All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2025 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
53:58
Faith, Power & Chaos: My Conversation With Nick Fuentes - SF636
|

Time Text
Naturally Integrated Phenomenon 00:06:38
Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Brand and Russell trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
Hello, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
I'll be talking to Nick Fuentes.
Don't think I'm not self-conscious about not having a shirt on.
I am a bit, but I don't know, man.
I favor authenticity over a lot of other values.
That doesn't mean I'm not sometimes duplicitous, disingenuous, and dishonest.
Of course, I am.
I'm fallen and I fall into dishonesty frequently.
But today, in my conversation with Nick Fuentes, I tried my best to follow the line.
Indeed, if there's a moment that defined that interview, it's the one where I say to Nick Fuentes, I want to be, I don't want to be like some kind of Mrs. Doubtfire, where over here I'm talking to people that are Jewish and I'm saying, yes, no, well, of course, after all, of course, you deserve a homeland.
And yes, and I don't want to be over here saying like, oh, it's terrible, what's going on in Gaza.
Isn't that what integrity means?
That we are integrated, that we are fully integrated with ourselves and with our Lord and please, God, with one another.
So we have a pretty good conversation.
We talk about the significance, obviously, of Charlie Kirk's death.
We talk about the protests in the UK over the weekend.
Indeed, if I may be so bold, I think that in this conversation with agitator Nick Fuentes, who I've seen described in liberal and sort of leftist circles in the most discriminatory and condemnatory terms, I tried to have a good faith conversation.
And I think that we discovered in it some important points about how modern media is impacting power and that the defining attribute of modern media using Malcolm McLuhan's famous edict, which Nick Fuentes cited, the medium is a message, is that if the medium is the message in the old days meant the medium is print media and TV, that means it's centralized and it's controlled, either state or commercial.
And these days we have diffuse, decentralized media, then we're living in a time of pivotal change.
And Charlie Kirk's murder is an indicator of those changing power dynamics, ongoing attempts to centralize, control, and sanitize information, regardless of whether you think what qualities or assets, attributes you assign to his murderer.
The fact, the absolute fact, the key fact, the important fact is that he, Charlie Kirk, among others, is a modern phenomenon of new technology, primarily, even though Charlie Kirk's views are sort of very traditional in a bunch of ways.
He's a modern phenomenon.
I think you'll like this conversation.
If you're watching us on YouTube, my understanding is that Nick Fuentes' content is heavily censored there.
And I must say, I don't think that's right at all.
I don't think that's right at all.
But I would think that whoever I was talking to, unless they were shirtlessly screaming obscenities about one ethnicity or a particular ideology or an individual, I really am learning that there is only one authority.
That authority is not human, nor can it be.
Okay, so here's the conversation.
If you're watching this anywhere other than Rumble, click over and join us on Rumble because it's too hotly contested and controversial to put anywhere else.
And if you don't have Rumble Premium yet, get Rumble Premium now because I financially benefit from that as well as in a more general sense, it consolidates my audience and means that I have some ongoing influence, even as I face criminal trials in the United Kingdom, civil trials in the United States, spiritual trials every second of my waking life.
But we rejoice when we face trials of any kind.
Here's me talking to Nick Fuentes.
I'm joined by Nick Fuentes.
Hello, Nick.
Hello.
Thanks for coming on here today.
I suppose the main things that I'll want to talk about is our mutual and shared love of our Savior, Jesus.
If it's okay with you, I'll want to talk about some people connecting the assassin of Charlie Kirk to your work, but I've only seen that in particular places on the left.
Your very, I thought, dignified obituary or acknowledgement rather of Charlie Kirk's death.
Perhaps we'll very, I suppose, with whatever level of sensitivity we consider to be appropriate, discuss what Candace Owens has been saying about the potential attempt at intervention into Charlie Kirk's life by what do we say powers or connected to israel and then i reckon it'll probably naturally lead to us talking about the political and religious entity of israel so that i can sort of better
understand it and we'll just see what comes out of that naturally shall we all
right mate so absolutely yeah sounds good well thanks nick fuentes well like one of the things i know about you is that you are very very uh overt and passionate and clear about what you believe in and certainly that seems to succeed in the media space that we all operate in now i've got to say that when um even actually prior to charlie kirk's assassination that very day in fact i was doing a live stream and i felt like i can't keep doing this i can't keep having these kind of
conversations and endlessly pontificating on cyclical a cyclical news agenda whether it's putin meeting g i don't know whether a sort of near peer alliances across the world if that is good or bad for people in general when compared to american imperialism then like um israel had killed some hamas leadership in qatar i think and the ukra russia had bombed poland a little bit or at least some missiles are going to push territory and i felt like look this is also complicated i don't know i don't know what to
say and then married to that nick i was thinking about like everything that gets thrown into the maelstrom of our culture whether it's crack a barrel change in its logo or things that are more impactful than significant is so divisive and utilized and i felt a little bit exhausted by it how do you feel like do you think that like charlie kirk is almost a princess diana moment of like a sort of a sort of in some places unearned sentimentality in other places very real grief in other places exploitation in other places more
Significant Political Moment 00:09:15
division does this feel to you as objectively as you can be to be a sort of a significant moment any poker moment even and do you feel um emboldened by it encouraged in some way by the response or does it make you feel kind of exhausted well
it's it's always difficult to say so soon after it happens because in the moment it feels like the biggest thing and it seems that the world will never be the same uh but of course we've seen a lot of things like that over the years and we hardly even remember them years later i think about like the pandemic as an example some days i wake up you forget that even happened and that was such a and obviously had ripple effects but um you know do they have a grip on us sentimentally years later not as much but
i do think it is um a truly significant moment in politics i think that for political people especially for young people i think it is going to have a chain reaction and the question is whether that's going to be good or bad i think this is part of a larger trend of uh political violence on the left um and usually i'm not that guy i'm not the right left guy i try to be a little bit more um profound than the the partisan kind of thing but
of course it draws obvious comparisons to the luigi mangione shooting to the trump shooting last year um and as well to the school shootings by many similar individuals you know whether they're trans or whether they're um you know other kinds of extremists weird spirituality kind of stuff um so i think what people are saying about this maybe the big picture on all of it is what is happening to the young people online and with politics and
this is kind of like the it's like a violent assertion of the nihilism that we see on the internet in the real world this is something that is like unseen a lot of older people don't understand it uh but there's something really wrong here um and so i think this is maybe a visible and profound expression of it where it entered the real world maybe that's going to be the legacy here you I think that's an excellent assessment.
