Andrew Wilson & Brian Atlas vs. 140 IQ Woke Leftist Feminist HATER! | Whatever Debates 24
Jen Stone rejects the "140 IQ woke feminist leftist hater" label, arguing both sides blame each other for polarization while ignoring systemic corruption—like PAC-funded politicians and $39T national debt. She proposes amnesty for integrated immigrants but clashes with Andrew Wilson over neutrality, calling his divisive rhetoric (e.g., women’s voting rights) toxic. The debate spirals into Epstein-Trump conspiracies, Christian nationalism critiques, and accusations of grifting, ending with fatigue and a roast session invitation. Ultimately, their clash highlights how ideological tribalism drowns out substantive solutions to societal decay. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast.
We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewers supported.
Please consider donating through Streamlabs, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
TTS is $199 and up.
There will be no instant TTS, although there might be portions of the stream where we do allow the more instant TTS.
TTS will come in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
You can see the description for all triggers in full details.
Without further ado, we're just going to jump right into it.
I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson.
He's the host of the Crucible.
He's a blood sports debater and political commentator.
Also joining us today is Jen Stone.
She is a 140 IQ woke feminist leftist hater.
What?
I'm not any of that.
Oh, sorry.
Okay, well, do you want to introduce yourself then?
I'm not.
Okay.
Isn't that what my introduction speech is?
Well, you can intro yourself and then if you want to just go right into your opening.
I'm not a feminist or what did you all say it was?
Woke feminist leftist hater.
I'm not leftist either.
I don't hate anybody.
And my IQ technically is at 140.
Is it higher?
143.
I apologize.
By the way, please make the corrections.
I don't think it's fine.
Her IQ is in fact 143 and not 140, as I'm erroneously stating.
I don't like labels, the labels you're giving me.
Gotcha.
Do you want to just go ahead into your opening statement?
Sure.
This is why I'm here is the population likes to give such labels to everybody.
Like 50% of the population is either woke or a Nazi.
And I think that's contributing to the downfall of our nation.
Andrew said when I was on the show that he hates people like me the most who don't take sides.
From the way I see it, I have a broader picture of what's actually happening in the world.
It's not like I agree with everybody on each side, but everybody has something to say that can contribute to society.
And people tend to just like turn off something the first time they hear something they don't agree with and say bad things about people.
But when they dig deeper, everybody has to.
Is this part of your opening or is this part of your opening?
Yeah, this is the opening.
Everybody has good points on shit.
From what I see, from my bigger perspective, is while we're fighting over bathrooms and the Super Bowl and all of that nonsense, yeah, crazy shit's happening and it's been happening for a long time.
It's on both sides starting, you know, around the 1970s with Citizens United and quick pro quo and just changing of our corporate taxes, not really paying much taxes anymore.
It kind of seems like we're all fighting for the same thing.
In Andrew's perspective, he wants to bring back the 1950s because there's less debauchery and family values.
And the left wants a tax structure that's more towards the 1950s as well, which is basically at like the Bernie Sanders level of, you know, yeah, taxes, which I don't advocate for completely that to happen.
But they're basically fighting for the same thing and blame the other people for taking it away, if that makes sense.
And both sides have good points.
They just think each other is to blame.
And if you look at the bigger picture, yeah, I don't know.
People need to look, instead of going back to the past, we should strive to solve issues for the future.
Because with AI coming and stuff, like nothing is going to be traditional.
It's a new revolution, a new age.
So why are we trying to bring back something that will never happen again?
And basically, the last thing is I don't care who you vote for.
I'm calling it the Great Awakening.
One thing we can, most of us agree on is to stop supporting people who have lots of donors from super PACs, support people who want to change these flaws in our system that have created what some would say the deep state, the Epstein class, vote out all the old boomers who are just corporate puppets.
It goes on both sides.
And that's really the only way that we could start putting the pieces back together, basically.
That's it.
Just one really quick thing.
I know Andrew has a bunch of notes that he wanted to jump into.
At the very beginning of your opening, you conflated, for example, people on the right calling the other side woke, and that you compared that to people on the left calling people on the right Nazis.
Do you think that that's an equivalent comparison?
Because I think levying the label of Nazi towards somebody who's right wing is like orders of magnitude a more egregious, perhaps mislabeling than just calling somebody woke.
Woke doesn't seem to have quite the gravy toss and negative, like it's not quite as negative as Nazi.
I agree with that, but when they say woke, like he calls everyone Marxists and communists.
Andrew, I mean, I think.
Only Marxists and communists.
Huh?
Only Marxists and communists.
And you call them like what you always use the word debauchery.
Degeneracy.
Degeneracy.
Only degenerates.
And just, yeah.
Yeah, I don't call anyone a Nazi.
That's why I'm saying I'm not.
Would you call a Nazi a Nazi?
For sure.
And then calling people who are protesting domestic terrorists.
I think it goes extreme on both sides.
Can I ask you something?
Because you're both citing it, what you're doing.
I'm not both citing it.
I lean more left.
It's called a libertarian.
I've talked about it.
I'm going to go down.
I haven't said a word.
Okay.
Okay.
What you're doing is called both siding.
It's the attempt to pretend that you have neutral positions when you don't have neutral positions.
And that's what you're doing is you're both siding.
For instance, you said you're talking about Nazis and woke.
Andrew, you call everybody a degenerate.
Andrew, you call everybody a Marxist.
No, I call Marxist Marxist.
I call communist communist.
I call degenerates degenerates.
I ask you, would you call a Nazi a Nazi?
Yeah.
So what's the difference?
Some of the ways you describe people, I don't agree with that.
Is somebody who participates in gangbangs nightly a degenerate?
Yes.
Okay.
Is somebody the majority of people on the left aren't doing gangbangs.
That's not what I'm asking, though.
Is somebody who says that they're a Stalinist communist, are they Marxist?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, and then is somebody who is wearing a uniform that says SS and has a swastika on it, are they a Nazi?
Yes, but you're conflating half the population as one thing and half the population as something else.
When have I done these?
I've literally watched all of your interviews.
Not all of them.
Yeah, and you literally say, I hate, I know I'm Christian, but I hate the left.
I do.
It's true.
Yeah, I mean.
I do fucking hate leftists.
Yeah.
God will one day punish my eternal soul for the fact that I just cannot bring myself to not hate fucking leftists.
Well, okay, then you shouldn't be preaching morals to the world.
Why not?
Because of faults.
Preach the morals, just don't do it in the name of Jesus if you're going against what Jesus said.
So just be perfect.
Don't be perfect, but you can't.
So how imperfect is my allowed to be?
You're not supposed to be vain.
How is that vanity?
That's me.
That's the opposite of vanity.
Me saying I have a moral failing, right?
An aspect of my own morality that's very difficult for me to, a demon that's very difficult for me to surmount, which is I know I'm not supposed to hate people.
I know that.
But I also can't fucking help but hate leftists.
I can't.
And by the way, that's a struggle that Christians all over the United States have every single day.
Wouldn't it be the opposite of vanity if I say to people, if I were to go, hey, I'm fucking perfect in every conceivable way.
I'm without flaw.
I am awesome in every conceivable way.
That's vanity.
Wouldn't the opposite of vanity me saying, look, I know that I have a high moral standard.
And I know I myself at times don't live up to that high moral standard, which is part of Christian ethics.
Isn't that the opposite of being vain?
No, I think being vain is not working on it and then openly saying, like you did to Charlie, I'm better than you and calling her dumb and stuff like that.
I don't think that's the correct way to go about it.
She shouldn't have opened her stupid mouth about my wife then.
That was before that happened, actually.
It was right before.
No, it wasn't.
It was after.
I'll bet you $100 it was after.
I know for sure the stupid thing came before.
Well, perhaps we shouldn't have a meta-conversation about that.
Oh, well, no, that's true.
I called her stupid, but stupid has nothing to do with, did I start attacking her family?
No, I didn't do any of that.
Me saying you have a stupid position or that's idiotic or that's moronic, right?
That's light stuff.
Well, like, blessed are the meek.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
And the thing about Christianity is you're supposed to be, you're supposed to strive and work to be for the way I perceive Jesus is literally trying to get to discipleship, which means like following all of the commandments and not using like being forgiven as and being a sinner as an excuse to keep doing it.
You have to always work towards being better instead of just accepting like, oh, this is me.
Yeah, you have to work for that.
And it doesn't.
I've told this story many times, the story of the monk.
I don't know if you've heard that before.
It was a monk who was an alcoholic his entire life.
And then when he died, people were crying.
And one monk said, why are you crying?
He was drunk his entire life.
And they were so happy because he had cut his booze consumption down by half.
Just meant that the entirety, he was trying to overcome that demon his entire life and he couldn't quite do it.
Okay.
The Bigger Picture of Democracy00:08:27
I get it.
I understand.
Right?
If you think that I don't struggle with the fact that I do have heavy hatred in my heart for leftists, you're wrong.
Struggle with it all the time.
I understand that I'm not a perfect person.
I've always understood I'm not a perfect person.
I also understand these people do everything that they can to make sure I fucking hate them too.
A lot of people have a lack of education.
So, yeah.
They're the most educated propaganda on both sides.
They're the most educated people on the planet.
The only fan girls who have leftists.
Yes.
And you think with more education comes more wisdom?
That's what your point just was five seconds ago.
Five seconds ago, you're like, it's lack of education.
No, I mean the people on your on like this that comes on this show is what I was talking about.
Most of them have more education than I do.
Yeah, that's why I see things from a bigger picture.
Our educational system is fucked.
Like I watched this show and I'm like, wow, where's the world coming to?
But I also watch on the left when they ask similar questions about history and stuff and government.
And they're just as clueless.
So that's why I think I have an advantage of just monsters.
Seeing the bigger picture of like, I mean, we're all fucked up.
We're all kind of dumb.
And instead of fighting each other, maybe we should just work on fixing the issues.
Yeah, the problem is that we can't even agree on what the descriptors of the issues are.
Well, I think we should start with just what they call it, table issues.
We don't all can agree.
Give me a table issue.
A good economy, we can all agree on ending corruption.
Okay, great.
We can all agree on, yeah.
Let's start with this, like a good economy.
Would you agree with me that it would lower housing prices if we were to deport every illegal immigrant tomorrow?
Yes.
Okay, great.
Do you think that the left's going to go along with that?
No.
No.
So I don't understand.
So how is it that when you have a table issue, you say, okay, here's an issue.
