this and we affirm this and we reward this, then what do you think we're going to get four years from then?
Well, we're not going to be happy.
And what do you think happens when we vote for that?
Again, what do you think will happen four years from that point?
You're not going to be happy again.
And this is the game that we play every two years, every four years.
By rewarding this, by incentivizing this, by affirming this, you're going to get more of it.
And this is the issue that Trump creates.
It's that the GOP, I said this the other night, they're sucking all the resources, support as the rallying point for opposition to the left or under Trump as the rallying point for populist opposition to the entire establishment.
It is preventing any other option from coming to the fore.
And in some ways, you could say it's actually re-entrenching the establishment because now that Trump is in office, now people support this stuff.
If Kambala had won the election, let's say some things that we know to be true.
No Republican would think it was a fair election.
Actually, most Americans would say that Kamala has no legitimacy because she never even won a primary on the Democrat side.
She would be stuck with the crisis in the Middle East, the crisis in Ukraine, an economic catastrophe.
Like all of this is true.
And in 2028, you know, who knows what could have happened?
We just don't know.
It's a big question mark.
But here's what we do know now.
Now that Trump is in office and he's doing all these things, war in Iran, covering up the Epstein files, a lot of Republicans are going to support it.
He's deeply unpopular with the majority of the country.
They're blaming all of this on him.
And now he has soured immigration enforcement for everybody.
He's pissed off the left, alienated the middle.
And in 2028, the initiative is going to be with the other side.
Like this is how you got to think about these things.
So I see these young people on Twitter and they're saying, well, Trump is supporting war in Iran.
So I support it too.
And I'm thinking, this is maybe the entire conceit of MAGA.
MAGA is a handshake between the establishment and the Rubes.
We need someone that's going to destroy the establishment of both parties, the globalists, the banks, the special interests.
What the fuck happened?
Here we are 10 years later, and the logic of Trump Republicans is vote for every Republican no matter what.
Vote for Lindsey Graham.
Vote for Kevin McCarthy.
Vote for Ronna McDaniel.
Vote for the RNC.
Vote for war in Iran.
We don't care if we build a wall or have mass deportations.
The entire conceit of MAGA was to get a nation of people that were ready to revolt and get them back onto the plantation.
A nation of people that were unreasonable, thought the elections were rigged, thought they were being screwed by free trade, mass immigration, foreign wars.
They were ready to burn it all down and get them back onto the plantation being dutiful Republican voters and accepting all the compromises that came with that.
And that's actually a perfect segue into our first story, which is about this editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
And like I said, I'm reading the journal today.
And for those that don't know, the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is a super Zionist and a spook.
He got his citizenship from the Reagan administration, working with the intelligence agencies, building satellites, owner of Fox News, New York Post, friend of Netanyahu.
And his paper, Wall Street Journal, is like the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Commerce, of the business interest.
And there's a very interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal.
It's an editorial, and it talks about the mass deportations.
And like I said at the top of the show, there has been so much said about mass deportations from a cultural and political lens.
When we think about immigration, what we really think about is a cultural social issue.
We think about a largely white majority, an increasingly small white majority, that is frustrated with the influx of immigrants who have a different culture, speak a different language, have created this underclass lifestyle where they're dependent on welfare, where they never assimilate, and where they're actually changing the texture of life of most cities in America because of these ethnic enclaves they're creating.
They're browning America.
And this is how we typically think about it.
And so when we think about illegal immigration, we think about issues of society.
Should these people stay in our country?
Are they contributing?
Are they good people?
Are they real Americans?
What does it mean to be American?
Aren't we all immigrants?
And what does it mean to be an immigrant?
What's the difference between a settler and an economic migrant?
These are the types of conversations that we have.
And then there's also a political conversation.
Well, they're all going to vote Democrat.
And the Democrats want to amnesty them because they're a fixture of the Democrat machine politics.
And people say the Democrats are the party of the marginalized and the racial and ethnic minorities and so on and so forth.
And we've talked about these angles throughout the past year.
We've talked about the pushback from the radical left, how they're fighting ICE.
We've talked about how the Democrat Party shielded the immigrants.
We have talked about how the Democrats are resisting this legislatively, how their allies in the media are putting the pressure on the administration, how Republicans don't like that the issue's in the media because of the midterms.
But this is the angle which is actually the most important aspect.
And it is also the one that is never talked about.
Now, for context, two years ago, I predicted that mass deportations would not happen.
It's why I didn't vote for Trump.
And you can go back, all these shows are on Rumble.
You can go back and watch my show from 2024, two years ago.
And I said explicitly, I said, I will not vote for Trump because the mass deportations are never going to happen.
And I knew it for a fact.
And I was confident.
Why was I confident?
How did I know it?
Well, I said it back then.
It's not just about me.
It's about the ironclad logic of these kinds of factors here.
The reason why is because two years ago, I said, during this election in 2024, what is the central determining factor of the success of the Democrats or the Republicans for that matter?
It's the economy.
How well the incumbent party does in the election is dependent on how good the economy is doing.
And what is happening in the economy in 2024?
Inflation.
Prices are going up.
They're going up because of all the money printing.
They're going up because of supply chain disruptions.
They're going up for a variety of reasons.
Inflation is high.
That is one of the number one quantitative metrics to predict which party is going to win the election.
Now, the Republicans are promising mass deportations.
People are saying they're going to win the election because they're promising mass deportations.
I said in 24, the reason you're not going to get mass deportations is because if you deport 10 million people, which is how many people came in under Joe Biden, what kind of impact do you think that will have on the economy?
Just think about it.
10 million human beings.
That is like if all the illegal immigrants in America, which is 30 million people, if all those people were removed, that would be like if Texas broke off from America and suddenly wasn't counted in the GDP, like Texas or Florida.
If you deported even 10 million, that would be like if you took Chicago and its entire metropolitan area and you subtracted that from the U.S. economy, its GDP.
What would that do to the GDP numbers?
What would that do to the rest of the macroeconomic metrics?
Well, let's say very simply, in the first place, you remove 10 million people, that is 10 million fewer consumers.
That's 10 million fewer people that are spending money on clothes, on food, on gas, on cars, on energy, on rent, on healthcare, on education, all of these things.
10 million fewer consumers.
That's a huge hit.
Well, what else do these 10 million people do?
Many of them work.
Many of them have jobs.
10 million people that are being employed under the table for low wages in construction, hospitality, food delivery, all these kinds of things that are now going to have to be replaced.
Replaced by native-born workers that are going to want benefits, healthcare, minimum wage.
So what does that do to labor cost?
It makes it go up.
You have a huge disruption.
The illegals go out.
Oh, no, we got to find their replacements.
There's a period of adjustment.
And when they find their native-born replacements, the labor cost goes up.
Cost goes up.
You either have to increase prices, hello, inflation, or profits go down.
And profits for who?
Businesses, Wall Street, the corporations that employ them.
Suffice to say, you deport 10 million people, it is going to slow down the economy and it is going to increase prices.
Now, you're Donald Trump in the White House.
You got elected to get inflation under control.
That's why Biden, or ostensibly Kamala Harris, that's why the Democrats lost the election.
Because prices were going up, inflation was high, stagflation was setting in.
So they get killed politically over this.
Trump gets into office.
He needs to bring prices down.