Yes, something that we've all become accustomed to online, vitriol, invective, somehow safely contained within the screen, a kind of like methadone rage that's not going to really hurt anyone except for maybe your feelings if you read too much of it, has now had real-life consequences.
I would agree.
Now, do you, how do you connect it to what seems to be a broader trend?
The online media pundits, commentators, influencers, and activists, a category that would include to varying degrees, certainly Charlie Kirk, yourself, and even me, perhaps, and the direct impact of these voices on meaningful political outcomes.
Do you feel, Nick, that in part, the big one of the larger struggles that may be defining our culture is this attempt to manage and continue to centralize information as technology affords a kind of information diaspora.
Do you think this, do you think, in short, aside from your assessment that it's likely by your analysis, although we've mentioned that other people are saying it's like literally a fan of yours?
I mean, I don't know because I like, you know, I don't trust no one basically, really.
So I'm not like, I'm not trying to push that on you, and I don't figure you'd care.
You seem like a pretty bold man.
Do you feel that Charlie Kirk's murder is in a way part of this sort of somewhat nebulous but also general struggle to control information that leads sometimes to outliers?
Again, that would include you, me, and Charlie, being either smeared, attacked, or shut down.
Because whether you agree with you on things, and certainly I'm sure we'll discuss some of the things that you and I disagree on, that the people that have most to lose, the institutions that have most to lose from this new discourse are old systems of authority that are struggling to cope with a new information landscape.
I absolutely do.
And it's interesting that you say that because who is being blamed for the murder?
Let's set aside for a moment who actually did it and people's thoughts on it.
What is the perception of the public?
People think on the right that it was a radical leftist on Discord, a sexual, deviant, you know, transgender, a furry, someone from anti-fi, anti-fascist, a communist.
What do people on the left believe?
It's the Nazis.
They think it's people further to the right than Charlie Kirk, who hated him for being too moderate.
And if you look at the polling, the young people are very convinced.
The right's convinced it's the far left.
The left is convinced it's the far right.
And I can't help but notice that when people blamed me, it was so effective.
It's possible that it was organic, but it seemed to me like it came from the top down.
It seemed to me like this was a narrative that was pushed in an organized way, just based on how quickly and how much saturation it achieved in a short time.
Although it's possible it's the madness of the crowds in a crisis like this.
And you have to wonder, when you look at society, it's not static, it's dynamic.
People talk about a pendulum swinging back and forth or a dialectic.
There's sort of a thesis, an antithesis.
What is on the other side of what we're seeing now?
Who is being blamed?
The far right, the far left, foreign powers.
On the other side of that conversation is a call for something like digital ID, something like censorship, centralized.
We can't let radical political thought fester.
We can't let foreign intel manipulate us.
So what's the answer?
There needs to be a regulated media environment.
So I do suspect that there is something very dark and sinister happening.
And you hit the nail on the head.
It actually does have to do with information and who controls the dissemination of information.
So that's spot on.
And that's like next level.
That's got to be the next conversation on this.
We can't make this content without the support of our financial partners.
That's simply the nature of the deal that we have with Rumble.
I have a minimum guarantee.
We sell advertising space on the channel and that goes towards the money that I get from Rumble.
That doesn't mean, though, that I don't believe in these messages.
Indeed, I have commercial relationships with partners whose products I believe and I pray will be of some benefit to you if they are.
Bye-bye.
Do me a favor.
You're poor and you've got to do something about it.
Getting rich in 2025 is actually simpler than most people think.
Is it?
You don't need years of experience or a fancy degree from Harvard that leaves you in debt.
You can actually start earning in a few weeks, whether it's a high-paying job or you just want to launch something your own.