I want a good economy.
Okay, great.
Hang on.
Hang on.
Let me finish the point.
Okay.
How is it that if I can't find any common ground with these people, how are we supposed to surmount these ideological differences exactly?
Can you tell me how to do that?
If you stick to the basic common ground, first of all, like most, yeah, the housing market issue isn't an issue of, like, it might contribute, like, the legals might contribute a little bit, but yeah, that's what I'm saying.
You see what I mean?
We can't even agree on descriptors.
So if we can't even agree on descriptors of problems, how is it that you expect that we're going to be able to do it?
You have to look at everything as a full picture.
You can't do it.
All right.
I'll tell you what.
Let's do it this way.
Tell me the full picture.
The full picture and my imaginary, you know, perfect situation of how to fix things is the first thing we need to do is vote out all the puppets and vote.
Hang on, who's we?
We the people, everyone on both sides, forget the culture wars.
Let's just have a small truce until the agreed upon terms are agreed upon, and then we can get to the to the cultural issues.
Okay, and who are the puppets we're voting out?
What are their names?
What are the puppets' names?
Well, it's not just one person, it's the corporations.
It's the CIA.
The corporations aren't names of people.
Who are the puppets we're voting out?
What are their names?
Oh, just vote based off of the PACs that have contributed to their funds.
I'm asking about names.
What are the names of the people we should be voting out?
Mostly all of them.
Who?
Give me some names.
I can say who to keep.
Keep Thomas Massey, keep Rand Paul, MTJ.
I'm sure she's going to come back on the left.
What's the dude that was teaming with?
Yeah, I know.
But who are the so who are the global puppets that we're going to come together to get rid of?
There's easy ways to look at this.
There's websites where you can look at their campaign fund contributions, and you can actually see how they vote on certain things, whether it seems directly correlated to like money or PACs like.
You see the vagary?
Do you see how vague you are?
It's not vague.
Hang on.
You're saying what you're doing is you're saying it's us versus them, we versus those.
Okay, I understand that.
But who's the we and who are the they?
The we are we the people deciding to whoever's on your side, if you elected them and they promise all these things and they're going directly against what you elected them for, plus contribute, have PAC contributions from like corporations.
And if they're getting rich by trading stock, that sort of thing, then maybe they should go.
Yeah, but the problem is, is that we live in a democracy.
Democracies are set up in power structures and the power structures are set up based around people's interests.
So people have learned that they can raid the treasury by having X amount of people who are representing their interests in office.
Exactly.
So there is no, hang on.
Hang on.
No.
If that's exactly, then your point's contradicted.
No.
Yeah, I'll explain.
Hang on.
I'm going to explain how your point's contradicted.
Because there is no we.
There is no collective.
What there is, is there's a whole bunch of different power blocks all competing for their own interests in the United States for power.
Yeah.
That's what's happening.
I agree with you.
So when you say we should put our petty differences aside, well, they're not petty differences.
They're massive differences.
There is no collective we.
There's groups and blocks of people who are competing for power utilizing the democratic process.
That's what's happening.
So how do you plan on surmounting that barrier?
How can I go?
Vote for people.
Oh, vote.
We're going to vote harder.
We're going to vote our way out of this.
Do either that or revolution.
This is my last attempt.
This is.
Who are we having a revolution against?
The voting bloc is just as bad as the elites they put in power.
So who the fuck are we supposed to revolt against?
Am I supposed to revolt?
Let's say I did.
Let's say we did tomorrow.
We revolted against the government.
Let's just say, right?
Who's we then?
Which power block is revolting against which block of government in order to get power?
Which one am I supposed to support?
Because the way that the democracy is set up, it's not a monolith.
It is independent power interest, and they're all voting against the interest of other people and in their own.
That's why we need to hire people who have taken PAC money and their biggest objectives to start off with is repealing the laws that got this situation here to begin with.
Yeah, but the problem, you can't do that.
And here's why.
If you have PACs and super PACs out there right now who are supporting abortion rights for women, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
So all the people who want abortion rights, all the women who want abortion rights, they want those PACs donating.
They think they're benevolent.
They think that's good.
And so on the other side, the people who are anti-abortion, who think that you're murdering tons and tons and tons of children, right, they support PAC endeavors, which are designed to put politicians in place, which will put local legislation against things like abortion.
I'd say no PACs.
What I would do in a perfect world is get rid of the PACs altogether and use government funding and give them all equal amount to campaign on and take that out of the country.
So you're going to give all the power of the vote to the media?
To the media?
Yeah.
And I mean, there's more than just a message.
There's more than just the media.
There's door knocking.
If you had, let's say you had four politicians, right, and all of them were funded with public financing, they all got the same amount.
Let's say it was $1 million, right?
Women Voted: Media vs. Door Knocking00:04:46
Let's just say it was.
Whichever politician mass media covers the most, that's actually going to be the politician that wins.
It doesn't matter how it doesn't matter the money at that point because media, who's covering them, they'll always be able to pump in whatever money they want.
They'll end up electing the person that they want.
Well, maybe we should make laws against that as well.
What do those look like?
Yeah, exactly.
You don't know.
You don't know.
I'm not a lawmaker.
My whole thing is us as a people.
I thought you had this great bird's eye view and understood how it all works.
I understand what's happening.
And I understand if we all work together, we can start making some steps in the right direction.
How are we going to work together?
We can't even agree on the issue.
I don't know what you've been watching, but this has been spreading all over media of this pact or of we all agree on America First.
We all agree on America.
We don't agree on that.
The majority of us do.
No, the majority of us don't.
Yes, America First was kind of more of a dump thing.
Like we were tired of all the wars this whole time.
America First kind of came in.
No, America First was the idea, was Trump capturing the idea of the American family again.
The idea that you could have a single income and support an entire family by utilizing a tax system based on tariffs against our enemies and making it fair again.
That was one of the probably the core idea of America.
Hang on, hang on.
Let me finish my point.
The core idea of America First was that, right?
The idea that he was going to get rid of all the illegal immigrants, things like that.
Yes, that's true that that was a core part of his message.
But ultimately, it was trying to reinvigorate and recapture the idealism of the American family.
That is what America First really was.
Well, I'd say the majority of the population believes America First is taking care of us before we start bombing people and funding Israel and bailing people out.
Oh, I agree.
But who's we again?
When you say taking care of us first, he is the American First.
It's the same thing because you act like dims don't want to have families and stuff.
They fucking hate families.
Can we look up the statistics on that?
There actually is something on this.
Hey, Nathan, can you go pull up the Discord?
Do you know our Discord?
Well, we do have some data on this.
I have an infographic.
Nathan, let me know when you're on the Discord.
Okay, so you're going to scroll down.
There's a research tab in our Discord.
So it's not a, it's closer to the bottom, and you're going to see whatever stats, infographics.
Do you see the infographics?
Okay, and then if you scroll three up, do you see the NBC News Decision Desk poll?
Yeah.
Okay.
So you're going to click on that and there's two photos.
Click on the first one and then, sorry, put it window tab.
Click on the image.
All right.
You might have to hide, I'm just going to read it, but so this is women who voted for Harris.
They have, this is the importance to personal definition of success.
So at the very top, for women who voted for Harris Democrats, fulfilling job career, 51%.
At the very bottom, here, you're going to have to hide us.
Okay, in the sources tab, do you see where it says right corner?
Just hide us temporarily.
Yeah.
So it says for women who vote for Harris, it's being married 6%, having children 6%.
And then mouse over to the next image.
Yeah, click that one and then click on it.
And this is men who vote for Harris being married 11%, having children 9%.
You can compare and contrast that with the women who vote for Trump versus the men who voted for Trump.
Interestingly enough, can you go back to the other one?
So men who voted for Trump having children is at the free tire, being married 29, and you contrast that with women who vote for Harris.
Actually, men who voted for Trump have a higher priority for having children being married than even women who voted for Trump.
Can you just pull up the other one really quick again?
So even women who vote for Trump, they actually rank being married and having children lower than men who voted for Trump, but it's still greater than Democrats.
I think what contributes to that is where we are financially.
I do agree there's more people on the left that don't want kids.
Financial Middle Ground00:02:03
But we were raised.
Those are anti-natalist monsters.
See, there's anti-natalists.
You see, that's what you got to work on.
Okay, so.
Well, I mean, what do you want me to say about that?
When the baby boom happened, right?
The baby boom?
Yeah, like, you know, boomers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And all of that, it happened when our economy was in a great space.
And yeah, I think people are waiting to get married till they're older and have kids till they're older because well, I mean, yeah, that has a part to it, but it's freaking expensive.
Andrew was asking you a good question as to, you know, you're saying we should all unite and get together.
But Andrew said, well, we don't even agree on some of these basic issues.
Just curious, what's your position?
But he brought up illegal immigration, for example, and how that has an impact on the economy.
The housing stock in this country is diminished if it's occupied by illegal immigrants.
Are you in favor of deporting all the illegal immigrants in this country?
I have a middle ground.
I would deport.
Both sides.
The world has a middle ground.
Literally nothing is black and white.
Can I finish the answer?
Yeah, yeah, just let me let me revise the question.
Yes, deport most of the question.
Should we completely bar, like have stronger border protection?
Yes.
So barring people from entering the country illegally.
And then the second question, of the people who have arrived here illegally, who are here, should we just deport them?
My stance is for sure have the best border security as possible.
As for the people who have been here for a long time, have created businesses and really integrated into our society with no criminal records.
I think it's actually cheaper to come up with a plan for them to become legal instead of kicking them out.
So amnesty.
Deportation Debate00:11:26
Yeah.
I mean, they have to pay like if they don't, a lot of them do pay taxes, but back taxes and fines and get on the list.
And there definitely should be some like fines.
When we get together to agree on these table issues, right?
Yeah.
Should we agree with you and give amnesty to these people?
Financially, I think it's cheaper, first of all.
Would it be cheaper to not?
Well, hang on a second, Brian.
I think as America and a democracy, we should all work together and it's not all black or white.
The most right or to the most important thing.
But that's not my question.
My question is, is like when we say we here, you know, most people on the right.
Yeah, okay, we vote on it.
We did.
We voted in Trump.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is like, here's the question, though.
The question is, should we, when you say we, the collective we, who are all supposed to be working hand in hand, should we just follow what you're saying and get rid, or I'm sorry, give amnesty to illegals?
I think if you look at what the polls say, the majority of people aren't cool with what's happening.
It's not ice.