If you're a politician, this is your imperative.
You want to win in 26.
You want to win in 28.
You got to get the prices down or stabilize them.
You got to fix the economy because if you don't, the bottom falls out from under you.
If you don't fix the economy, you get a blue tsunami and then you get impeached and then you lose in 28.
So these are the ironclad laws of politics.
It's the economy, stupid.
If you want to win the election, you got to have a good economy.
If you want to have a good economy, you got to have growth.
You got to have price stability.
Inflation has to hit that target of 2%.
And in this particular time of persistently high inflation, structural inflation, this is all the more important.
Now, factor in some other things.
What else is Trump promising to do in 2024?
He's promising a tariff schedule of 15% tariffs on all goods coming into the country.
Now, I'm a tariff supporter, and I don't believe that tariffs are necessarily a direct tax on consumers.
However, some of the cost of the tariff is ultimately borne by the consumer.
Not all of it.
And I think it's worth it, but some of it is.
Some of the cost of the tariff is ultimately passed down.
So that's already putting upward pressure on prices.
Now you're going to deport 10 million people on top of that.
Now you're going to deport 10 million consumers, 10 million workers, 10 million people that are employed under the table in some of these very important fields, agriculture, construction, food service, hospitality.
I don't think so.
Which is Trump going to choose?
Deporting 10 million people, which is so politically costly, logistically not feasible for the government, would be unprecedented in terms of the effort required to do it.
And it's going to destroy the economy and they get wiped in the midterms and they get wiped in 28.
Or is Trump going to gesture that he's doing deportations, performatively, target the criminals, of which there are only 700,000 criminal, illegal aliens, people that are already a drain on society, and say that they did mass deportations.
And meanwhile, they don't fuck with the illegal immigrants that are actually working.
They don't mess with those good illegals that have been here for 20 years, that are contributing to society, that are bolstering the profits of Wall Street.
Well, now we have our answer.
So 2025, they deport 230,000 people.
It's nothing.
2026, Trump has changed the policy.
He says, well, we're only going after criminal illegals.
And specifically, what have they done?
They have made carve-outs for the illegals with jobs.
When Trump passed the Big Beautiful Bill last year, him and Stephen Miller and Brooke Rollins at Agriculture were devising a plan to give hundreds of thousands of H-2A visas for illegal immigrants working on farms.
It was effectively an amnesty.
Go look it up.
This was a negotiation.
They were talking about taking all these illegal immigrants working in agriculture.
Rollins is Secretary of Agriculture.
And they were going to grandfather them in and effectively say, Well, you're here already.
You're working on the farms.
We're going to give you a seasonal work visa to work on the farms.
And they were going to give this big carve out and shield those people from deportation and effective amnesty.
Now, in 2026, I hear word from the administration from inside that they are not going to do job site raids for companies with more than 50 employees.
When Trump went into a Hyundai factory in Georgia and they deported 300 South Koreans, Trump himself called the governor and apologized and said he wouldn't do it again.
They're making carve-outs for illegal aliens.
It's not zero tolerance.
It's not mass deportations.
They're protecting the labor.
Well, now here we are, 2026.
I'm going to read to you: this is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
This is a conservative paper of record, Murdoch-owned.
This is Rupert Murdoch-owned, allied with the administration, mouthpiece for the business interest.
This is what Wall Street Journal has to say.
It says, quote: America's strength rests on sustained capital investment, but also on a growing supply of labor.
More workers means more production, consumers, and demand.
Doesn't that sound great?
That, you know, that's what I wake up and am concerned about.
I want America to just constantly have more workers, more consumption, more aggregate demand.
It's never enough.
And if we don't have enough white workers, let's bring in Mexican workers.
Oh, not enough Mexican workers or they're too stupid?
More Chinese workers, more African workers, more refugees.
And we're all going to live together increasing aggregate demand, buying products forever.
You know, then we're going to go to the moon and we're going to go to Mars.
Hopefully we can colonize the stars so that we can increase aggregate demand even more.
I imagine a scenario where we encounter extraterrestrial life and they can also consume products and contribute to the gross domestic product.
We can only hope that we can actually expand, put people on other planetary bodies.
There will be more production, consumption, and demand.
But anyway, so this is how it starts.
It says the Trump administration's mass deportations threaten to break that virtuous cycle.
Okay?
It's almost beyond parody.
Let me read that again.
America's strength rests on its growing supply of labor.
More workers means more production, consumers, and demand.
The Trump administration's mass deportations threaten to break that virtuous circle.
Not a vicious cycle of just constantly growing, constantly expanding the economy.
No, this is a virtuous cycle of importing foreign workers to increase production and consumption and the GDP.
It's a virtuous cycle that is good.
It goes on.
The U.S. was already slowly approaching zero labor force growth as fertility fell and the population aged.
And my first concern is, well, you know, who's going to man the factories?
Man, I think about the travesty of men and women being alienated from one another, not pair bonding, not entering the sacrament of marriage and having children.
Our society is dying because it's devoid of love and connection and ultimately tradition and holiness.
Yeah, but like, so who's going to man the factories?
If men and women aren't getting married and having lots of kids and we don't have a ton of kids, I mean, so who's going to make the stuff?
Like, who's going to be insurance agents?
Who is going to man the gift shops?
Who's going to do it?
Who's going to make the missiles?
Who's going to make the Stinger missiles for Ukraine if we don't have kids?
This is a big problem.
It says what kept the country from this demographic disaster was immigration.
The 3,000 person per day arrest quota for immigration enforcement looks like an act of economic self-sabotage.
In other words, we're not having kids to man the factories.
We need immigrants to make up the difference.
If you start deporting illegals, we're sabotaging this plan.
It says, which is, you know, sort of the point, actually.
Research from the Center for Migration Studies finds that the undocumented workforce in the United States is large and overwhelmingly employed across key sectors of the economy.
Many of the 675,000 immigrants deported last year, that's a fake number, by the way, were working to build data centers, manufacturing plants, energy infrastructure, and housing.
Who will take their place when the U.S. has 6 million unfilled jobs?
Who will build the data centers, guys?
You thought we were going to deport 30 million illegals, but wait, who's going to build the data centers so that we can have more chat GPT prompts?
Who's going to build the houses for all the illegal immigrants without the illegal immigrants?
Have you even thought of that?
I know everybody was excited about mass deportations.
Who's going to build the multifamily housing for all these immigrants if we don't have immigrant labor?
Who's going to build the data centers?
It goes on.
Deportations impose costs on citizens too.
The Peterson Institute for International Economics projected in 2024 that deporting 1.3 million workers could raise consumer prices by 1.5% within three years as labor shortages worsen.
Deportations lead to the loss of jobs for citizens, according to the Hamilton Project.
Consumption declines.
The Brookings Institute estimates that the U.S. lost between $40 and $60 billion in consumer spending because of deportations.
And that slows economic growth.
There it is.
I mean, you didn't think of this.
Deport 10 million Venezuelans.
Think of the hit to the GDP.
As a businessman, a taxpayer, and an American with roots in this country that go back 400 years, I want to see us keep growing as we have for the past 250 years.
I believe the vast majority of Americans feel the same way.
The question we need to ask is: what is the ROI on our investment in ICE ICE?
This is the part that nobody wants to talk about.