AI isn't just helpful anymore.
It's required.
Nearly all jobs today demand AI skills.
Yes, they do.
As chances of people who are skilled with AI is 130% more than the rest, worry not.
I've got good news for you.
This is an AI course to help you get adept at using AI.
The robots haven't taken over yet.
They're about to.
You better learn to be friends with them, robots, or they are going to unemploy your ass.
This weekend, you can join the two-day AI Mastermind Workshop by Outskill, the world's first AI-focused education platform, is happening this Saturday and Sunday from 10 p.m. to 7 p.m. on both days.
By attending 16 hours with expert mentors, learners from Outskill have built and shipped over 100 AI products, all with zero code and working revenue models of $3,000 to $4,000.
Now, this training normally costs $895, but I've partnered with Outskill to give away 1,000 free seats exclusively for my viewers.
This is a brilliant opportunity for you.
If you're one of my viewers, you can get an $895 seat for nothing.
Become an AI expert, then serve the revolution.
However, this is only available for the next 72 hours.
That's three days in old money.
That's nearly $900,000 worth of training completely free.
$900,000.
Although that's spread across the people, I mean, no one person's getting that, are they?
That's like saying, like, that we've between us, we've got free wives.
I mean, but you've got yours.
Isaac's got yourself got mine.
And unless something crazy happens, that's the way it's staying.
During the two-day live training, this is live, by the way, you'll get 10 powerful AI tools, prompt engineering, automating your workflows, and building AI products without code.
I can't stress enough, this is without code.
Thank the Lord for that.
Limited seats are available and they're filling fast.
Grab yours now via the link in the description.
You're quite right to, I hope I'm saying this right, direct us towards a kind of quono argument.
Who benefits from this?
And from that perspective, Nick, left and right become kind of almost tepid adjectives, left, right?
Who cares?
As long as it's an extreme person, we can legitimize ID, online, control, surveillance, censorship, and that's plainly the agenda.
Rush to Judgment Exacerbates Divide 00:11:37
As soon as information became distributable in the manner that it has done, the legitimization of control became very important.
And I'm looking at the significant markers that are concommitted with this type of technology.
They include, obviously, 9-11 and the Patriot Act, 2008, and the social movements, whether it's like the Tea Party or Occupy that came out of that.
And then COVID, which we've touched upon, and you're right, that COVID has already been beautifully neglected and sort of consumed by our cultural amnesia.
And I feel almost because it was such a general and ubiquitous that it somehow actually becomes more forgettable.
This is like such a spike that I feel functionally this is gonna be a clearer marker.
Because when I was trying to look for a precedent, Nick, I had to look at the political assassinations, I suppose, of the kind of 60s.
And Charlie Kirk, in so many ways, couldn't be more different from Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Kennedys, and the people that, you know, gosh, even if you think of a pop cultural figure like John Lennon, say, it Charlie, Charlie Kirk is a product of his time, even though he's very traditional and conservative and all of those things that are sort of at the forefront of Charlie Kirk's public identity.
As a sort of a phenomenon, he's part of a movement that's primarily, I would say, connected to the near, the as yet not fully realized potential of these new information resources to affect real life outcomes.
And the fact that he, as you said, is like a spilling over of online social dynamics into real life through violence.
I reckon that might be an indicator of the broader dialectic here.
We are experiencing old institutions realizing that they cannot robustly control in the way that they once did information.
So whether you're saying, hey, everyone should be trans or Palace rights for Palestinians or the kind of content that you're more commonly associated with or that I'm more commonly associated with.
The thing that we all have in common, even where we disagree, is we're sort of arguing for, and this is interesting, I think, Nick, because I think it's essential.
The ultimate argument, would you agree, is centralized power versus decentralized power.
Even though a lot of the time it's presented as a tribal argument for who controls the center, perhaps the solution is there is no center now.
There isn't a center in the same way.
You can't aggregate power in the way that you once did.
So I suppose that's in a way just a further exploration of some of the things that we'd already said.
If that's true, do you think that we should be exploring ways of seeking truces, alliances, or at least less combative discourse with our opponents?
Absolutely.
And it's, you know, it's so funny.
I feel like we're very aligned on this.
Maybe we have a similar reaction to it because, you know, it's not lost on people that there are real cleavages in society.
There is real tension between the races, the religions, the genders, the partisan sides.
And so the powers that be did not create those tensions, but they do exacerbate them all the time.
And they exacerbate those tensions for, you know, that's where the word conspiracy comes from, for a sort of unseen, concealed agenda, which is convoluted and sophisticated.
It's not easily accessible.
And I got the sneaking suspicion that that is what this provided, which was an opportunity to drive the right against the left, especially when there does seem to be maybe some consensus forming.
I know a lot of my clips were becoming popular among liberals and left-wing people because of my criticisms of the Trump administration, of the conduct in Israel.
And to the extent that there's a horseshoe, you know, or a far right, far left, you know, maybe realizing they have something in common, this gets in the middle of that process and says, no, we're going to see now a rerun of the right versus the left.
And now the right has got to puff up their chest and get angry at the far left.