Yeah, they think it went too far.
And it's not really, we all agree law and order is necessary, but the way it's been going about.
Well, it's amazing to me that you want the collective we to get together to do things you want.
I think we all want, we're all tired of the hate.
Yeah, I don't think that there's a collective we.
When you say we, you just mean me.
Okay.
No, I'm not.
I watch both left and right politics.
We're all talking about the same shit.
That's what I get from not picking sides completely.
Literally, Trump's poll numbers are like 37 right now.
All of the podcasts.
Obama's poll numbers were really low, too.
All of the podcasters who helped get Trump elected, except for a few, they all agree with what I'm saying.
Which ones?
Like Joe Rogan, David Smith, Candace Owens.
You think Joe Rogan agrees with you?
That ICE went too far?
Yeah.
He said it in his videos.
He didn't say it when I was talking to him.
I don't know if you've watched Joe Rogan, but he kind of like agrees with everything.
I don't know if you've talked to Joe Rogan, but I have.
Yeah, I saw his talk.
I don't know what you're talking about.
No, that didn't appear to be what his position was.
Should we pull that up?
He appeared to think that leftists were part of a massive conspiracy.
I saw that.
I watched your episode.
Yeah, so then what are you talking about?
He's saying the riots did, but in his previous videos, he has said that ICE went too far.
And no, he didn't actually say that.
And with the masks and what he said, his recent video, he had the conspiracy that it was orchestrated.
It was not a reason to cover up the fraud that was happening in Minnesota.
It's not a conspiracy.
I mean, most of the stuff that's happening is funded by different sides.
I agree with that, but he does agree.
ICE in general has gone too far.
I don't think Trump, with the way he's done it.
That's not what I heard from him.
Can we look it up?
You want to take an out-of-context clip?
Because I know the one you're referencing.
No, I watch every one of his episodes.
Okay, then what was the episode called?
There was multiple of them.
We have to go back to the other one.
So name one of them.
Does anyone know names of people's episodes?
Yes.
I think it was maybe a Dave Smith episode.
Can we look this up internet?
I mean, I don't know if there's copyright considerations if we pull up a clip.
But not just that.
I'll even grant Rogan.
Let's just say that Rogan does it.
Not just Rogan is all over there.
Yeah, well, okay, who?
Who else?
Dave Smith, Candace Owens.
Okay, Dave Smith's a liberal.
He's a libertarian.
I know.
Dave Smith is a libertarian, right?
Not a right-winger at all.
Well, Candace Owens is a conspiracy nutcase.
Literally, half your side is a conspiracy nutcase.
Joe Rogan is too.
I love it.
Most of the conspiracies come out true.
They do, do they?
I mean, to a point, yeah.
You know what my brother said?
Like this pizza game.
My brother said something really funny.
I'm about to get whatever canceled.
My brother said something super funny.
He said that Candace Owen needs to get to the back of the algorithm.
He said that, bro.
Yeah.
Anyway.
Just to be fair, I did look up your claim about Joe Rogan apparently in an episode January 2026.
This is an AI overview.
Sometimes it's incorrect.
But at least it does say that he, Joe Rogan, compared their tactics to the Gestapo and did suggest they went too far.
And then by detaining individuals, including U.S. citizens, and the streets without proper coverage.
First of all, I saw that episode, right?
And in context, he was having a conversation about this with the guest.
He wasn't actually adopting that position.
That's one.
The second is...
That's what he does in all of his episodes.
The second is...
The second is, is that his position, at least when I talked to him, was that he understood that, hey, there is definitely an orchestrated plan by leftists in order to agitate using a mathematical, and they use a mathematical formula to do it.
They agitate in order to get feds to overreact.
And when the feds overreact, then they justify their garbage of fucking politics by saying that they're the Gestapo.
Well, there's the same thing, conspiracy on the right, that if you look at Project 2025 beforehand, and yeah, it kind of plans this sort of thing using military action and stuff.
Well, hold on.
Before we get into Project 2025, even though we were to grant.
Look, even if we're going to go ahead and grant and say, yes, ICE has made certain mistakes here, you know, law enforcement, law enforcement, they're humans, they make mistakes.
In all kinds of different professions, people make mistakes, law enforcement makes mistakes.
But in terms of their core mission, their foundational base mission, which is to deport genuine illegal immigrants, do you object to their core mission?
I don't object to that.
But the one thing.
Yeah, you do.
You want amnesty.
Not complete amnesty.
Okay.
it's a long-term um solution but another joe rogan quote was and a lot of others said that well joe rogan's not here but i know we voted to to deport all the criminals He's not.
But it's not just that.
It's not just him either.
Joe Rogan.
Most people think we went to the campus.
He's more of a middle-of-the-road guy.
Dave Smith's a libertarian.
When you're talking about right-wingers, I want to hear right-wingers, the right-wingers, who would agree with your plan for amnesty.
Who are they?
I'm not talking.
By the way, Dave Smith wouldn't agree with that plan for amnesty either.
I'm not.
I didn't bring about.
I didn't talk about amnesty.
I said that in general, Trump's campaign was about criminals and grapists and stuff.
They never said they were going to bring mass people.
People have committed a crime by deported.
I get that.
I'm saying for the people who are not.
I'm a little confused.
On one hand, you said you were depressed.
I think there's a cheaper, better solution.
Yeah, deport people, but.
Well, can I ask you a question really quickly?
You say it's cheaper.
Do you think as far as having illegal immigrants in this country, the only thing that we're focused on is purely the economics of it?
Like there's other factors too, perhaps.
No, I agree.
You don't want the white race to.
Your argument is, well, it would be cheaper to have them create a pathway to allow them to stay here.
Wouldn't it be technically cheaper?
Let's say hypothetically, there was a murderer, but he only committed, you know, you have like precognition.
You know that he will only have committed that one murder and he will never murder again and he will otherwise be a law-abiding citizen from there on out.
You would agree that it would be cheaper to not, you know, have law enforcement attempt to investigate the murder and go through the criminal prosecution process.
It would be cheaper, right, to just let the murderer off?
What I'm talking about.
No, but answer the question.
Oh, of course it would be cheaper.
Right.
But just because something's cheaper doesn't necessarily mean that that is the right course of action.
Well, I think the right course of action is to do investigations like that on these people who've been here for a long time.
Because, yeah, that's cheaper.
I think what they're doing.
Well, you said it's cheaper to let them just give them pathway to citizenship, which may be true.
I mean, it is true, but I think investigation and just like how, you know, we should make sure that they're not criminals and have a good standing in society.
All the time.
That's a civil crime.
That's not the right thing.
Do you think speeding is equivalent to being here illegally?
We would do the same thing.
If you're trying to save your family and your wife, that's not evil.
Law enforcement does enforce speeding.
They'll give out speeding tickets.
I actually agree with you.
We would do the same thing.
So what?
Yeah, the difference is, I guess, empathy.
I mean, suicide.
I know you don't have empathy.
It's not suicidal empathy.
I want the majority of them to be deported.
That's not too much empathy.
Yeah, that's having some empathy.
So the thing here that's funny is it's anytime you talk to both sides, they're always leftists.
And they're always libs.
And they're always like, hey.
That's not true.
You know, the thing is, you just said that you were more on the left side than the right side.
That's because of social freedom.
If you look at libertarians, they want social freedom.
And considering both sides have completely fucked our government with spending, I'm going to go more towards the dims.
What libertarians want is they want social freedom affirmed by property rights.
The United States is property of the citizens of the United States.
From the libertarian ethos, deporting fucking people who aren't supposed to be here would be just fine and appropriate and good.
If they want them to go on or not.
Isn't that more libertarian?
No.
To let the states decide if they want the people out or not.
So here's the thing that's funny.
It's like, okay, so you agree that the border states, those are the ones who would take the brunt of that, right?
And those states would basically be utilizing their resources to protect all the states behind them.
The brunt of what?
Allowing people to vote on the money.
I don't know of people legally crossing.
Like, for instance, the Texas border, Californian border, Arizona, these are going to be states that are going to take the brunt of illegal immigration, right?
Yeah, then let them have laws and the government can pay for the funding to keep it secure.
But then how does that?
It's up to the states to make their own laws regarding who can stay and who can.
Allowing People to Vote on Money00:15:03
Yeah, great.
And then one state says you can have complete amnesty here.
And then all the illegals go into that state, get amnesty, and then go back to the other state that they want to go to.
Everything in life has consequences.
And when you want a smaller government.
They do.
Does?
Does everything in life?
That's crazy.
I didn't know everything.
Usually when people make dumb mistakes in law, they correct them.
We're a young nation.
That's how we grow.
Yeah.
Do you know how you correct this?
You get rid of the illegals.
All of them.
I don't think the majority of our issues are illegal immigrants.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Illegal immigrants.
What are the majority of our issues?
I would say our tax structure and our $39 trillion in debt.
Yeah, so let's talk about our tax structure.
You want us to pay 90% like Sanders?
No, I think that's ridiculous.
Okay, how much?
I say literally just start with getting rid of the loopholes for the, I think it's more the corporations.
I think wealthy people who, like our doctors and stuff, they're paying pretty high taxes.
If you look at the corporate tax rate says it's at 21%, but it's actually with all the reductions and kickbacks and stuff, averaged at 11%.
But if you look at the rich, and it goes from poorest corporations to the raw raw market.
So you want to raise taxes on corporations.
Get rid of the loopholes first off.
That would raise their taxes.
Yeah, I think that would make a big difference.
That would raise their taxes, right?
Okay.
Let me ask you a question.
If a corporation is making a product for you to buy, which is what they're doing, and you raise their taxes, what happens to the price of that product?
It could go up.
Oh, it could?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I wasn't aware.
Do corporations pass on the cost of a product to the consumer?
Yeah.
Wow.
So do tariffs.
Wait a second.
The tariffs are adding costs to the consumer as well.
Wait, I'm super confused, though.
So you want to get rid of the tariff because it's adding on cost to the consumer, but you want to raise corporate taxes, which is adding cost to the consumer.
Brilliant plan.
My plan's bigger in the future.
Since AI is taking over and we're all basically going to be jobless, yeah, I think that corporations there needs to be an excessive wealth tax.
What's crazy, if 10% of the S ⁇ P 500 pays zero corporate taxes, and yeah, a lot of them are getting money back from the government, and I think that's crazy.
In your brilliant time of the 1950s, yeah, we didn't have this tax structure.