It is all about the economics.
That's really what it is at the end of the day.
Why is it that we need to bring in millions and millions and millions of immigrants?
Well, you don't even really need to ask this and wonder aloud because it's a testable hypothesis.
When did immigration increase the most?
1990.
It was the 1990 Immigration Act under George Bush, which basically doubled every category of immigration.
Green cards, chain migration.
It created H-1B.
It created these visa programs.
The Visa Lottery.
Everybody knows about the 65 Heart Seller Act.
It was the 1990 Immigration Act, which actually increased the quotas, increased the limit of how many illegal immigrants could arrive.
And who gave us the 1990 Immigration Act?
George Bush, a Republican.
President George Bush gave us the 1990 Immigration Act.
Chain migration, Republicans.
Visa lottery, Republicans.
H-1Bs, Republicans.
They invented it.
And who lobbied for the 1990 Immigration Act?
The Chamber of Commerce, of course.
The Chamber of Commerce representing the business interests.
Because they on Wall Street are measuring the macroeconomic trends.
They are measuring the collapsing fertility rate.
They are measuring the trend in terms of population growth and the future workforce and the size of people which will be beneficiaries of the government, retirees, dependents, as opposed to productive people.
And so they lobbied for us to accept more Hispanics, more Asians to do these jobs that Americans could not do because there's not enough of us, because we're not being born.
And this is why then the propaganda was created.
There's all sorts of political interest behind it as well, but this is just the narrative that serves as the pretext.
America's going to become a big and welcoming country, and we are a nation of immigrants, and the American dream is for everybody, and the blessings of liberty were secured not just for white men, but for people from anywhere.
Why was this mythology created?
So that white people would get comfortable with their replacements.
White people would get comfortable with the economic migrants pouring in from the countries that still have a high fertility rate, who are going to replace the children that white people never had and were not going to have.
And what is the incentive to bring these people in?
It's literally just a math equation.
If you're a business and you're making things or selling a service, what's your number one cost?
You got to pay rent on your factory, on your farm, or whatever.
You got to pay for the land usage.
You got to pay for your taxes.
You got to pay for your capital, your machinery, your equipment.
But probably your biggest cost is your labor.
It's the people that are working there.
If you're running a farm, it's the people that are picking the grapes, picking the berries.
If you're running a hotel, it's the people that are turning over the rooms, turning over the beds and the bathrooms.
If you're a construction company, it's the people that are hammering the nails that are doing the work.
So they want immigrants to come over here and work as cheaply as possible.
Immigrants that are going to come here, and because they are not actually citizens, or in some cases they are, but there's another way in which the workers are dependent on their employers, like in the case of H-1Bs, they want people that are going to come over and, in a word, accept a lower quality of life, lower wages, becoming an underclass, dependent on government to subsidize their lifestyle with some small wages.
And if you could get that cost down with a constantly increasing supply of labor and people that are working basically without regulation, you keep that cost as low as possible.
And that means your profits can go up.
If the cost goes down, the profits go up.
The revenue is fixed.
If you could get the cost down, you get to keep more of what you bring in.
It's that simple.
And so Wall Street, which buys and sells the companies and the companies, which are becoming conglomerates and highly centralized, well, it is in their economic interest to have this endless supply of labor as a distinct class.
The people that own the businesses, whether they're running the businesses themselves or they just own the stocks or they're the asset managers, they want to keep the supply of labor flowing so that profits go up, so that their assets appreciate in value and they get richer.
And those are your billionaires.
Those are your billionaire class.
That is your billionaire, corporate, business-owning class, which is subsidizing the Republican Party.
And at the end of the day, that is the dirty little secret of the GOP.
Let me put it to you simply.
The Republican Party subsists on donations and funding from the billionaire business class, but they subsist on votes from the middle and working class.
That's where they get their votes.
They get their votes from states like West Virginia, where they're coal miners, states like Texas, where they're cattle ranchers, states like Indiana, where they used to make things, where they used to be factories, but they get their funding from Wall Street.
So how do you reconcile these two positions?
Because these are economically at odds with one another.
Well, you create someone like Trump.
And Trump is going to play up the cultural social angle and even the economic angle for the voters and say, build the wall, deport them all.
We speak English, not Spanish.
This is countries for Americans, heritage Americans, whatever.
Then you get elected and you don't deport the illegals that are actually working.
You make a show of it because you need those voters.
You deport the criminals.
You make these gestures.
You convince them somehow that you're doing something that you're not actually doing.
And then when you actually go to work as the president, you protect the economic interests of your donors, of the billionaires.
And that's the dirty secret of the GOP.
Why are you not getting mass deportations?
It's not because Stephen Miller didn't figure it out.
Okay.
That's not why.
Look, they got $90 billion for ICE.
They've got the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
They have the jurisdiction.
They have the money.
They have the authority.
They could do it.
And they were doing it.
When Trump first got in, ICE was accidentally deporting people from their jobs.
They were arresting people at the meat packing plant.
They were arresting people at the Hyundai plant.
They were arresting people in the Home Depot parking lots.
They can do it.
They were doing it.
Trump told them to stop.
He explicitly and specifically told Stephen Miller to stop doing those things.
Why?
Because he got the call.
He got the call from the asset managers.
He got the call from the banks.
He got the call from Wall Street.
They got nervous.
They read the news.
They saw job site raid, illegal immigrants not showing up to work, afraid of being deported.
And these people that watch the news closely to get the edge, trading stocks and speculating, they said, uh-oh, we got a problem.
We have persistently high inflation.
We have a Federal Reserve chairman that won't bring interest rates down.
We have a tariff war and a trade war with China.
And now, in the middle of all this, our slaves are not going to work because they're afraid that they'll get deported by Trump.
So they called Trump up.
They called up the commerce secretary.
They called up all the different people in the cabinet and they said, shut it down.
Our slaves are afraid to go to work.
And if we can't get them to go to work, then we got to hire American.
And Americans want health care.
Americans want a living wage.
Americans need to be trained up because they've been excluded from this job market for 30 years because a decision was made that they would be replaced by foreigners because that's cheaper.
So Trump called up Stephen Miller and said, we got to stop.
We're going to give H-2A visas, H-1A visas to the illegal farm workers.
He said, we're not going to deport people from job sites.
We're not going to go to a job site with more than 50 workers.
We're not going to implement E-Verify.
Instead, we're going to have these visible patrols of ICE, right?
We're going to have ICE just walking down the street, border patrol parading around downtown Chicago so that all these liberals can take their pictures and go on TikTok and Republicans will say, oh boy, the deportations are happening.
Look, there they are in uniform parading around the streets.
You can't vote for Trump and say, I hope he's going to do mass deportations for me.
Why would he do that?
He's going to do mass deportations because you're uncomfortable with diversity?
I don't like that my school is all Hispanics.
I voted for Trump so he can remove these people.
Trump doesn't give a fuck about that.
He doesn't live with them.
You think all the immigrants live on in Mar-a-Lago?
You think the immigrants live in Palm Beach?
The immigrants work at Palm Beach.
The immigrants don't live in Trump Tower.
They don't live in Mar-a-Lago.
They work in Trump Tower.
They work at Mar-a-Lago.
They're delivering Uber Eats and Doordash in the Trump Tower lobby.
Okay.