And so on my show on Thursday, I said, like, we actually need to not take the bait and not lean into our first instinct, which is to get angry at all leftists or all liberals or demonize the other side.
And we should really isolate it out and say, obviously, people that want political violence, that's unacceptable.
People that encourage or incite terrorism, that can't be allowed in a free society.
That's antithetical to a free society.
And we should take the opportunity actually to show magnanimity and benevolence to the other side and really kind of stand against any forces that would try to use this to manipulate us because they really count on people because it is so sensational to get whipped up in the moment and then become irrational.
You know, maybe a week ago, people realized right and left might be an artificial divide that they kind of exacerbate when it's convenient.
When you see someone get their neck exploded like that, it suspends reason.
People forget and they just want to see the other side pay.
So I do think it's an opportunity to, and although it's difficult for the right, find some consensus, not necessarily with the people that want to shoot us in the head or disrespect a vigil or something like that, but with people that want to see America succeed.
And they exist on the left also.
I've been surprised in the last five years in particular how ideals that had strong affiliates with one side of that presumed divide have mobilized and transferred.
Like even now, I've seen several very highly regarded people that are on the right who prior to the election of Trump, I would have found natural affinity with when it came to the subject of free speech, say, saying people that have said appalling, appalling things about Charlie Kirk posthumously ought be punished in some way.
And it's difficult for me as a person that I'm really trying my best and obviously failing to observe principles.
And I suppose it's not a principle if it can't withstand the vicissitudes of a culture.
That's not a principle then.
Now we're dealing with utility.
I agree with free speech over here, but not over here.
And I was sort of surprised, you know, because I think someone on the left that I watched said, well, when we were saying you oughtn't be able to criticize trans people or whatever, you were saying there's no such thing as hate speech.
And now people are saying pretty disgusting stuff about Charlie Kirk, God rest his soul.
You're saying that, you know, they should be punished.
So like, how do you find, do you have challenges in observing principles when you must be aware as we all are about what aspect of your content is successful?
How do you resist and how are you impacted by what you know to be effective about your online content and work?
Well, I have to say that there's always a temptation because the crowd goes one way and always based on instinct, always based on emotion.
And even in my case, it wasn't even so much against the left with my audience.
They wanted to rush and blame Israel.
That was the first gut reaction of my audience.
And in this case, I said, I'm certainly not reluctant to blame Israel for one thing or another if there's evidence.
I mean, based on who I am, I said, but, you know, he was a pro-Israel guy.
So, I mean, that would be like saying a Ben Shapiro got taken out, God forbid, and people said Israel did it.
I don't, that would be pretty far-fetched, no?
But that was kind of the rush to judgment on our side was it's the same suspect.
It's always the same culprit.
And I guess for me, it always just goes back to you have to tell the truth.
You know, I think that a lot of people, and that seems obvious, but what a lot of people find themselves doing when they talk about these things is they want to satisfy an emotional craving or an emotional state.
And you really need to be careful.
Am I telling the truth?
Am I being objective?
Am I looking at the facts?
Or am I saying these things to satisfy something that I'm feeling right now?
Because I think that's what a lot of people are doing.
Another thing that they do is they tend to fall back on this kind of heuristic level thinking or like a rule way of thinking where they say something bad happens.
Oh, well, Israel is implicated when bad things happen.
Or, oh, a right-wing person got shot.
It came from the left.
We have to get away from that kind of heuristic based thinking and think more in terms of maybe zoom out and get a broader sense of perspective.
And I think think in terms of second and third order effects.
We have to be a little bit smarter than just kind of like our first gut reaction.
It's like we just said a moment ago, you know, yes, everybody's first impulse is people are making us unhappy.
Punish them.
People are saying these things.
We got to go after them.
We have to think, though, what is the knock-on effect?
What's the chain reaction?
Okay, we punish these people.
What do they do next?
What do they do in a year?
What do they do in two years?
What does the government take away from this?
What could be justified down the road?
We always have to be a little bit smarter than we want to be in a moment like that.
But that takes some patience.
It takes time to develop that sense.
When I saw Bob Villan, who's like a British kind of garage or drill hip-hop artist after Charlie Kirk's assassination, like this, so sort of delighted in profanity that I actually, I feel like I might have like a old lady.
I may have gasped.
I may have gone, oh, I may have like clutched my pearls literally, you know?
I then sort of tried to think, how can I be, you know, how can I have a reaction that's even interesting or useful?
Forget content making, I mean, actually, actually, in the real essence of who I'm and who I want to be and who I'm trying to be.
And I thought, do you know what came to me when I even invited such a perspective that in 2001 on the 12th of September, I dressed as Osama bin Laden just because I was aware of how much sort of tumult there was in the culture.
I wasn't famous yet.
I was like hosting on MTV, but it was the same as being on local radio, really.
It wasn't, it was no kind of big deal, but I was sort of full of appetite for fame and attention.
Authenticity Amid Accusation 00:06:47
And when I saw Bob Villen doing that, I was like, oh, that's, I know that.
That's that thing where just because something big is happening, you want to kind of move into it in some way.
And either you can move into it with sanctimony or you can move in it like a vandal tossing stones at it.