Have I ever advocated to go back to the 1950s ever?
I mean, you talked about it a lot on this.
Never happened once.
I mean, if you look at from the 1970s and above, the wealth distribution has gone from the middle class to the rich, and it's still increasing.
And you can see what happened.
And it didn't start with Reagan, but yeah, he did a good job getting so your plan is raising the prices of consumer goods.
That's your plan.
That's Trump's plan, too, right?
No.
His plan was to utilize tariffs.
My plan is to be able to do that.
His plan was to utilize tariffs.
My plan is legit.
If you look at graphs, we're becoming poor and what you would call the Epsom class keeps getting richer.
And they're the ones controlling what I'm doing.
What are you talking about?
Can you look up a graphic?
Showing the 1950s to now about wealth distribution.
Yeah, no, no, no.
It's not about wealth distribution.
Show instead.
Show instead poverty line, the poverty line.
Do you agree with me right now that way more people are above the poverty line than they have?
Do you know how the poverty line is created?
I do.
It's not realistic in a world with technology and stuff like that.
That's an old school way of looking at it.
If you look at it with realistic today's standards, the poverty line is much higher than that.
Yeah, and how many millionaires do we have right now?
I don't know.
I'm not even worried about.
Yeah, I'm worried about the corporations.
I don't know.
I know the court.
You want to raise taxes on corporations, thus raising prices on consumer goods.
Yeah, fine.
Great.
That's probably for the better if it takes our country out.
I can't wait to endorse this plan where I spend more money on things I bought.
You're doing that for tariffs.
We're not doing that for tariffs.
Tariffs don't work that way.
That's not the same thing at all.
My bigger picture is we're about, our society is going to collapse if we don't take down the debt.
And how are we going to do that?
We should lower, make this government smaller, but also we're going to need more tax revenue, which that's where the corporations come in.
And then once jobs are eliminated, if we don't have laws put in place, like an extreme wealth tax like they had in the 1950s, then...
That nobody paid.
Yeah, there was loopholes.
Some people did pay it.
Almost nobody paid it.
Did they have the excess wealth?
Well, what they had was they had a marginal tax.
So what would happen is if you reach certain threshold, then they would tax X amount of that.
Yeah, underneath that.
And if, okay, now you made $10 million.
At $10 million, we get 90% of that 10th million or whatever.
The average actual corporate was 41%.
Even if you did that right now, it wouldn't put a dent in the debt.
Wouldn't it be a good idea?
That's why I say we also need to make the government smaller.
Thomas Nasse's plan is to take six cents off of everybody.
And what does our government spend the most money on?
our debt and the military and then it spends the most amount of money on entitlements Yeah, get rid of entitlements.
Okay, so you want to both sides it and get all the people who are collecting Social Security to stop collecting Social Security.
They've paid for it.
I think I'm not talking about everything, like every single thing.
I say reducing food stamps, reducing stuff like that.
We're paying for our own retirement.
Sure, let's get it.
So I would make a law that says people born from this date, there's no longer Social Security.
And what I would do is we don't need a post office.
That's pretty optimistic.
So people who have been paying into Social Security, they're now, oh, I don't know.
That's why you said that.
So now, hang on.
Now they're 59 years old.
They don't get it.
Fuck them.
No, that's why I said we have to make this law in advance to start for people who haven't been born yet or paid for into Social Security.
So we're going to rack up another 60 years of debt?
No.
There's other forms to deduct.
Yeah, the post office is completely useless.
Yeah, we need to take money off of everything.
Everything's going to suffer a bit, but also, like Doge was supposed to do, we need a better system of people who aren't connected to the business.
You know what's funny?
It's like I agree with you on some of the prescriptions that you have.
Yeah.
Right?
For instance, shrinking the size of government in some arenas, I think, is a great idea.
Probably not the military, definitely entitlements.
I think that the idea, I think the idea of a massive corporate tax is just going to raise consumers' goods.
But hang on.
Well, no matter what you do, it's going to raise consumer prices.
So the thing is, is like, even if I agree to some of these prescriptions, if we're going back to the original point now, we're going to tie it back in.
How the fuck are you going to get other people to agree with you on it?
How?
How are you going to get people to give up their entitlements?
They're not going to do it.
They're all voting in the interest of their entitlements.
All of them.
The whole reason democracy doesn't work in the long term, the reason that republicanism is much better, and the reason that the average person probably shouldn't vote at all is exactly this reason, because once they realize they can raid the treasury as a monolith, which now they know how to do by voting in politicians who will raid the treasury in order to give them entitlements, democracy is fucked.
The second that happens, it's fucked.
I think the left really needs to be, and I mean, everyone in general needs to be more educated on the financial state of our country because for so long, both sides have been like, oh, it's whatever.
We print money sort of vibes, but no one really understands.
You don't want to educate the stupid.
You can't educate them.
You just don't let them vote.
That's what you do.
You just stop letting stupid fucking people vote.
I do agree we need like some people should be voting.
I don't think they should be voting either.
I think there needs to be a competency test so you can understand how basic things work.
How about stakeholder?
That would be good.
Something like that?
Some kind of stake in the game?
I don't know about stake because poor people.
Yeah, those I'm disabled.
Does that make me unable to vote?
Because if I'm poor, if you're not going to stand in the middle.
The thing is funny is like, so you just made my point for me.
If you're disabled, right, and you vote, you're not going to vote against your own disability, are you?
You're not going to vote against cash for your own disability.
Well, I don't get any cash for it.
If you did.
Of course I wouldn't.
Of course you wouldn't.
You're going to vote in your interest, and that interest is robbing the treasury of other people's money for you.
That's the problem with democracy and power blocks.
And that's why your plan of both sizing, all the both sides, are retarded.
It doesn't work.
I'm not saying complete work.
Work for, I mean, vote for who you want to vote for based off of whatever values and what wants is.
The only thing I'm asking for people to agree on is to like, I hate Gavin Newsom and how everyone's calling him the president because they watch whatever, because he's the loudest and they're like, oh, Gavin Newsome president.
I'm saying, but if you look at his past, he's a corporate like slime ball.
I'm just asking people to, before they judge people based off of their party, look at their campaign controversy.
People are so fucking stupid that they're willing to vote a guy like Gavin Newsom into office.
And do you think you're going to convince those people to go along with your party?
Yeah, everybody's kind of waking up to like the whole Israel thing and the deep state.
That's a completely X. That's an X position.
Listen.
That's happening all over the place already.
Israel, the support for Israel, I'm just going to be completely blunt with you.
A lot of people don't like hearing this, but they know it's true.
The position of support for Israel globally is still a very popular position.
In fact, it's much, yeah, you can look that up.
You can look it up.
It is still a very popular position to have support of Israel.
What you're talking about.
Not boomers, not young people who are taking over.
Yeah, but young people don't support shit.
They hate everything, which is fair.
I understand that.
I get it.
But what you're talking about, when you're talking about the global awakening, right?
Yeah.
The global awakening to do what?
The leftist global awakening is to, well, we're going to soak the millionaires and billionaires and we're going to raise the corporate taxes and we're going to stop these people from taking away your birthright by instituting more forms of entitlements and individual rights for abortion, things like this.
The right-wing great awakening is we're going to stop foreign powers from interfering in our business, focus on families and remove degeneracy.
They're dialectically opposed to each other.
Yeah, not really.
I'm saying vote for who you want.
And the thing is, is take out the corporate PAC money.
It's as simple as that.
See how they vote on Israel.
Like 83% of people vote towards Israel.
Like, vote all those fuckers out.
Start with that.
Look, you can get rid of the PACs.
This has been looked at.
This is the thing.
Many, many times.
The problem is, is that you give media then a massive upper hand.
No one watches.
You're talking about like boomers, the media, like, I don't know.
Do you think that young people are voting?
They don't vote.
Who votes?
It's the old people who vote.
Well, they're about to, yeah, not be around that much longer.
And what's left now is.
Oh, man, I've been hearing for 20 years the boomers are about to die out.
I mean, I hope they're going to be around for a long time.
I look things at a bigger picture of how things are going to be swaying and how politics is going to look.
So what I see is, yeah, the only people who watch Fox and mainstream news are mostly some Gen X, but like boomers.
Everybody else who are young are coming onto YouTube and stuff for sources.
And if you look at them, everyone who's actually has influence for young people, they all agree with exactly what I'm saying.
And they're telling other people.
They don't.
Yeah, they do about PACs.
The problem is, you're right.
People do switch over to online now instead of old media.
They do.
And you know who else they see there?
They're not seeing like base Chad right-wingers.
They're seeing Hassan Piker.
They're seeing Destiny.
They're seeing all these left-wing scumbags who are pushing their left-wing message.
And guess what?
That poisonous message, that's worked.
It's worked well.
And you act like this dialectic just doesn't exist because you wish it didn't.
But it does.
I literally watch all of them.
There's something changing in politics.
Everyone's realizing we're not each other's enemies.
I know you're not.
I watch both.
It's like the opposite.
I watch the opposite.
Yeah, because you're on the everyone's evil side.
Like Tucker Carlson had the dude on that from the Young Turks with the, there's even a website where you can go sign up.
St. Geeger.
Yeah.
Just promoting the site to where we can all make a PAC to end the PAC sort of vibes.
And St. Geger has been on the end money in politics train for an awful long time.
It's really funny, though, because a lot of that comes from St. Geger focusing on the fact that he was a media talking head who was very important.
And a lot of these guys thought that if you got rid of PAC money, that they would be able to utilize media like they did the original time Donald Trump ran, where they used media to try to demonize him, run the steel dossier, run conspiracy theories about him.
You do give media an upper hand.
I agree.
I hate the fact that there's PACs in politics.
I do.
But the fact of the matter is, is that media is so fucking corrupt, you can't trust them either.
Well, that's why I also advocate for people to fact check.
And young people are.
People are realizing.
Young people are dumber now than they've ever been.
Yes, that's why I would agree that they that's why I would agree that we should raise the voting rate age.
Ethical Debate Over Voting Rights00:11:36
To what?
Maybe like 25 or something.
How about instead of raising the voting age, you put in a restriction like got to be married and have kids?
That's the whole Christian nationals thing.
What's wrong with that?
The majority of the country is Christian technically, but I don't think even they would want that.
Why not?
Seems like a good idea.
You're kind of eliminating your strength in the vote if you do that right.
Why?
How?
Because if you and your wife both vote for the person you want, if you're eliminating it, then you only get one vote instead of two.