So there's no culture clash for Trump or Tucker or any of these people.
It's a culture clash for us because we have to share the commons with them.
So that's the dirty secret of the GOP.
You want to know why you are never going to get them?
Because the billionaires that fund the GOP employ these people and profit off of them.
That's why.
It's got nothing to do with anything else.
So if anybody tells you otherwise and says, well, you know, I feel like Trump is going to do it.
I feel like Trump is our guy and the posters are in control.
And look at this press release.
Dude, fuck the press releases.
People say, look, the Department of Homeland Security X account just posted a meme.
That doesn't matter.
That's some intern.
That guy is getting paid $40,000 a year.
Okay.
That is some shithead that is getting paid a pittance.
And he's all jazzed up.
He's texting mommy and daddy.
I'm working in the Capitol.
I'm working in DC.
That guy has no power.
That guy is a nothing.
Posters are in control.
JD Vance is following somebody on Twitter.
The DHS account posted a press release.
Yeah, that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.
I wipe my ass with that.
You know what matters?
Jamie Dimon has Trump on speed dial.
That's what matters.
Okay, the head of BlackRock, Larry Fink, he's got Trump on speed dial.
That's what matters.
And those people are not nativists.
Okay.
They're not reading V-Dare.
They're not nativists that want heritage Americans to preside like what?
They don't care about any of that.
They're literally building skyscrapers for their bank, which is dependent on the macroeconomic success of the country.
That has very little to do with how you feel about the fact they put a Mexican ice cream parlor in your neighborhood, you know?
So it is just a flawed way of thinking to think that these people that write substack articles have more power and more influence over the Trump government than the fucking billionaires that gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars.
You see the problem?
You're following some 35-year-old burnout that makes 40 grand a month posting articles on chronicles and a substack telling you everything's under control.
Trump is listening to us.
And you think that guy has more pull over the government than Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon.
And that's insane.
That's mental illness.
So this is why you actually need an insurgent candidate that is truly disruptive.
You need someone that is going to take on the billionaires.
You need someone that is going to take on the money power.
As Spengler wrote, you need a true Caesar-like figure who is going to rally the popular power, the people power, the national power against the money power.
Because that's what it is.
It's money.
Money, you know, it's sort of like medium is the message.
It has this inertia all by itself.
The market itself has to be stopped by the state.
That's what has to happen.
Anyway, so that's that Wall Street Journal editorial.
Very, very important point to understand for anybody that would place their hopes and dreams and aspirations on the next Republican being based.
And did you notice?
This is the last thing I'll say, then we'll move on.
You know what's really interesting?
Have you noticed that all of a sudden, some of the planners at Davos are now saying that maybe we have too many migrants?
Have you noticed this?
That all of a sudden, Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink and Hillary Clinton, they're now saying maybe we're taking in too many migrants.
Why do you think that is?
Do you think it's because they got red pilled?
Why do you think the United States is shutting down its borders?
Why do you think the United Kingdom is going to try to control regular migration?
Is it because they had an epiphany and the people have had enough and they got based?
It's because we are just now starting to see technological unemployment.
We are just now starting to see the disruption to the labor market caused by AI.
Soon, we're going to have a very similar effect with robotics.
And what do you think happens when AI and robots start replacing all the white-collar and blue-collar work?
You're going to have a lot of unemployed people.
What are you going to do with all of them?
Now, all of those producers and workers who are also consumers, as this article says, they're now going to become beneficiaries of the state.
They're going to be on UBI.
And the more of those people you have, you got a lot of problems.
Because these are a lot of people with nothing to do all day.
And they're going to need very expensive health care and they're going to need housing and they're going to need food and other stuff.
So now all of a sudden, now the central planners say, I think we maybe have too many migrants.
Maybe this is a problem.
Well, that has everything to do with the macroeconomic trend, which is that pretty soon, maybe we're not going to have a need for labor.
There's a question, you know, will there be labor?
What kind of labor will there be in an economy where we have an artificial general intelligence?
Now, I'm not going to weigh in on whether these predictions are true or whether they're overstated.
All I'm saying is the reason what is true is that some of the planners are now expressing doubt, and that's calculated.
Hillary Clinton doesn't say a word, which isn't choreographed.
So it's not like she made an offhand remark.
This reflects a changing consensus among these elite circles.
And it doesn't have to do with these nativistic sentiments.
It has to do with the change in the macroeconomic projections of the people that are paying her speaking fees and buying her book.
That's why you're getting that.
So it just speaks to the fact that that is what drives everything.
And ultimately, that is what we have to get in front of if we want to have real change.
So anyway, that's the Wall Street Journal.
I do want to get into the situation in Iran.
And we're running out of time here a little bit.
We're an hour in, but I'm going to talk about Iran because this is a really big deal.
We are into our coverage of the imminent action in Iran.
And today we have another update for you.
The buildup of military force continues.
Second aircraft carrier strike group has entered the Mediterranean Sea as of today.
That is the USS Gerald Ford, our biggest, most advanced aircraft carrier, which is joined by three destroyers, has entered the Mediterranean Sea and is on its way to the Middle East, where it will join another carrier strike group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as a number of other warships, aircraft, personnel that have been forward-deployed.
That aircraft carrier, once in place, will put the United States in a position as soon as Saturday to launch an all-out attack on Iran.
This is according to the latest information from Axios and other sources close to the administration.
They say that as early as Saturday, we will be in a position, offensively and defensively, to start the attack on Iran.
And this is a story from the New York Times.
It says, quote, the rapid buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East has progressed to the point that President Trump has the option to take military action against Iran as soon as this weekend, according to officials inside the Pentagon, leaving the White House with high-stakes choices about pursuing diplomacy or war.
Mr. Trump has given no indication that he has made a decision about how to proceed, but the drive to assemble a military force capable of striking Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, and accompanying launch sites, has continued this week, despite indirect talks between the two nations on Tuesday, with Iran seeking two weeks to come back with fleshed-out proposals for a diplomatic solution.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program, including an agreement not to enrich any more uranium.
The prime minister of Israel, whose country potentially might take part in an attack, has been pushing for action to weaken Iran's ability to launch missiles at Israel.
Israeli forces, which have been on heightened alert for weeks, have been making more preparations for a possible war.
And a meeting of Israel's security cabinet was moved to Sunday from Thursday, according to two Israeli defense officials.
Many administration officials have expressed skepticism about the prospect of reaching a diplomatic deal with Tehran.
The indirect talks on Tuesday in Geneva yesterday ended with what Iran's foreign minister said was an agreement on a set of guiding principles.
The U.S. said the two sides made progress, but added that big gaps remain.
So let me set the stage here for you.
We'll do a little bit of background, then we'll talk about where this is going imminently.
So as you know, we are in the second leg of our campaign against Iran.
It all started last year.
I mean, really, it goes back much further than that.
But in the second Trump administration, it started last year.
As soon as Trump got into office, Netanyahu started coming by asking us to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which we then did.
We engaged Iran in negotiations, came to an impasse, and then Israel provoked Iran into a war, and the United States intervened to cripple Iran's nuclear complex by bombing Fordo, Esfahan, and Natans.
And so we resolved the issue temporarily.
And we resolved the issue temporarily by increasing Iran's breakout time.
What is that timeline?