Now, I guess what I'm trying to do, like you're saying, is be authentic and truthful and be of some use and some value.
And I'll be honest with you, I don't find that easy.
And I found it harder still since in, you know, like, you know, I got accused and charged, in fact, with rape in my country.
And when after that, I'm still dealing with it.
I've got to go to trial next year in June for it.
But the sort of real life consequences of, of course, you know, a very sort of promiscuous past and a very selfish and sinful and in many ways exploitative past, I think alloyed to my current position in online media and the impact of that,
particularly probably around COVID and subjects like war, though I don't have a full understanding, although I have a better understanding than I once did, of, as you say, how these conspiracies are somewhat diffuse, multi-valent, not immediately obvious, and probably participants that aren't even aware of their own participation.
Do you know the reference I always use here, Nick?
And I wonder if it's a reference you're familiar with.
It's somewhat interesting because it's already sort of like tinged in nostalgia.
Probably about 30, maybe 40 years ago, Andrew Ma, a British journalist for the BBC, was interviewing Noam Chomsky, probably Noam Chomsky at the height of his esteem and excellence.
He's probably thinking about it now, promoting the manufacturer of dissent.
Although that seems like a, excuse me, the manufacturer of consent, which seems like a ridiculous idea because it's such sort of an important book, but to imagine him being on a book tour or whatever.
But when he's doing the BBC interview, Andrew Maher, the now yet more esteemed BBC TV journalist, said, You know, in your book, Manufacturer of Consent, you say that all journalists are told what to say and that we've all been conditioned and we're all participating in manipulating the public.
Well, I'm a journalist and I'm not doing that.
No one's told me what to say today.
I'm saying what I want to say.
And Noam Trumpsky says, No, you've misunderstood.
What I'm saying is, if you weren't saying what they wanted you to say, you wouldn't be sitting in that chair.
And people don't know the way that institutional media functions and what the complexity of those relationships are and how the sort of channels of what seems to me now to be a pretty extremist ideology, even if you separate religion, even though I do consider this to be spiritual war.
In fact, that's one thing that I'm increasingly certain of.
The organized power behind these various institutional actions is described in scripture.
That's what I believe.
And I'd love to know what you think about that.
But the way that media, state, global corporations operate together to essentially maintain and increase control is an organized planned intelligence.
And I think you could basically call it the devil or evil or Satan or whatever term, you know, seemed most appropriate to you.
So I am, I recognize how diffusion complex it can be.
That said, Nick, like, you know, I'd love your response just to, you know, that great barrage of language I hurled your way.
And, you know, the fact that some of it was kind of personal, of course.
But also, I'd like to add to that.
Do you will move in the direction of talking about personal responsibility and love when commentating on issues that can generate a lot of vitriol?
So I guess you'll know where I'm going based on that.
Yeah.
I um, well, I mean, you're describing the survivorship bias, you know, which is that everybody that's in media, everybody that's, it's sort of like what you see versus what you don't see.
Everybody that's in media has been kept around, and that's for a reason.
It's because, you know, either they're a conventional thinker or they're not rebellious or what, you know, they're predictable or something like that.
And I think that you're right.
People just don't understand the dynamics of how and where the power actually comes from.
I don't think they actually, because it is a complex dynamic, the interplay between media, state, military, and something that I've been really in on or really focused on over the past few years is how it seems that everything is downstream from the national security state in particular.
A lot of people like to think in terms of everything's about profits, you know, like left-wing types.
At one time, they talked a lot more about the CIA and about the Pentagon and the military.
Now I feel like all they talk about is the billionaires and the wealthy and the 1%.
The more that I look at the media environment and the longer that I've been doing this and analyzing it, the more it seems that everything in the society proceeds from the interests and the needs of the security state.
And in particular, its posture towards foreign countries, its posture towards Russia, its posture, and then necessarily towards its allies, because it needs its allies as a bulwark against its enemies.
And then, of course, how that reflects the domestic conversation.
So, for example, if there is chaos in America, let's say there's days of lead in America, political violence, chaos, who does that benefit?
You know, the qui bono, that benefits America's adversaries necessarily.
So, does it behoove America's adversaries that want to see us fall to lean into that kind of division?
Conversely, it benefits the American security state for there to be stability because there's 350 million people.
How many soldiers?
A million?
How many cops?
In order to keep everything stable and everything orderly, they need people to actually choose stability, choose lawfulness, et cetera.
And so, there is more that rests on the stability of the society than the force of the state.
It's also the belief of the people in the political order.
They have to believe it's legitimate.
And if they don't, then they don't follow the laws.
Maybe they take some of the government's power from the government.
They start to manage their own affairs.
Society starts to federalize or confederate.
And so you start, once you think like this, you realize things have to be a very specific way.
And the media has to condition and enforce that.
Education has to condition and enforce that.
Rejuvenate Coffee Revealed 00:02:55
Entertainment has to condition and enforce that.
And then a lot of how things are starts to make a lot more sense.
And in some sense, we have to live with that.
I guess that's how it will always be.
Here's a quick break now while we go to one of our partners.