It's going to be the people with families and kids.
You're going to be more aligned with my ideology.
Yeah, but you're still going to lose if you does that make you higher likely to lose.
No, maybe make you higher likelihood to win if the people who vote are more aligned with your ideology.
No, because there's a lot of leftists, right?
Who don't have families because they kill their kids.
You said married.
You didn't say you can only.
I said married with kids.
You have a family.
Yeah.
Why don't you do one household voting?
You don't even have to do that.
I'm just saying that anything that has stake in the nation is going to be better than this dumb idea that just everybody should be enfranchised.
Our founders didn't want that.
They hated it.
They hated the idea that everybody would be enfranchised.
They didn't want anything to do with that.
Well, the founding fathers also Gave us the way to amend the Constitution because they understood that they didn't have all the answers and society would change.
And wanted amended so that everybody could vote.
I can tell you that.
Well, they put that ability in, and this is where society took place.
That was interpreted, by the way.
But the thing is, it's funny about that.
Everything's an interpretation.
Yeah, the thing that's funny about this is like, no, they had no intention.
They didn't trust the electorate because they thought they were stupid and they were right.
Well, times haven't changed in that regard, but they haven't.
Yeah, I would, I don't think it, yeah, that's the whole Christian nationalist thing I don't agree with.
That's not even Christian nationalists.
A lot of people can have kids.
Did I put the restriction you had to be a Christian?
No, a lot of people can't have kids.
So why fuck them?
Why do they get to vote?
What makes it a right that people have?
Like, oh, you get to vote just because you exist.
Like, that's the stupid position.
That's the Constitution.
No, it's not.
Currently.
Currently, yes, it is.
It was never intended to have a vote.
It was never intended for everybody to vote ever.
Never.
What they did intend to do was give us the option to change it.
And we have that option.
So if you want to take away that right, let's do a whatever it's called, the conservation.
I thought you just got done saying you like the 10th Amendment.
Huh?
So why don't you just leave voting restrictions up to the state?
Like we used to.
So then the state, right, the state can actually put in the representatives instead of you.
Doesn't that sound better?
I mean, like, I'm not completely opposed to that, except it would kind of make different, like completely the United States wouldn't be very united anymore and we'd all just live in.
It's not united now.
And your worldview.
No, just not.
It's just not united.
I don't know.
I don't know if you know that this state that we're in right now is like a whole different universe than the state that I currently live in.
It's like a whole different world.
But basically, I think we should do a competency test.
I don't think you, I mean, there's smart people who aren't married or with kids.
I think that's kind of fucked up to not let them vote.
Why?
Where's this idea that everybody should have the right to vote come from?
Because our current Constitution didn't come from our founders.
Yeah, but what are you basing it on?
It's a whole different world.
What are you even basing it on, though?
Forget the Constitution for a second.
What, from your view, actually makes it something that you think is right that everybody should be able to vote?
What?
Like, my value set aside?
Like, yeah, I. What part of your value sets demanding that?
Like, God, Jesus.
God would demand that everyone could vote?
No, not.
God would demand not, yeah, being fair to everybody.
And what?
Like, Jesus would.
They would demand that everyone could vote?
No, none of them would demand anything because they don't get into politics, right?
But what they do, what Jesus does advocate for is groups that are seen as outcasts, the poor.
That people should be charitable towards those groups, not that they should have a say in policy.
But did he say they should, though?
No.
That would make my point.
Yeah.
What is the value set that you're appealing to that just makes you think everyone should be able to vote?
What?
Jesus's words himself.
What words?
What words of Jesus Christ makes you think that everyone?
You love your neighbor?
You have to hate your neighbor if they can't vote.
And yeah, be kind to the, yeah, be kind to.
Yeah, sorry.
I'm bleak.
Be kind to foreigners.
There's all kinds of things.
Okay, so you can be kind to foreigners and be nice to your neighbor, and they don't have to be aware of that.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Great.
The peacemakers can be blessed and they still don't have to vote.
I don't understand.
Where does this they need to vote part come in?
Because I don't, I think we all should be equal, like in that right.
Oh, we should just all be equal.
Yeah, if you can pass the test, that makes you qualified.
Yeah, why, why is it, though, again, you see how you intersuppose immediately that they should without appealing to the constitution.
There's things in the constitution.
You said take the constitution out of it.
So I did.
That's what I'm doing.
I'm still asking you the same question.
If we have the Constitution out of it, right?
Then why?
What appeal are you making that people should be able to do this?
What?
What is the ethical dilemma here?
You can't vote, and that's unethical because this is how I put it.
Like, yeah.
My spiritual beliefs lead me to that conclusion.
What in your spiritual beliefs leads you to the conclusion that it's unethical if guy A is not allowed to vote?
What?
We all, whether you're atheist or not, have been put on a path from God, right?
And you choose to make good and bad decisions, right?
That's free will.
And yeah, I think this whole Christian nationalist thing is trying to control what decisions people make, which is against God.
This literally doesn't answer my question.
Repeat it.
Sorry, we'll start again.
I kind of blame you.
We're not appealing to the Constitution.
We're just purely appealing to you.
I knew where I was going with that.
Your Christian ethical system.
Why, from the Christian standpoint, is it unethical if some guy can't vote or some girl can't?
We all have God's energy in us that tells us what's right and what's wrong, whether we realize it or not.
And we all have that.
And I, yeah, my heart says that it's wrong.
So, I mean, you can agree differently, but that's literally.
Just appealing to your intuition.
Yeah, that's where the Constitution comes in.
If you want to change it, hang on, hang on.
I just want to make sure I got this right.
The reason it's unethical to not let people vote from your view is because your heart tells you it is.
There's right and wrong.
That's how our Constitution is formed by the majority of people saying what's right and wrong.
Help me out here.
Help me out here.
If my intuition, right?
And I make the same exact appeal because God puts on your heart what is right and wrong, I think it's wrong to let people vote.
Why am I wrong in your right?
I didn't say you were wrong.
Yeah, but we're appealing now to ethics.
So why is my ethics in this case inferior to your own?
I never said I was inferior.
That's so then what I'm doing is just as ethical as what you're doing?
In your own opinion?
No, in your opinion.
I'm not asking about, in my opinion, I'm asking about your opinion.
I would say no.
Why?
It's based off of faith plus what's ensured in the Constitution.
If we want to go change it, forget the Constitution.
We're just talking about ethics.
Well, ethics is based off of what the whole United States decides.
Hang on.
Are you Christian without the Constitution?
Constitution's gone tomorrow.
You're still appealing to the same set of ethics, right?
Yeah, I mean, I call myself a follower of Jesus, not exactly.
Okay, fine.
But if the Constitution's gone tomorrow, your ethics remain the same?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
Then we don't need the Constitution to make an appeal to your ethical system.
So in your ethical system, why does everyone need to vote?
If we don't have the Constitution, there is no voting and anarchy.
What do you mean?
You can vote without the Constitution.
There's all sorts of countries that don't have Constitutions.
I mean, what I would do is just get out.
Like, I mean, I would.
That's not my question.
My question isn't, would you leave?
My question is, what would make it unethical?
I didn't say it would be unethical.
So it's not unethical then for Christian nationalists to try to push for people not to vote?
Yeah, I mean, it's not unethical because in your framework, that's how you see it, but that's why I like the Constitution.
I'm asking from your framework.
I know how I see it.
I'm asking from your framework, how could the Christian nationalists be wrong if you're just saying that the appeal to your ethical system, if the Constitution wasn't there, would be exactly the same.
And you can't tell me why it would be unethical at all.
Hang on.
Why it would be unethical at all for Christian nationalists to say you can't fucking vote.
I think taking it take you're putting power upon yourselves instead of leaving it to God.
And you're taking away God's plan, God's past.
How is voting not that?
But if you're taking, yeah, that's what, if you, what?
Okay, let me think about this.
Sorry, my brain is loopy.
Voting is doing the...
Can I show you caffeine somewhere?
Yeah, we all, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
That's what I'm saying.
I believe in the Constitution and I believe in Jesus' words.
Yeah, but I think Christian nationalists goes against Jesus' words.
That's why it's unethical.
Wait, this is super weird to me because you said that Christian nationalists by taking people's right to vote away would be doing something unethical because of the appeal to your ethics.
And when you appeal to your ethics, you say the thing is, is that that would be restricting free will instead of putting it in God's hands.
But then when I point out the contradiction of you wanting people to vote, which does the exact same thing, you just went, oh.
That's a society.
I think God should be left out of it, church and state.
Separation of church and state, dude.
That's why I'm against Christian nationalism.
You shouldn't nationalize Christianity.
So what a part, what about your ethics says that you need to separate church and state?
Because of the way Jesus talked about the government.
Oh, tell me how he talked about the government.
Can I look it up?
I need some caffeine.
Okay.
Well, you do that.
I'll have a smoke.
Okay.
Okay.
You need caffeine?
Do I have a few minutes?
I don't want to leave that with a podcast.
My brain is just...
Debate Crash Course00:15:00
Well, I mean, I'll engage you on this a little bit because some of your...
The reason I'm even not doing this as a 1v1, much of the criticisms that you sent us were directed at me, directed at the podcast.
You, for example, wrote, you wrote that you thought that we were down to bring on people with opposing views.
Yeah.
And you, you know, this is about the James Tallarico thing.
This is about James Tallarico.
That's the whole reason I was mad at you is because for like a year almost, I kept trying to get this to like six months maybe since I started bringing it up.
That's why I got mad at you is because you told me to find people who I thought were worthy to be on the show and then I kept bringing up James Tallerico.
Why are you doing a quote when that I'm pretty sure that's not what?
We can go into the episode because I was saying because you were telling me to recruit people because I didn't think it wasn't up to my, you said find people up to my standards of who should be on the show.
You said that on the episode.
On the episode or in the that I was on the episodes that I was on, but the people can look it up.
And I said, fine.
And I did.
And then you were ignoring it.
That's why I was mad.
Yeah, you, I mean, okay.
But you wrote scared to be called out on?
I was trying to appeal to, yeah, you weren't answering me, so I was trying to appeal to.
Yeah, I'm managing, often, I'm juggling oftentimes hundreds of different DMs.
We already had you on two shows.
We had you on a dating talk panel and then we had you on a sort of very other, similarly informal debate.
You kind of crashed the debate.
There are some other girls there.
Frankly, I mean, based off of how this debate is going and your performance in the previous debates, you're, I'm almost somewhat regretting having booked this.