How long will it take for Iran to get a nuclear bomb if they decide they want one?
What is that timeline?
Before those strikes, it might have been three months.
If Iran made the decision, they'd have a primitive device in three months.
After the strikes, maybe it's two years.
So that's what that accomplished.
Well, Netanyahu has started coming back, came back in December, came back again recently.
He came back, I believe it was last week.
And once again, Netanyahu is asking for another attack on Iran.
And this time, Netanyahu is asking us to bomb their missiles.
Israel says that Iran is going to preemptively attack Israel this time.
And they're going to do it with ballistic missiles.
And so the United States has to go in and bomb Iran's missiles before they get a chance to do that.
So this is where we are.
Now, after Netanyahu came to visit the United States in December, these protests mysteriously started out of nowhere in Iran, and they threatened to topple the government.
The United States was going to intervene, maybe to push over the regime.
But we didn't have enough assets in the region.
We only had one carrier strike group.
We didn't have enough defensive capabilities.
Our troops were vulnerable to a retaliatory strike.
So Trump called it off.
But at the same time that he called off the strike, he started sending in a huge force package to remedy the situation.
So Trump started sending in a ton of warships into the Middle East and a ton of missile defense systems and started moving our forces out of harm's way and started moving in aircraft and cargo ships and refueling aircraft and all kinds of assets to prepare for a possible attack on Iran and to defend against a counterattack from Iran.
And a couple weeks ago, Trump gave them an ultimatum and he said, either you are going to fully surrender and capitulate to our demands or we are going to destroy your regime.
And since then, the United States has been engaged in diplomacy with Iran.
I say diplomacy because that's not really what it is.
They've opened up indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran.
And this was done at the behest of our other Muslim allies.
Only after an intense lobbying effort from Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, the Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, did the United States relent and they gave Iran one last chance to make a deal.
Now, this is a very important thing to understand, okay?
A lot has been said about these talks.
They are being called negotiations.
They are nothing like that.
That is not what this is.
I've seen this for the past three weeks.
I've even, you know, used improper language about this.
These are not negotiations.
That is not what is happening here.
Okay.
For the past three weeks, yes, Washington and Tehran have engaged in indirect talks.
They are not negotiations.
Why?
Because the United States is not negotiating.
Understand the difference.
Last year, arguably, the United States was negotiating.
And Steve Witkoff and some of the other personnel were looking for a creative solution where Iran is going to give some concessions and maybe we would accept some technical concessions.
But then we bombed them.
And now they're weaker than ever before.
They are in no position to negotiate from the perspective of our administration.
Their proxy network has been destroyed.
Their nuclear program has been buried underneath rubble.
The only thing that really threatens Israel and our bases is their ballistic missile program.
That's it.
And so from the perspective of Washington and Tel Aviv, they are almost neutralized.
They're badly diminished.
So the United States engaging in talks is not the same as negotiations.
We're not going to compromise.
We're not going to change our position.
What was expressed in Oman last week and what was expressed in Switzerland yesterday was not a willingness to negotiate, but rather we are giving Iran a chance to capitulate to our demands.
That's what that was.
Let's be very clear.
The United States has been firm from the time Trump made the ultimatum several weeks ago in Oman and in Switzerland.
The U.S. position is, this is where we are.
You got to meet us here.
Now we're going to meet in the middle.
Now we're going to work something out.
The White House, the press secretary, the Secretary of State, the envoy, the president, the vice president, they have all said, our position is you're giving up enrichment or you're going to die.
And that's it.
And Iran is trying to stall for time.
Iran is begging them for negotiations.
The Ayatollah gave a dispensation for Pazeshkian and Iraqshi to negotiate.
And they are making these concessions.
Well, we'll agree to limit enrichment for three years.
Well, we'll give up our stockpile of enriched uranium.
And the United States is saying, that's great.
We love to hear it.
But there's still a long way for you to go between what you're offering and what we're asking for.
The United States is not moved by this.
Now, what does that mean?
As we've talked about, what is the substance of the negotiations?
It concerns nuclear enrichment.
Iran has the ability to enrich uranium, the infrastructure, the technology, the expertise, the raw material.
And the United States is telling them you have to give it up.
And they are telling us they will never give it up.
That's really what it is.
And that's what it was last year.
And that's what it was when Biden tried to negotiate in 2023.
And that's what it was in 2020.
And that's what it was in 2015 when the JCPOA was agreed upon.
That is the impasse.
They have enrichment.
We want them to give it up.
They refuse.
Where does that leave us here today?
Well, like I said on Telegram and like I've been saying, the United States and Israel perceive Iran as weaker than ever before.
And so now we're engaging them in this gunboat diplomacy where we put an armada off their coast, point the guns at them and say, surrender or else.
And like I said, people are calling these negotiations, it isn't what it is.
From the perspective of our side, we are in a position either to extract all the concessions we want, or we're going to do a regime change, or we're going to bomb them.
And then whatever is remaining is going to make a deal.
But that is really where we are.
All of this is to say we are going to get military action.
A deal is not in the cards, okay?
And the reason I'm insistent upon this is because I saw an interview today between Steve Bannon and Kurt Mills.
Kurt Mills is at American Conservative and he's wrong about everything.
I probably agree with him on most things, but he's one of these analysts that's very Israel critical, but also very pro-Trump.
And he was there last year saying that we're going to get a deal with Iran.
Oh, Israel bombed Iran.
Well, we'll never participate.
Oh, we participated.
Well, at least it only lasted a day.
Kurt Mills is back for another round of being wrong about everything.
I saw him on Steve Bannon today and he said, if the United States insists on zero enrichment, then we're not going to get a deal.
But if we concede, then we're going to get a deal.
And I hear this.
There's a lot of optimism.
There's a lot of talk.
There are a lot of headlines.
It's bullshit.
Don't listen to it.
Okay.
The headlines say progress has been made in the talks.
The talks have been constructive.
Both sides say the talks have been good.
These are press releases.
Press releases from the other side.
Actually think about what is at stake here.
Actually think about what is said.
Think about what the actual actors involved are thinking and what they want.
The headlines, of course, are going to say the talks are good.
Of course, it's going to say that.
Of course, Iran is going to say they were productive.
Read between the lines.
The United States is saying there are gaps between our position and theirs.
They've got two weeks to meet us where we are.
What does that sound like?
That's an ultimatum.
Now, if the United States is giving Iran an ultimatum, then you have to think about, well, if they're not going to change their mind, will Iran?
And the answer is no.
If Iran has come this far, they're not going to give up enrichment.
They've been tricked by the United States.
They don't trust the United States.
They think the United States and Israel are in cahoots to destroy Iran.
So why would they give up enrichment at this point?
They believe that they're going to get bombed anyway.
So why are they engaging in negotiations?
Well, just like the United States, they're not going to budge on their position.
They're engaging in negotiations to buy time.
If they can buy another two weeks, that's another 150 ballistic missiles that they can throw at Israel all at the same time.
If they can buy another month, that's 300 missiles.
It's another dozen attack helicopters from Russia.
It gives them more time to put the leadership underground and protect them from a decapitation strike.
So people are saying, in other words, I hope these negotiations work.
I hope they're going to make a deal.
I wonder how the talks are going.
They're not real talks.
It's not really happening.
So where does that leave us?