Whoever you are, you might consider yourself a businessman or woman or person, or I don't know, maybe you don't have a gender or don't want one.
That's not the key issue here, though.
The key issue is 1775, a delicious coffee.
Let's be honest, most coffee, all it does is it helps you to organize a stool in that inward back pocket you call the butt.
What does it also do?
It leaves you feeling all down, jittery, foggy, and needing another cup of coffee.
You can only trust 1775, the one true coffee of revolution.
Rejuvenate coffee is science-backed coffee.
Coffee backed by science.
And not Anthony Fauci science.
Oh, I made up some sad stuff.
I was giving people AIDS.
Oh, I've got a beagle in a cage.
I put my fingers up their butt.
That is something Anthony Fauci has admitted to.
Have you read the real Anthony Fauci by Bobby Kennedy?
It's understood that Anthony Fauci.
He keeps beagles in his yard and he puts stuff up there, butt, makes shit all over the cage.
Fauci doesn't care.
He makes them wallow in it.
Anthony Fauci cannot be trusted, but rejuvenate, science-backed coffee can.
It's real Arabica beads.
Arabic cadabra, I say, because it makes me feel absolutely magic.
It's infused with C-A-A-K-G, which is kind of like a rifle, you know, like an assault rifle, but it's assault in your central nervous system with delicious beans, Bebe.
A compound shown to support cellular energy, metabolism, and even healthy aging.
You don't want to sit deteriorating in a chair, shitting yourself, drinking Starbucks.
You need rejuvenation.
It's built for people who take their health seriously, who want to show up with focus and strength every single day, like me.
If you care about how you feel now and how you'll feel 10 years from now, this is your coffee.
Go sevencedifycoffee.com forward slash me probably and order rejuvenate coffee today.
Fuel your body, protect your future, rejuvenate you sick perverts.
I don't know.
I mean, that sort of seems to me to be a very accurate analysis, Nick.
Consider, just taking two examples, how radically, as we've touched upon already, technological advancement has altered the world of communications in the way that we have discussed.
And some plain examples of its impact beyond just cultural comms, say, might be Napster's impact on the record industry, online media's impact on the outcome of Trump 2016, let alone last time Trump, and Brexit 2015 or whenever that was.
The Rise of Social Media Populism 00:15:23
Additionally, the emergence of something like Uber and the impact that would make on an industry like minicabs, wherever you are in the world, or Airbnb on the way that the hotel and rent or short-term rental industry would operate.
That technology has radicalized, revolutionized, I think, every one of those areas that I've listed.
And yet, there is an attempt to maintain rigidly stasis within the most important systems of power.
And I would agree with you that in a sense, a billionaire is merely symptomatic of the types of permanent powers that you allude to with the, you know, the sort of the free letter agencies and whatever they're an expression of, whatever they are an expression of.
So earlier on, we touched on the need to resist our first reaction, resist the temptation to participate, because even though you said there is a requirement domestically for stability within that stability, of course, it would be, you know, you want healthy, not healthy debate, you want actually vitriolic debate within that window to ensure that the sort of that polarization in itself ensures an energized stability.
What you don't want is people to say, look, do you know what actually?
If people are that concerned that Texas is run this way, let people run Texas that way.
And in fact, we have such a good example of this outside of your country, my own country, the UK.
There's that massive Tommy Robinson march, I'm sure you're aware, at the weekend.
And what was fascinating, we had a correspondent, I'm going to call him, even though another way of describing it would be my mate Joe.
My mate Joe Wen, who, you know, he was corresponding, we corresponded.
He said that when he was talking to the sort of patriotic British folk that were all about, you know, let's face it, it was a lot of it was motivated by migration.
But I see migration as symptomatic of a deeper problem, as a matter of fact.
And focusing on Islam and migration, I think, distracts us from whoever it is that benefits from that kind of hostility towards migrants.
Not that I'm saying if people don't want migration, if you live in a democracy, that's the end of that conversation.
Let people have a referendum.
Job done.
But he was saying that when he was speaking to the masked Antifa, pallid and demonic, that's my definition of them because I've seen the footage.
They loathed Keir Starmer as well.
Now, the thing that's interesting about Keir Starmer, and Lord alone knows it's not easy to find something.
The thing that's interesting about Keir Starmer is that he is exactly that type of bureaucratic, managerial, neoliberal WEF Davos type politician that has been annihilated through the rise of MAGA populism and Trump in your country.
There is no consensus.
I don't know how the UK government can survive if the people on the left detest you, if the people on the right, and even the right is now a broader category, even though they try to bolster with further adjectives, far right, hard right, smelly, disgusting right.
You know, they try whatever they can, but it just seemed like normal British people at this point.
Like, I wonder if what we're being informed by this is that were we able to legitimately deploy the communication technology that has revolutionized the industries that I iterate at the top there, Nick, in a political sphere, power would fundamentally and radically change.
And a precursor to that change might be the type of truces and alliances that we touched on at the top of this.
I wonder if we think about all that.
I totally agree.
I think that, you know, a lot of people don't realize that the technological revolutions have actually taken place in waves in the past 30 years.