Your performance was quite poor on the dating talk.
Your performance was poor.
Your performance is poor tonight.
You're all over the place.
I've never been in a debate.
I'm incoherent.
Well, then why are you asking to, if you're not a good debater, why are you?
I'm here for a bigger purpose is to talk to the people who actually understand what I'm saying.
And you're asking.
Are you tired of the hate?
Tired of that.
Well, we'll get into that, which is part of the reason I'm sitting here on the panel.
Yeah, but I mean, look, look, it improved a little bit, but the first 10, 15 minutes of this debate, oh boy, that was rough.
I kind of, I almost wanted to apologize to Andrew for, you know, look, hey, Andrew's, Andrew's, he's a BSD.
What is that?
Don't worry about it.
But I feel like I got a, I felt bad for Andrew.
I'm like, man, you came all this way.
We've got another debate for him tomorrow.
By the way, guys, those of you who are watching the stream, Andrew will be debating not so erudite erudite tomorrow at about, I think we're aiming to go live at 3.30 p.m.
So given our 3.45, but 3.30.
We're trying to go live 3.30 p.m. tomorrow with Erudite.
And so we do have another debate tomorrow.
Andrew will be here for our dating talk panel on Sunday.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, can you go over to Twitch?
Can you pull up the window over there, Nathan?
Show us the Twitch window.
Make sure nothing else is being shown.
Actually, it doesn't matter.
Wait, hold on.
Hold on a sec.
We got to wait.
Actually, you know what?
Hold on.
hell off on that um you said what do you and hold on You said I did bad on the dating podcast.
I had like so many people in my inbox talking about how y'all did me dirty.
For example, OnlyFans girls will say, I'm a 10 because so many guys buy my OnlyFans.
I agree with that.
Stop.
The woman could be morbidly obese and not attractive and still have men like saying this.
So in any case.
What do you mean?
I agree with you on like the majority of that shit.
I don't know what you're talking about.
That's besides the point.
You wrote that don't, don't, this is what you said.
I never agreed to you going into my DMs.
And I never, I told you ahead of time, like I wasn't cool with you going into all my DMs and talking about everything we've talked about right before we started.
When?
Right before we started.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
So just to be clear, we agreed to do this debate a long time ago.
Yeah.
And five minutes before the debate starts, the messages that you sent to me on Instagram, they're not fair game.
That's ridiculous.
Everything that you write.
I'll show you the message right now.
No, don't.
No, no, no.
Don't pull it up because, no, don't show anything on fucking camera.
I'm not even showing our camera.
Put your phone down.
You're not going to show.
I have the messages.
I know, but literally today I said, what are I was like?
The prompts that you sent.
Yeah.
And I sent this to you yesterday, your criticisms of the whatever podcast.
You didn't send me.
I literally said that.
I literally sent that to you yesterday.
You learned about criticisms.
You re-sent me like my further points before that, which were the exact same things that I had.
The only reason I'm sitting here and it's not a 1v1 is because you explicitly said that you want to debate me and Andrew.
I would have been happy to have this be a 1v1.
That's how most of the debates are.
But you, I didn't know I was debating you.
I thought it was just me, Andrew.
I could show you the message.
I changed my mind over and over again.
I literally just bipolar.
I don't know what you're saying.
I'm not bipolar, dude.
What happened?
Do you want me to explain what happened?
I'm using bipolar in a not a literal sense that you're actually diagnosed with.
I realize you're not bad when you're like literally not agitated with like you're kind of mean sometimes.
Y'all were mad.
Listen, let me finish this.
Y'all were mad because of the crazy fuckers.
And like Jerry Springer was in the room.
I was first chair.
Hold on.
I'm not interesting in having a conversation.
I realize I'm not interested against you.
Stop.
I'm not interested in having a meta conversation about a podcast we did a year ago.
That's irrelevant.
What you wrote me since your last appearance was a direct request to debate.
You literally said, I want to debate Andrew and you.
That was to which you write, okay, well, we're here now.
You wrote, prove that I'm just a dumb woman, like you treated me on the show with a real debate.
Prove that 140 IQ girl, as you label me, is an idiot.
Now, here's, I guess, where we can get into some substance in terms of disagreement or debate.
You wrote, I'm mad, y'all.
And when you say y'all, you're referring to me and Andrew, helped with the division in this country.
Yeah.
And then, in addition, there's a lot you wrote.
It's a little, you sent me a fucking novel and talk shit about you.
You wanted to talk shit about us profiting from the division of this nation.
So there's two things here.
There's the assertion that me and Andrew have divided.
Hold on, stop.
Stop.
If you want to get into, I literally asked you, and through the text, you said we're not going to go through any of this.
I never, I literally never said that.
You can't show it on screen on screen, but you can read it.
You can read it.
So you wrote.
I asked if everything I've ever said to you was fair game, and you said no.
Okay.
What are you talking about?
I'll show you literally right now.
I have it on my phone too, but I'll know why we need to get into the meta.
Because you're literally going against what we just talked about yesterday.
What are you talking about?
I asked what was going to be included in the debate.
The prompts.
And then I said plus, I asked you what would be involved in those criticisms.
Then you sent my older prompts, which literally had none of this in there.
I never made you a promise that your criticisms would be excluded.
Furthermore, I just asked you about that because I didn't want you to go through all my messages and I never agreed to debate you.
You asked to debate me.
Otherwise, I changed it.
I changed it over and over again.
Every time Andrew comes on and does 1v1 debates, you specifically asked for the for to debate.
I want, here's what you wrote: I want to debate Andrew and you.
That was my messages after.
I said, I realize you're cool, and I have nothing against you.
So, regardless of that, now we're, I want to move away from the meta conversation.
This is on the this is on the table.
We're going to discuss it.
I don't know why you can't.
I need a break because I asked you ahead of time what we were going to be talking about, and I asked, Well, I've blobbered a lot to you.
What's going to be included?
And then you sent your old prompts and you said, I sent the prompts, and then I said, Plus your criticisms.
Did I not?
And then I said, What criticism?
I asked, what criticisms?
I've said a lot to you.
And then let me find what it says.
Are you uncomfortable defending your previous statements?
Because they have changed.
My opinion changed.
Remember, after that, did I not say you did a good that I have to admit that you were pretty base this last episode?
And then I told you I realized what my issue with you was.
I told you.
Well, okay, then if that is the way you act when Andrew is way different when he's not around on your episodes.
I told you that was the reason I figured out why I have a problem, and I told you exactly why.
And that was like a couple weeks ago.
I'm trying to, it's all Andrew's fault.
You're right.
Everything's your fault, Andrew.
Smokey Man is objective.
Smokey Man bad.
Smokey Man bad.
I need you to take a break.
Then take a break, then we'll dive right back into it.
Yeah, why don't you read to them that I said like after that that you're cool?
And I like, I'm glad you're not being fake.
And I said all that shit.
Well, yeah, but I think you can say that.
And then the things that you said prior to that are still valid.
I had to.
Here, you said you need caffeine.
Nathan can assist you with getting you off on Coffee.
But I didn't come here to talk about like the whatever podcast at all.
That was literally within.
Oh my God.
It's included.
Things change.
Not, yeah, the new prompts, the new prompts, because we didn't have any prompts left.
You asked me to make prompts to send it to Andrew.
Your communication style is so incoherent.
This has all been around like a year.
Shut up.
That one day it's, Brian, I want to debate you and you're a terrible person.
And the next day, actually, Brian, I'm cool with you.
I never said you're a terrible person.
I just wanted to know what you believe in because you don't always say what you believe in.
I'm just curious, why are you so defensive about going into some of the things that you previously said?
Because I literally asked you ahead of time and opinions change and my opinion changed.
Okay, so if it is the case.
I told you I was mad because of the James Tallarico thing.
If I bring something up and you're like, you know what, Brian, I actually changed my mind on it, then I'll move on.
Why don't you go ahead and take your break, though?
Oh, and come back.
And read them the last thing I said that you're actually pretty based.
I said that a few weeks ago or something.
Okay, take your break.
Take your break.
Get some, get some.
Oh, my God.
Yeah, that's the.
We have some chats coming through here.
You know, maybe I should wait till everybody's back at the table.
So, Andrew, how you been, man?
How's it going?
I've been good.
A lot of travel, working on some big projects for the Crucible.
We got something extra special coming up that's top secret, but I think it's going to shock a lot of people.
It's going to be pretty amazing.
And that's happening at the near the end of the month.
Glad to be back on whatever with all of you.
I know that there's tons of people in the whatever audience who don't like me, and there's tons of people who do.
But even to those who hate me, you missed me, right?
You missed me.
Admit it.
You missed me.
By the way, a lot of that exchange, just so you know, these aren't attributed to positions I have.
That was for those of you who are slowboys out in the whatever audience.
The Crucible doesn't have this problem.
But some of you in the whatever audience do.
Most of you don't, but some of you do.
That's called an internal critique.
That's me critiquing the position because it's incoherent.
So I know that what'll happen is many of you stupid people are going to be like, Andrew believes X, when that has nothing to do with what just happened.
What just happened was an internal criticism of somebody's incoherent positions.
That's that that's how you debate.
So anyway, just a pain donated one hundred dollars.
I ran an analysis over her body language and here's the result.
Posture equals slouching.
Confidence equals nervous.
Engagement equals disengaged.
Expression equals negative.
Eye gaze equals averted.
Smile equals none.
Thank you very much, William Payne, for that.
I must have had the TTS threshold lower.
It doesn't really matter.
I would have just read it anyways.
Thank you for the message there.
VSTreamLabs.com.
Hey, Nathan, can you pull up Twitch?
Show us Twitch here.
If you can, go to the window tab.
By the way, some of the whatever regulars, including the mods, how you guys doing?
I've been popping into the chat here and there and saying hello to you guys during the dating talks, this kind of thing.
And I'm kind of glad to be back on the whatever stomping grounds.
We got some good debates lined up and some good dating panels, so those should be good.
Guys, if you're watching over there on Twitch, drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
Thank you, guys.
Appreciate it.
And guys, thank you for the super chats.
Thank you for the support.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
She's going to be returning here in just a moment.
But guys, like the video.
Also, debateuniversity.com.
I'll do a little shout-out for that in a little bit.
$200 is the TTS.
Can I respond to whatever that TTS was?
I mean, no, we're just going to move on.
Everyone gets to respond.