Well, we're going to war.
As a matter of fact, we've been in a war.
We are in a war.
We have been in a war.
What else do you call it?
What else do you call it when we are engaging in industrial sabotage in Iran for years?
Economic sanctions against Iran for years.
Secondary sanctions against Iran, against their other trading partners.
What do you call it when we're assassinating their leaders, when we're bombing them, when we're bombing their proxies?
What do you call that other than a war?
We are in a state of war against Iran, and we have been for a long time.
And we are going to strike Iran again in this war.
The question now is, what is that strike going to look like?
And what is the goal right now?
Well, let's talk about what the strike looks like.
It's helpful to consider the actual forces that are assembled.
So this is from the Wall Street Journal.
It talks about the size of the presence that has been assembled.
It says, quote, the U.S. is sending significant numbers of jet fighters and support aircraft to the Middle East, assembling the greatest amount of airpower in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. is ready to take action against Iran, but President Trump hasn't decided whether to order strikes and whether the aim would be to halt Iran's nuclear program, wipe out its missiles, or to topple the regime.
So it's two questions.
Will he strike and what's his end game?
Like we talked about, I think it's a certainty that he will strike.
Over the past few days, the U.S. has continued to move F-35 and F-22 jet fighters toward the Middle East.
A second aircraft carrier loaded with attack and electronic warfare planes is on the way.
Command and control aircraft are inbound and critical air defenses have been deployed to the region in recent weeks.
The firepower will give the U.S. the option of carrying out a sustained weeks-long air war against Iran instead of the one-and-done midnight hammer strike that was carried out last June.
Options include a campaign to kill scores of Iranian political and military leaders with the goal of overthrowing the government, as well as an air attack that would be limited to striking targets, including nuclear and ballistic missile facilities.
Both would involve a potentially weeks-long operation.
As formidable as the buildup appears, however, it is just a fraction of the assets that were deployed for the 1991 Gulf War or the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
For the former, the U.S. deployed six aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.
And for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. Air Force positioned 863 aircraft in the Middle East.
Desert Storm in 1991 included 1,300 aircraft.
So the reason that it's important to consider the size and the scope of the force is because it tells you what they're planning.
In 1990, when we invaded Iraq, we had 1,300 aircraft, six aircraft carriers.
In 2003, we had 900 aircraft.
And we had a coalition with the United Kingdom and other countries.
200,000 troops invaded Iraq.
We don't have anything close to that assembled in the Middle East right now.
Two aircraft carriers, squadrons instead of wings.
So maybe you have 100 aircraft in total as opposed to 1,000.
Two aircraft carriers as opposed to six.
50,000 personnel as opposed to 200,000.
What does this tell us?
Well, if that's the size of the force, then it's not going to be a ground invasion.
And I know that sounds like, of course it's not a ground invasion, but you never know.
Because here's the thing.
If you want to topple the Iranian regime, you can't just defeat them with air power.
You're going to need a ground force to go in and actually kill all their soldiers.
You're going to need a lot of soldiers on the ground to go and actually secure the cities and the infrastructure and kill the personnel and gain control over the country.
If you don't do that, well, then there's still going to be a million Iranian armed forces and revolutionary guard tomorrow or a week after your air campaign and there's still going to be a chain of command.
So you actually do need a ground force to have some replacement government to actually have regime change.
If that's not in place, then it doesn't look like they're going to pursue a ground war or a regime change war.
So what is this force equipped to do?
If it's not going to be Desert Storm, if it's not going to be Iraqi freedom, what is it going to look like?
Well, this looks like the force package that was assembled in April 2024 and July 2024 when the United States was there to simply deter Iran from going all out against Israel.
It was a deterrent.
It looks like the force package that was assembled last June when we bombed Iran once from the United States.
It was missile carriers in the region that launched some Minuteman missiles at Iran's nuclear complex.
It was B-2 stealth bombers from Missouri, which actually flew to Iran and bombed Fordo and Natans with the bunker buster bombs.
It wasn't even anything from Diego Garcia, wasn't anything from the region.
So if the force package resembles those instances, then what you have is this.
Probably enough force to carry out an air campaign and enough force to defend U.S. personnel against a counterattack.
It looks like that is the type of force that they have in place.
Now, what kind of air campaign can we expect?
Again, that's really the question.
Is it going to be an air campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear complex and missiles?
Is it to destroy what is left of their nuclear program and to prevent them from making additional missiles and launching missiles at Israel so that the country has a degraded defensive capability?
Or is the goal here to kill all of Iran's leaders?
Because that could be the purpose, to go and bomb heavily fortified facilities where Iran's military and civilian leadership are hiding out.
In the former scenario, we are making Iran weak and vulnerable, potentially for future negotiations.
You destroy their missiles, you destroy their nuclear program, and then you can basically impose regime change on them.
And really, there's no reason to negotiate with Iran at that point.
They got nothing left.
It'll take them years to rebuild.
In the other scenario, you kill all the leadership so that they are replaced from lower in the chain of command, and then they negotiate.
It's helpful, I think, to look at what happened in Venezuela.
We put one carrier strike group off the coast of Venezuela.
We didn't even really kill that many people.
We didn't even really do any serious airstrikes.
What did we do in Venezuela?
We plucked out one guy, and then what do we do immediately after?
We put a carrier off the coast.
We bombed some of their fishing boats.
We bombed one of their ports.
We plucked out their top guy.
And then what remained was pliable and willing to negotiate.
Maduro was succeeded by his vice president.
And now she is giving an audience to our Secretary of Energy.
And you got this, which is so insane to think about.
We kidnapped your president.
The vice president succeeds him.
And now she is standing on a stage with our energy secretary who is here to take all their oil.
Hi, nice to meet you.
You just kidnapped my boss.
Now take all of our oil.
Let's pose for a photo op.
But what was the MO there?
What was the Trump 2 MO in Venezuela?
It was using a limited amount of power, using a limited amount of, you could say, smart power, hard power, but employed in a limited and restrained and smart way to decapitate part of the regime.
You could call it a partial decapitation, not even necessarily a regime change.
I like the word decapitation because the regime did not actually change at all.
Same security apparatus, same political apparatus.
It's all the same.
We just took out one of the top guys.
And then, and this is the most important step, we went to the successor and said, okay, now what do you want to do?
You can come to New York and we can put you in prison too, because we own you, we can do these things to you, or you can make a deal.
And Maduro's successor said, okay, I'll make a deal.
I'll give you all the oil.
Maybe this is what they're going for in Iran.
And maybe that's why it worked out this way.
They did Venezuela first, and then they sent the same aircraft carrier from the Caribbean to the Middle East.
And they're telling Iran, you're going to surrender.
You're going to capitulate.
You're going to make a deal.
We put this huge presence there.
We demonstrated our capabilities in Venezuela.
We demonstrated our ability and willingness and resolve to use force.
And now we're going to do something to Iran.
What specifically it's going to be, it's hard to say.
Maybe it's both.
Maybe we go in and for a week, we just rape them.
Like we just destroy their missiles.
We destroy what's left of their nukes.
We kill a ton of their leadership.
And then whoever gets up in the rubble, whether that's Iranian armed forces, who knows?
It's some element of the opposition, which has been collaborating with the CIA or something.