And what a lot of people, this is something I've talked about on my show before.
You have the internet, you have email, and people think that the internet is synonymous with the later developments like social media or smartphones, but they're not.
They're distinct.
We've had internet, email, personal computers for a long time, but smartphones and social media, that achieved mass adoption way later than you think.
It happened around 2012.
And I always think, is it any coincidence that I think the adoption of smartphone and social media hit more than the majority around about 2012 or 2013?
Is it a coincidence that it was in the very next election in 2016 that you saw the rise of right-wing populism?
Because they are distinct.
It's like you got iPhone in 2009, Twitter, YouTube around about the same time.
They reach this adoption about five years later.
Then you get populism.
Then you get Occupy.
Very soon after, you get right-wing populism.
And what happened right after Trump won?
You had the antithesis.
You had censorship.
You had a government attempt to cool off a very hot technology.
And they did it through things like this.
It was Christchurch.
It was, you know, the various other mass shootings, Dylan Roof, among others.
It was not even just the social media.
They tried to get the telecom companies involved, the domain registrars.
There was like a full-fledged attempt to basically undo the development of this like very hot medium of information.
You know, the medium is the message.
And what you've seen in reverse, that's not mine, by the way, that's Malcolm McLuhan, Malcolm McClune.
I was thinking about it today.
I was thinking about it today.
Carry on, please.
Yeah, absolutely.
But what you've seen now in the past five years, what's really interesting to me, this is yet, to me, unresolved.
All of that has now been reversed.
Elon acquired Twitter in 2022.
TikTok coming from China has different regulations than American social media because they don't have the same kind of NGOs and nonprofits advising them about political speech.
So between TikTok and Twitter, you now have a liberalized social media.
Then you have others like YouTube, Instagram.
They're following suit.
Why is it that social media is opening up?
Could it be that AI models are being trained on social media because to get the best LLMs, they need the most data and the data comes from the posts of as many people as possible?
That's one postulate.
Maybe it's political.
But clearly, you know, the convulsions of the past 10 years, they're taking place on social media from an open social media to a censored social media back to an open social media.
You can map political events onto that, the rise of populism, the pandemic and the Ukraine war, the kind of second wave of populism.
You can also map onto it the rise of these even next, the fifth generation, which is AI and all the rest of it that's going to come down the pike later.
And so that, to me, that's sort of, we're in a unique cultural moment now in just the past three or four years that has not been analyzed enough that we're still trying to figure out, you know, kind of the why and what's happening just right now with all with what you just said, Kier Starmer and the rest of it.
It amounts to a kind of temporal warping, Nick.
How can we even regard temporality as being consistent if you measure, you know, we understand, by the way, pretty imperfectly, how we would measure velocity.
If the density of available information is altering inconceivably to almost a point where you can't, it's beyond human conception, then we're not really in the same reality anymore.
So the fact that the analytics can't keep up with the progress is not surprising.
It's Malcolm McLuhan, isn't it, that said the medium is the message.
And I suppose he was making that point in a bunch of ways.
But what strikes me about that is the type of media that would have been prevalent then would have been TV and print and journalism.
And that is centralized and controlled.
And therefore, it's an indication of the interests and agenda of the people, whether they are commercial partners or sort of old school media barons that own those interests.
That would be their message.
The media is the message.
Now, of course, because of people like you and even me and other people in this space, we're now having to deal with the discordant, sometimes cacophonous, definitely conflict-oriented because of the kind of algorithmic biases that we've touched upon.
And they're probably actually ultimately resourced from a human palate.
You know, we're probably, we respond organically and humanely, from a biologically to highly consequential stimulus, I suppose, might be one way of saying it.
But if the medium is the message meant that once a centralized set or cadre could dictate the way that information was conveyed and the type of information that was conveyed, now we have this giddying diaspora, this sort of blizzard of information.
And of course, that requires early on an ability to categorize and create hierarchies and even eliminate, amplify and eliminate different types of information.
And the COVID period that I agree with you has been too easily discarded, showed us with the brilliant example of Joe Rogan, they were not ready for someone that had that amount of power and reach to not be on board.
The one of the challenges is with centralized media, and I wonder if these challenges will still exist with these evolving forms, is that people get co-opted.
I was a pretty radical little dude when I made it into Hollywood.
I'd already been a drug addict and got clean, took a bunch of acid, been exposed to poverty because of my just sort of environmental and social conditions.
Like I was a little bit radical, one might regard, you know, and as somewhat of a peripheral figure in a bunch of ways.
Anyway, once I get into people rewarding me and celebrating me and telling me I'm fantastic and giving me a bunch of money and having access to sort of lots of sex and stuff, you know, it's difficult.
You're not going to, it's going to take a lot of fortitude.
And I would argue simply a connection to God, actually.
If you're not connected to God, if the culture is your God, then the God is feeding you.
The God is feeding you.
You're cool.
The false idol is proving to be somewhat truthful in that moment.
At least it's fulfilling your pagan needs.
Now, I wonder if in this instance, you know, how easily co-opted and biased and controlled we will be.
Because if the medium is, as you say, as he, you know, there's citing Malcolm McLuhan, is that right?