I mean, it was below the threshold anyways.
Okay.
Okay.
Go ahead and make your quick response, please.
Well, yeah, okay.
I slouch because I have rods down my entire back.
I'm not smiling because, here you go, smiling.
If it was a positive conversation, I'd smile.
I slouch because of Helldivers too.
Because I'm like, fucking the bugs.
Sometimes the fascist bugs come out.
I don't think you're a fascist.
No, no, I'm saying the bugs are fascist.
And when they come out, for the purpose of democracy, for managed democracy, we have to destroy them.
And so that's what we do.
And so I think you don't want to slouch.
Okay.
All right.
You're trying to destroy democracy?
Is that what I get?
Okay.
So again, going back to this, you said you wrote that.
Okay.
Yeah.
Do you want to allow me to like finish a sentence before you quip?
Yeah, sure, but I didn't agree to any of this.
Attempting to Delay00:05:52
You didn't, it's this is.
I asked you ahead of time.
You literally.
I'll know why you're doing this thing where you're attempting to delay what really should be.
No, but I asked what was fair game because I've, and then you sent me the prop.
Because I was like, what are my disagreements?
And I asked you, and then you said, and then you sent the, look it up.
We just talked about it.
I mean, do you want to just fucking leave?
Is that what you want to do?
I don't want to leave.
Why are you all getting so mad?
Because you've been attempting to delay the continuance of this conversation.
Because I didn't agree to it.
You literally did.
You asked me to.
Look it up yourself.
How could you possibly, how can you, on one hand, send me a message that says, I want to debate Andrew and you.
And here's all the things I disagree with you about.
If you look back at it, I kept saying that.
And then you can't do a thing where five minutes before the debate.
It wasn't five minutes before.
You literally said, rewind the tape.
You were like, Brian, when we sat down here, I said, I don't want to talk about that.
No, I. Sorry, it's on the table.
okay can you if you let me explain my set of that of what happened you don't remember all of the messages because you get a hundred of them a day right i don't I do remember the messages.
Can you stop with the meta conversation?
I know you want to delay here because it's going to make you look fucking terrible.
Maybe that's why you want to delay it.
But in any case, I think it's fair game.
It's completely fair game.
And perhaps you don't want to pull it up now because maybe you're not prepared to even defend the words that came out of your own mouth.
Like I said, we can pull up the text.
First, I wanted to do a two- Baron, thank you.
Listen, this is how I will explain it.
I wanted to debate you too, or even you on your own, because I noticed during the episodes, you don't tend to answer a lot of questions.
You ask people questions and you put his point of view on.
So my point, my thing at the time was I want to learn more about you.
It had nothing to do with, I wanted to know your exact stance on things because you don't always give out the answers to what you actually believe in.
That's the only reason why I said that.
But then I said, then we talked about me being on the panel and that would be okay.
But then I said, oh, shit.
Then I changed it to just Andrew because I have shit to say about him.
Say to him is what I said.
I remember the messages because I don't get a thousand of them.
And then we stopped talking forever.
And I said, I want to debate because of like the world issues with Epstein and all the corruption.
And that's why I'm here now.
It's for a broader message that literally has nothing to do with the whatever podcast.
I know I'm not great at debate.
He's one of the best.
He's very smart.
He has a lot of good talking points.
That my bigger mission here, I don't care if I win a debate.
I'm obviously I'm here to, like I said at the beginning, we need to just agree on making sure we vote for people who are as at least corrupt as possible.
So as recently as Wednesday at, it looks like it's 6 p.m.
So this is like basically 24 hours ago.
Hold on.
Wednesday, no, excuse me, Wednesday at 7.36 p.m.
So 24 hours ago, Andrew wants to do prompts one, three, five, six of the prompts you sent plus your previously stated criticisms.
And then I asked what the ones that you sent in the message.
Yeah, and then what does it say after that when I ask you?
I don't understand.
So even if there was lacking of communication, even if it's from both our sides, what would be your actual objection to getting into other topics?
I agreed to get into other topics, but my views changed on you once I watched more episodes.
So I don't know what you're even finding.
I agree.
There is a lot of good that comes out of the podcast.
But there's also a lot of why are you trying to stop it ahead of time preemptively?
Because I didn't agree to it.
Let me go through the stated criticisms and perhaps some of them are still valid.
If they're not still valid and you say, changed, then I suppose that we don't have to engage there.
But are you just going to continue?
What's the term in Congress where they don't let anybody else tell you?
Filibuster.
Are you just going to continue filibustering or can I actually start to get through it?
It's been 30 minutes of prattling and you delay, delay, delay.
Why don't I just get through it?
That's not actually what the term is in Congress, but that's not what a filibuster is.
But I call it a filibuster.
Okay, I mean, go for it, but I didn't agree to it.
Let's go.
It's not that you didn't.
Again, I will repeat.
You said you wanted to debate me and Andrew, and then you listed all these things.
Okay, my intent changed.
I'm just going to get right into it.
I'm just going to get right into it.
You wrote that I'm mad y'all helped with the division in this country.
And then you wanted to talk about how we're profiting from the division of this nation.
So I guess first, how am I, how is Andrew, helping with the division in the country?
I would say that calling, like just how you called me a feminist, what did you say I was?
A feminist leftist hater, 140 IQ.
Selective Service Disagreements00:08:08
Yeah, I mean, you're kind of labeling people.
And then you only bring on certain types of, I mean, not only, but, and then you clip, the majority of what people see are clips, right?
That get that get shown.
And you don't, they don't watch the full episode.
So labeling is the first thing.
And no, this isn't about you.
It's about him.
What if the labels are?
Who, Andrew?
Yeah, it's the way he talks to people on the show and laughs at them and he continuously talks about like instead of fixing the laws that make it fucked up to that men have to serve against their will, like let's change the laws.
But he always talks about taking away women's rights to vote instead of like, hey, let's change up the fuck up fucked up law.
And then he said that women are more prone to propaganda.
You said something about their period and it was like a conversation about women and leadership.
That was a Pierce Morgan episode.
You brought like periods up and stuff.
Like, yeah, since the show, I have had a lot of people in my DMs and they were all very nice.
They were all very nice.
But then they would say stuff like, I don't think women should have the right to vote.
And I think that is making the male loneliness epidemic worse because if you look at the stats, statistically, more women are liberal.
And yeah, and you're making, yeah, the way you talk about the sexes, and women do this too, which I would like for it to stop, is mostly on his side can be very, I would call it toxic.
And yeah, and then also gives guys confidence when they go in my DMs trying to date me and then like tell me while they're trying to hang out with someone like, yeah, that they want to take away my right to vote is, you know, it kind of is that kind of takes away men who want to date you want to take that.
It kind of takes away their game in a sense.
How would you know?
You've given them a lot of confidence to say that.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.
Hold on, really quick.
Absence them.
Do these fucking bass chats, by the way.
That's the most base shit I ever heard.
Hey, baby, you want to go out?
By the way, you should be able to fucking vote.
I was like, that's fucking, what the fuck?
What are you guys doing?
What are you doing?
I'm just saying you make your chances of getting laid or in a relationship far less.
You can't fuck me if I can't vote.
Yeah, I would say that's a good idea, ladies.
You can lock your legs up.
I don't fuck anybody.
That'll teach the Christian nationalists that women are all going to stop being skanks if you don't let them vote.
So, I mean, really, just on this point, really quick on this point.
Absence these people disclosing that they're viewers of the podcast, how could you even come to the determination that it's even my viewers that are sliding into your DMs trying to hit on you?
They said they saw me on the podcast.
Like a year ago?
I've still get DMs.
I've been getting DMs.
Well, I mean, really quick, my position on this.
So you're saying some of these men are in favor of repealing the 19th?
Yeah.
I mean, my position on this is.
I just don't think that's a good way to, you know, if you're trying to date someone.
Yeah, I think talking probably like if you're trying to flirt with somebody.
Men, don't do that.
Getting into politics.
But it's the show that gave them the confidence to say that, is what I'm saying.
Well, hold on.
Really quick on the question of the 19th.
That sounds like togetherness to me instead of division.
The bros.
Togetherly being alone.
Sounds like together.
I think we're all lonely.
Lonelier, sorry.
What were you going to say?
Yeah.
So on the topic of the 19th, I mean, me personally, this is more so something Andrew has talked about.
Although my understanding of Andrew's position on this is he wants to pretty much claw back the voting rights from both men and women.
Correct.
So, but as it relates specifically to the 19th and women's access to the vote, my opinion on this has perhaps evolved to some degree.
Currently, in order for men to have access to the vote, they have to register for the selective service.
They're subject to forced military conscription in a way that women are not.
This would be too.
Shut up, please.
No, no, no.
Like, I've asked you to not interrupt multiple times.
I apologize.
I shouldn't have done that.
But, like, can you stop interrupting, please?
I'm trying to get through a thought here without, you know, at least go for 10, 20 seconds without being interrupted.
I apologize.
It was rude.
I just know what you're going to say already.
She knows what.
Okay, tell me what I'm going to say then.
The same thing you'll say is that it's not fair for men that they have to do that for the right to vote.
So my position.
I agree.
It's not fair.
Okay.
But my position is as follows.
So perhaps I'm not quite as hardlined as Andrew on this.
I'm actually perhaps in some ways, you might even label me even more of a feminist than actual feminist, even more so than yourself.
Perhaps I'm more of an egalitarian.
The current status quo is in order for men to have access to the right to vote, they have to register with the selective service.
I believe the first step before revoking women's right to vote is we ought to equalize this requirement.
Women ought to have to register with the selective service, and then of course women should keep their right to vote.
However, if we're not going to have a serious conversation about equalizing this, then I'm actually, if we make a determination that is, you know what, the current status quo remains.
Men have to continue registering for the selective service.
Men exclusively have to be the exclusive subjects of military conscription, then under this landscape, and if it's a final determination, no, women will never be subject to military conscription, then we should have a serious conversation about either repealing the 19th or perhaps we can have the power of women's vote so they get half the power of a man's vote.
That would be my position.
I agree for the majority of that.
I mean, I think, I mean, I don't think anyone should have to do that, especially with AI technology and stuff coming out.
It's probably unnecessary.
But either get rid of that altogether or women should have to do the same.
Yeah.
Okay.
Those are my two options is that, yeah.
Okay.
I don't think anyone should be forced to do that for the right to vote.
But if we can't change that, yeah, give women drones and shit.
Can I ask you a question?