Whoever remains after the week of bombing, we're going to go to that guy and say, all right, are you ready to negotiate now?
And maybe that's the play.
Maybe that's what it looks like at this point in time.
And the reason I say that is because if you don't have a ground force, slash, if you don't have popular opposition on the ground, which is armed and trained, like in Syria, and they were al-Qaeda, but whatever, if you don't have some form of a ground force, if you don't have an alternative regime to take the place of the existing regime, then you can't do regime change.
You can bomb them to kingdom come.
But if you don't have ground forces, if you don't have someone with legitimacy, with an organization that's ready to step up, the regime will not change.
You're just going to kick the can down the road until the next time you got to bomb them after they've rebuilt their defenses.
So if these things are not in place, then that leads me to believe it's not a real regime change.
You're not going to topple the regime with a week of bombing.
So what's really the goal here?
Well, again, you may not change the regime, but you can kill a lot of people in the regime and you can destroy a lot of their stuff.
And after a week of doing that, maybe whoever is left with whatever is left is going to be far more willing to make a deal.
Maybe that's the play.
And I continue to believe that the administration on some level must recognize that an all-out war would be catastrophic.
We are in a midterm election year.
Do you think the Trump administration believes it is wise to engage Iran in a protracted war like Iraq that is going to go on forever?
No.
They don't want to be fighting a war in Iran in November.
They don't want to be fighting a war in Iran where oil prices get jacked up because the Strait of Hormuz closes, where Americans are getting blown to smithereens in Aludaid and elsewhere.
They don't want it to go on for a long period of time.
They want it to be quick, painless, and they want to succeed.
And I think that is their thinking.
So that would lead me to believe they're going to use their limited amount of force in the region for another smart decapitation strike.
And maybe as an alternative, or on top of that, they're going to degrade Iran's defenses.
And on the other side of that, They're going to have something like what you saw in Venezuela.
Maybe it's not even a regime change.
Maybe you just get a president who's going to work with us.
Maybe you get an Ayatollah, or maybe the Ayatollah is dead after this.
But you're going to get a government that can negotiate with the United States that will not resist.
Now, whether that is successful is an altogether different question.
How successful will this operation be?
It depends.
And will there be a pliable regime or remnant of the regime that is willing to work with the United States?
That seems unlikely.
But we just don't know.
We don't know who's going to die, who's going to be killed, who will be remaining, and how their psychology will change after seeing what we're capable of.
But I think that is going to be the approach.
And I think it's going to happen within a matter of weeks.
I don't think that the United States intends to be hanging out there with all of this force in the region indefinitely.
I don't think they want to do this later.
I think they want to get it done as quickly and as soon as possible for contingency's sake and for other reasons.
So I think we're going to get within two to four weeks, you're going to get a major air campaign.
It's going to target the missiles.
It's going to retarget nuclear.
And I think it's going to target some element of the regime, probably specifically the Ayatollah, because ultimately, he is holding up the deal.
The Ayatollah is the supreme leader.
The Revolutionary Guard answers to him, and the Revolutionary Guard built the proxy network.
He will not allow Pazeshkian to negotiate much of the time.
He is the sovereign of the country.
It is an Islamic Republic under the control of jurists led by the top cleric, the supreme leader.
He's the symbol of the regime.
He's the head of state.
He's the sovereign.
So I think that that is roughly what it's going to look like.
That's my guess right now.
If I were to forecast it, and this stuff is never precise, but if I were to forecast it, that is my best guess based on what we have in the region.
Of course, anything can happen.
But given the two positions, what's being said by the White House, what's being said by Iran, what either side is willing to accept, the amount of force there, that's not too big, but it's not small either.
Midterm election, the timeline, political constraints.
I think you take all that information together, and that's about as good of a picture as you're going to get about what this is going to be.
And here's the thing.
Ultimately, you know there is going to be a confrontation because Israel wants it.
And that's really all you need to know.
You might think it's political suicide for Trump to go to war in Iran.
You might think it's geopolitical suicide to pursue regime change in Iran.
You may think this is totally insane and a terrible idea.
And I agree with you.
As to whether it is likely, think about what is more likely.
Think about how far Israel has come here.
They have defeated Hamas.
They have defeated Hezbollah.
They have defeated Bashar al-Assad.
They have removed the Revolutionary Guard from Syria.
They've gotten the United States to bomb Iran's nuclear program.
They've got a favorable president in the White House.
They've got a favorable party in the Congress.
In a word, Israel has come all this way in the past two years.
So much fighting, so many bombs.
They've expended so much political capital.
They've lost the affection and the support of the world.
And everyone hates them.
And their ultimate goal is regime change in Iran.
That's what all of this has been for.
Rolling back the proxy network systematically, destroying Iran's strategic weapons, its missiles and nukes, and then cutting off the head of the snake.
And once you have a favorable regime in Iran, Israel has hegemony over the Middle East because they're the only nuclear power.
They have a qualitative military edge guaranteed by the United States.
And all the countries there will be under the suzerainty of the United States.
Look, I like Pat Buchanan, and I agree with him about immigration, and I agree with him about the Israel lobby.
But we are an empire, and we really have been for a long time.
We've been an empire since like the 1890s.
So I never agreed with that.
I never agreed with this paleo-libertarian, paleo-conservative idea that we're this little chungus republic.
You know, we're this post office with the U.S. flag, and we're going to have a little diner.
No, we are an empire.
We have aircraft carriers.
We have, you know, thousands of nukes.
Like, that's just what we are.
So, and that's what we were always destined to be.
It's geographical determinism.
We're insulated by the oceans.
We have a super massive population.
We have all this territory and all these resources.
And we're an industrial superpower.
And so all we can do is expand.
It's just what we are.
It's just like built into our political form is that we are an empire.
And you may not like that.
And there's aspects of it that you might not like, but that is what we are.
And that is how we have to play.
A country like this cannot just be a little country.
Okay.
And I really resent this like small town America thing where we're deluding ourselves and saying we're just like an ice cream parlor and a post office and a town hall with a little American flag and we're just the Boy Scouts.
Okay, but we're signing up for the military to go on aircraft carriers, of which we have 10 in a global war against communism.
And, you know, we're making a billion bombers and tanks and we have colonies, bro.
What's Puerto Rico?
We're an empire.
That is what we are.
And I like that.
And I like that.
And I disagree with Buchanan on this.
So I don't have to, you just seem like a low IQ person, honestly.
You just seem stupid.
You talk about Pat Buchanan, but you disagree with him on this.
Yeah, I mean, look, Pat Buchanan red pilled me on demographic replacement, but he also lost.
He also lost.
So I don't, you know, and maybe this is like sacrilegious.
He's inspirational and he's right about a lot of things.
And I think he's a hero, but he lost.
And the reason that you are able to lionize him is because he lost.
If he won, they would be vilifying him like Hitler, but he lost.
So they lionize Richard Nixon, these Republican dorks.
They lionize Buchanan.
They lionize Trump.
Why?
These people are losing.
So we need a winner.
And we need someone that's going to fight for America first and actually deliver it.
And, you know, look, Pat Buchanan made a lot of mistakes.
He endorsed George Bush.
Never forget that.
And ultimately, this whole Buchanan brigade thing, you know, who knows?
Maybe it was just too low energy.
Maybe we need something a little more imaginative.