You'll tell me in your answer, I hope.
Like, then if the medium is the message, then the message is you can't centralize power in the same way anymore.
You're going to have to yield power.
You're going to have to find ways of devolving power.
And probably the country that's most likely to be able to accommodate that due to its sort of relatively recent origins and perhaps the robustness, but hopefully the degree of flexibility in your constitution might be your country.
Might be your country.
You can't see happening in China, Russia, and the Britons resisting it pretty heavily.
And yet that does seem to be the central dynamic.
So I wonder, but obviously the people that least want that message to be received are those with most to lose.
And that is centralized media, the government, the sets of corporate and commercial interests.
And if there is some sort of dark occultist power behind that, presumably that too doesn't want it.
So how then do you think we promote those ideals if you agree that they are ideals worth promoting?
Well, it's difficult to say because that is obviously one perspective on it.
And that could be the idealistic, the aspirational idea, which is, and certainly that's what I thought for most of my life, for most of my adult life, is that Trump is on Twitter, and that means he can talk to us directly.
So there's no gatekeepers, no mods, no censorship.
Like he's connected to us.
There's no kind of gatekeeping institution that stands in between and mediates between elected officials and people.
But then you think about things like what they said after he won.
They said, well, you may think that that was the case, but really the Russians were involved.
That was the answer from the government as the Russians manipulated the conversation.
And, you know, for the longest time, I said, that's ridiculous.
There's no, we love Trump because of what he was.
And that was true for myself.
But you also think about things like the Arab Spring.
You also think about the first time that social media was deployed in a political context was by Western NGOs, was by the American empire against these Muslim countries.
And it was aspirational.
The younger generation demanding change, democracy.
But what did it turn into?
It turned into Islamism.
You know, Hazni Mubarak was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
It led to the rise of ISIS in some cases.
It certainly benefited Israel in many ways, benefited the American state.
And so, even especially over the past five years, you have to wonder the things that you see on Twitter, is it even real?
And before we even figured out what was even, you could say authentic or legitimate on social media, we didn't even have time to figure out that conversation.
Now you have AI.
Now you have AI, which is deploying their own agents on social media in an automated way, creating images, deep fakes, manipulated images, like with this assassin.
You know, one of the things that people say is a discrepancy about the person that's in custody is that he does not resemble the photo that the FBI gave.
And the FBI said, well, that's because we AI enhanced and upscaled the resolution of the photo.
So it's like, I think that there was maybe this early aspiration that, yes, it would lead to freedom and decentralization.
At the same time, though, I think it's even maybe bigger than control and freedom.
It's order and chaos.
And I think that truly we're getting chaos.
Truly we're getting, and everything that comes with it, deception, a lack of accountability, people pretending to be someone other than they are, sinister forces manipulating people, preying on the vulnerable, the dumb.
And so, you know, by dumb, I mean the deaf and blind.
I mean, people that are, you know, in a deeper sense, they're, they're not able to critically think.
They're, yeah, I think about like my parents, you know, my mom texts me all the time, Nicholas, is this real?
I saw this on Twitter.
That's that could, they're not ready for this.
You know, they're just not ready for that kind of stuff.
And so I think what we're seeing is a destabilization.
And to call it freedom is a way to interpret it.
Quantum Age Unity 00:01:28
But I think in terms of the physical, I like that you said velocity and density because you can use the physical language to describe these things.
It's a destabilization.
It's a disintegration.
It's an atomization.
It's things coming apart.
And whenever things come apart in the atomic age, nuclear explosions occur.
You know, energy is unleashed.
And on the other side of it is destruction, you know.
But in the quantum age, which is the age we're in, a deeper unity is discovered.
Now, the idea that there is that much energy entailed and compounded atomically is the miracle that defines the industrial, late industrial age.
But the quantum age is that beneath apparent separateness, there is a unity.
Perhaps the detectable outskirts of our Lord are felt there.
To your point about the Islamic Brotherhood that benefited from the Arab Spring revolutions, one of my friends, I hope he's still my friend.
Some people don't survive all of this stuff.
Adam Curtis, the filmmaker, said that, you know, they were ready to go with an idea.
You know, like, while there's all this sort of chaos of, oh, how should we run it?
Christian Accountant 00:00:58
Who's going to be in charge?
Should we have a new assembly?
We'll vote for this.
In come the Muslim Brotherhood with, we got an idea.
Let's go.
You know, like, you know, and I wonder if there is, I'm a Christian.
So that means at the forefront, like that, you know, like whether, like, when C.S. Lewis says, do you think when C.S. Lewis says, you know, we oughtn't be trying to create some kind of theocracy, what we should be doing is you are, you have a Christian accountant.
So I'm listing this.
I'm bearing in mind I'm talking to Nick Fuentes.
So see if you get this joke as it's coming down the line.
You have a Christian accountant, a Christian lawyer, a Christian movie mogul.
Like, so I went like a Christian banker and goldsmith.
Like, like, I'm thinking, like, that, I'm thinking that, you know, that if we find Christ, we must find Christ and we must live as allow him to live through us.
Export Selection