I've tried sounding it out. Sydney Watson until today, because I could just feel from seeing her stupid face in the thumbnail that it would go exactly the way it went.
After all the nagging and interruptions, how did you not punch this fucking bitch in the mouth?
Beth Murray said in $77 sent $20 diplomatically and with respect to your voice as a real Catholic would mean so much to the issue of Carrie Prejean Boiler and free speech.
Your super chat was not nasty diplomatically and with respect.
I take it back.
Okay.
I shouldn't have been.
I apologize.
I shouldn't have been rude to you.
But maybe I read that wrong.
When you say like a real Catholic like you should be weighing in on this, I apologize.
I jumped the gun.
I misread that.
I read it in a different way than it was written.
But that is how I feel about it.
I really, to tell you the truth, in a less hostile way, I really just feel like you already know what I'm going to say about it.
It's not going to change anything.
It's not even really an important battle.
I feel sorry for her.
Obviously, it's not justified, but she's not going to get rehired.
We all already know there's much bigger battles to fight here.
That's why I'm not really going all in on that one.
Someone says El Fold.
It's not a fold.
I legitimately misread it.
I barely listen to these super chats.
I heard real Catholic and my cortisol went through the roof.
It's like the first guy says, Pat Buchanan would have never done this.
Then this one, a real Catholic.
And I just, I was like Bruce the Shark and finding Nemo.
You know, I smell blood.
I just went apeshit.
I chimped out.
I went full Camera Soans.
No, but I apologize.
You're a friend of the show.
I shouldn't have gotten nasty.
I misread your super chat.
But legitimately, that's why I'm not all over that one.
Because I think, in my opinion, that is just part of this genre of slop where people are, it's like, there's a lot of stuff that matters in this country with organized Jewry.
And some of these things are just the downstream effects.
You know.
And what I choose editorially to cover on the show is a choice in and of itself.
I'm really interested in the way that power works.
I'm interested in the Warner Brothers deal.
I'm interested in the war in Iran.
I'm interested in the macroeconomics of mass migration.
This kind of like, you know, I got hired by Israel R Us, criticized Israel, got kicked out.
It's like, okay, you don't go to McDonald's and insult Ronald.
You know, you don't walk into McDonald's and say, I fucking hate Ronald McDonald.
I mean, he has this theory that the races were created because of this, like, I don't know, there's like other people in the beginning of the genealogy that we have to infer the existence of.
And I don't, here's the thing: like, I don't need to go back to the book.
Like, there's clearly black people and white people.
You know what I mean?
So he's like, well, and I don't know what that theory is.
That's the first time I had ever heard it, but we were talking about it.
And he's like, yeah, so, you know, at the beginning of humankind, like there's some other part of the genealogy that's missing.
And that's why there are races.
And I'm like, I know there's races because I've met them.
I already liked the stream from a few months ago when you covered how orgs like the NCRI function helped uncover depths of what government acquisition of data to circumvent the 4-A plus Palantir plus Elon Equals.
I ride with my Wag AF, Sniff Vuetes, Clifficular, Sean Strickland, Bryce Mitchell, James Fishback, Casey Puss, Yay, and the millions more in attendance.
Well, I mean, a religious debate is just going to be a stalemate.
I mean, he's a Muslim.
I'm a Catholic.
I don't think you really resolve things with debates when it comes to religion.
And because if you did, one of them would have won by now.
Well, and that's what I said.
I said, I don't know that God would have chosen Arabic.
And Sneeko said, well, what?
Do you think he chose English?
You think Jesus was in a suit and tie?
It's like, no, but as a Muslim, you believe the Quran is in Arabic.
You believe that Arabic is like a holy language.
And it's not like that in Christianity.
We don't have anything comparable to the Quran in the sense that the Quran is co-eternal with God and Islam, which is in itself a contradiction.
And they believe that it is a transliteration from Allah's speech.
We don't believe that about the Bible.
We believe the Bible is divinely inspired.
We don't believe it is the actual direct literal word of God in the sense that God spoke it.
It coexisted with God.
And you know what's sort of interesting is that I'm just thinking about this now.
You know, what is the Quran to Muslims?
Well, for them, it's the word of God.
We have the word of God.
It's called Christ.
God eternally begets the Son.
The Father eternally begets the Son.
The Father, God, thinks of himself, and that is the begetting of the Son.
And that's creation.
And, you know, so there's this idea that there's God and then there's the Word of God.
And the Word of God and God are co-equal.
They're both God, distinct, but the same.
And Muslims kind of have something similar in the sense that they've got the Quran, which, I mean, they wouldn't say it's the word of God, but they would say it is eternal with God.
It is the word of Allah.
It's holy like Allah.
And yet they say they're, but they're monotheists.
They say Tawid, there's only one, but it's like, it seems as though the Quran has this divinity.
It's sort of, there's an interesting similarity there, maybe, but our Bible does not function in the same way that the Quran does.
And so I said this some time ago.
I said, well, I don't know that God would be speaking Arabic.
You know, I don't know that that would be his whole thing.
And Steeko's like, well, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
That's like the same thing.
And it's like, yeah, but it's not really the same thing, actually.
Maybe don't, but any chance the protracted Russia-slash-Ukraine conflict is related to making it more difficult for Russia to support Iran during the current tensions?
thank you for the money $20 your most underrated candace bit was the one where you said if you run into candace in a dark cali and all you see are her teeth and eyes lol the visual is hilarious that's just like the most basic Say, Leecha sent $20.
Any Texans in the chat, please vote for Doc Pete Chambers in the primary and get that fake out of office.
Red Hard emoji, you Nick.
No Launchie sent $20.
Hey, Nick.
My soon-to-be-born son has no name yet.
What's the best non-Groy per name you can think of?
My Mexican chuck sent $20.
What does my little Mexican chud think about Pam Bondi topless at Myrtle Beach?
Vel Ceeser 13 sent $20.
Went to Moraine Valley for political science and policy hills and work at the GNC and Home Depot in Lawrence.
There was a little pancake house at the end of town.
We live in a mega city.
What are you talking about?
In the middle of downtown, which is a suburb in the middle of a giant metropolis?
Like, what are you talking about?
There's a blueberry pancake house at the end of town.
You say that like we're in the middle of nowhere.
We're in the middle of the prairie.
At the end of town.
It's literally in the fucking middle of town.
It's literally next to City Hall.
You're talking about what is it called again, even?
Blueberry Hill?
Which sucks, by the way.
Place sucks.
I never eat there.
But Blueberry Hill, it's literally across the street from the city hall.
It's at the end of town.
Yeah, it's next to the city hall, which is in the middle of the downtown business district, which is in the middle of the historic district of all the old architecture, which is inside the southwestern suburbs, which is huge.
So like, what are you talking about?
At the end of town, it sounds like it's a theme of the past.
It's very much still there.
Blueberry Hill is very much still there.
It's all still there, okay?
I mean, LaGrange has been better than most.
A lot of these suburbs have fallen apart.
LaGrange is still holding out.
Okay, Blueberry Hill would survive a nuclear blast, unfortunately.
It's not even that good.
Well, I'm not going to put you on.
I'm not even going to put you on.
But there's other good breakfast places in the area, but that ain't one of them.
And there was a blueberry pancake house at the end of town.