I guess moving off the draft thing.
Is the system, the current political system as is, isn't it divisive inherently?
So if you have Republicans and Democrats, isn't that already divisive?
Two people want two groups of people want different things.
I would also change it from a two-party system because the way there is a two, yeah, the two-party system kind of forces us to be divisive when 47% of people consider themselves an independent and with all these corporate people that, yeah, the corporate, sorry, my brain's blanking.
It's dyslexia thing.
So the way it is, is that most of us are being forced to vote for people like we don't even really like due to like the funding issues and who gets the media time, literally everything I've been talking about.
Giovanni's Critiques00:14:42
I didn't want to vote for Biden.
A lot of never Trumpers voted for Trump and they didn't like him.
So I would change.
Thomas Vassey talks a lot about this.
Just the entire system is set up for only two parties, and it kind of forces people to pick shitty candidates and pick a side.
And if both sides suck, you choose the less sucky one.
And we're all kind of stuck in this, like, this fucked up.
Yeah, it's a fucked up system the way we have it right now.
Okay, you also wrote, moving on to the rest of your notes.
You wrote, I just want to tell you you're a little bitch.
Little bitch.
You did write that.
No, little bitch is, I wasn't actually.
Can you repeat it exactly what I want how I said it?
This is your quote.
I just want to tell you you're a little bitch.
Bish, little bitch is not actual.
And I didn't bitch.
Yeah, B-I-T-C-H.
Can I see that?
I don't think I said those words.
You can look it up after the show.
I'm not in the middle of the day.
I said, don't be a little bitch, is what I said.
Don't be a little L-I-L-B.
It wasn't.
No.
Oh, my God, bro.
I know what I said.
I know what I said.
Don't change my words.
I mean, do you want me to take a screenshot?
Okay, tell you what.
Do you have any cash on you?
If I take a screenshot of it.
How about this?
You have to vend money?
Did I say don't be a little bitch?
Do you want to do a vet?
Do you want to do a vet?
No, wait, I'm trying to.
I think you might have been right.
Did I say don't be a little bitch?
I said, don't be a little L-I-L-Bish.
That means that's not a real insult.
Don't be a little bitch.
When someone called you a bitch.
Are we debating about lil versus little?
And I said B-I-C-H.
That's not the substance of what I'm about to get into.
Okay, but I'm just saying I never called you names.
You literally did.
The only name I called you.
Yeah.
Don't worry about it.
I have it in front of me.
I didn't change your words.
Wait, are you?
Do you want to shake hands a thousand times?
What are the exact same?
What is little bitch?
Don't, but what's the start?
Little bitch.
No, I asked.
You bitch over a little bit.
What's the first part of that?
You literally.
I'm not sure if I can do it.
I said, don't be a.
But I'm asking what was the sentence?
Tell me what the full thing is.
Do you want me to repeat it again?
I just want to tell you you're a little bitch.
Little bitch, not little bitch.
That's what you wrote.
Anyways, that's not.
I see it.
I don't remember that.
You're getting bogged down here.
I'm moving on to the next thing.
Oh, I do remember that.
Oh, my God.
Jesus.
Dude, can it like?
Hold stop.
I don't remember.
You wrote, I used to think you were okay and sort of nice.
Can you shut up, please?
Can you stop interrupting?
You wrote, I used to think you were okay and sort of nice, but you're fake AF and hide behind your mentally ill, excuse me, mentally ill minions, my viewers, and mystery.
Okay.
Okay, so how am I fake?
Because this was also about the James Tallarico thing.
I was talking about how fucked up the Charlie Kirk thing was and how I wanted to come here to talk about real issues.
And I was like spilling my heart about how fucked up shit's gotten in society.
And I was mad about you telling me to find people I found worthy.
And I kept bringing up James Tallarico, which would be an awesome debate.
Like it would be great.
And then you just keep ignoring me.
So I talk about all these issues that I think are more important.
Oh, that makes me fake, though?
Because I thought that you didn't want to confront the actual issues.
Like, yeah, because I spilled my heart out about how corrupt the government is.
And I mean, okay.
And how I wanted, I had a message of, because he was talking about how the left is murderous and all this stuff.
And I was upset about majority of, okay.
I was upset about reactions on both sides.
So yeah, I was, and then I wanted to talk about it.
And I also brought up James Tallarigo.
Wait, can I ask you a question?
If I want to, wait, wait, wait.
So, we get a lot of requests for people who want to come on the show, a lot of requests.
And you've already been on twice.
And again, I'm not trying to say this to be insulting.
Your previous performances were frankly lackluster.
I already said this.
I kind of already regret having booked this already.
Andrew, the superstar that he is, but a little beneath him.
I apologize, Andrew, in advance.
Dude, I've seen your other debates.
Well, okay.
Anyways, with who?
The girls literally have nothing to say and just repeat stupid shit on the left with no thought whatsoever.
I'm not saying this to like intentionally be insulting.
You were kind of low priority in terms of getting you back on the show.
That's cool.
Oh, but in any case, I'm not sure how that would be fake.
It'd be like, I guess if I is Joe Rogan, like if I reach out to Joe Rogan and he's not responding to me, does that make him fake?
No, what was I trying to get on his podcast?
What was fake is that I didn't think you wanted to talk about real issues.
I was saying, this is my purpose for being here.
And I kept saying, James Tallarico.
Okay.
And I was mad that I felt like I had real things to say that were bigger than culture issues to talk about.
Well, I mean, I feel like you're kind of using your name-dropping James as an effort to shoehorn yourself into a debate.
But like, I reached out that email you sent me of his campaign manager, I reached out, no response.
So it seems like I told you ahead of time that it's going to take a while.
Your relation or connection to James Tallerico is a bit dubious at this point.
I kind of get the impression that it was just you actually have no connection to him, and his perhaps interest in debate is a bit with Andrew Wilson, perhaps a bit dubious.
But in any case, why did I have the direct contact to the person?
No response.
No.
I told you ahead of time that it's a and look at his travels.
Listen, when I contacted y'all, James was not mainstream and like a few weeks away from a yeah, the voting has already started.
So months and months and months ago, when I started volunteering for James, I kept I said I told you, hey, I who the fuck is James Tallarico?
Now everybody's gonna look him up.
That's how the fuck he is.
He's a Christian Democrat who's running for the oh, yeah, absolutely.
I'll debate with him.
No, that's what I kept trying to.
And even on Joe, when he was on Joe Rogan, I sent you the link of showing the comments where everyone was saying that you need to debate him.
I sent you his thing, I think.
Yeah, everybody, yeah.
If he's a Christian Democrat, he can't win a debate.
It's not possible.
Well, he's pretty good now.
I guess it's possible.
So, yeah, I mean, I was.
So, yeah, he might not be responding now, but he's literally exploded through media and is traveling around right now.
I don't know how me.
I was trying to get him to come months and months ago.
I'm overlooking your messages out of the sea of messages that I do have.
I'll know how that's fake.
But whatever, I'm not going to focus.
Don't worry.
I'm not going to.
I'm just okay.
But it's because I wanted to bring a real opponent to debate him instead of these young people.
Andrew has gone up against some of the best.
Andrew's debated some of the best debaters out there.
He's been.
You asked me.
You even said you pay me to find people who I thought were worthy to bring on the show.
And I find like the best person I sent me two people, and then one of them was no, no, people backed out.
Right.
But I've probably like five different times I brought up James Tallarico.
Yeah, you sent like his name.
And no, I showed you his Joe Rogan episode.
And I showed you all the comments where everyone was saying that they need to debate.
Tell you what, you got the connection.
I'd be happy to host a 1v1 between Andrew and James Rogan.
Christian Democrats aren't going to debate with him.
He's done debates like that.
I'm very confident.
His team already said.
Politicians only want to take the media that's going to paint them in the favorable light.
He went on Fox.
He's gone on Fox and shit.
It's easy peasy compared to Andrew.
Andrew Wilson will demolish crush.
Crush.
If he was.
He's literally like a sermon.
He literally went to school studying the Bible.
Andrew would demolish it.
Yeah, they do it all the time.
You know how many times I get these faux Christians who come in and they have these phony ass theology degrees?
Cracks me up.
I went to seminary school to find liberal Jesus.
Yeah, I was mostly irritated that literally.
But the thing is, it's like, look, I don't know this guy.
To be totally fair, I never even heard of him before.
For all I know, he's one of the best debaters on planet Earth, right?
I got nothing against this guy.
I'm happy to debate with him.
If he's a Christian Democrat, those are my favorite.
So I'm happy to do it.
I got no dog in this fight.
So basically, I was just upset that I felt like you only wanted to bring people in that.
Yeah.
I was talking about corruption on both sides.
And I was talking, yeah.
It was mostly like I thought you were being fake.
Oh, that's crazy.
Giovanni Jade, you donated $200.
Sounds right.
Tolarico is a disgusting hippie Jesus heretic who wears our faith like a skin suit.
So you, people who despise Christianity, will clap like seals.
We will never debate anyone with an ounce of theology.
Jesus kind of was a hippie.
Giovanni, I kind of wasn't.
Giovanni, really good to see you.
Thank you for the message that.
Take Paul out of it.
And yeah, you mean take the pinnacle part of the gospel out of it?
And then he will be.
As long as we just take out the parts that you don't like.
No, I mean, we can compare if you let me take my notes out what he said that.
I'm kind of just trying to rapid fire through these things here.
Okay.
And then we can get back to some of the prompts.
You also, in terms of your criticisms, levied.
Andrew, by the way, Andrew's been a guest on the dating talks very frequently.
He's our most reoccurring guests.
Thank you, whatever, for having me, by the way, to do that.
I agree.
Thank you for having me.
But one of the criticisms levied was your whole show's premise is about the male loneliness epidemic, but you're spewing garbage that makes women repulsed by men, ensuring all your incel homeboys never get laid.
So really quick, just my response to that, and then I'll let you respond.
So you wrote that the whole show, the dating talk, the whole show's premise is about the male loneliness epidemic.
This is just simply false.
The male loneliness, excuse me, the male loneliness epidemic is not the premise of the show.
It's a broad dating discussion show.
I don't even really talk about the male loneliness epidemic.
It's maybe come up like that, that actual term, that actual term has maybe come up two, three times on the show.
It's not a central focus of the conversations that are had on the show.
So your premise is flawed.
Your premise is erroneous.
The premise of the whatever the dating, I know it's a dating.
It's not about the male loneliness epidemic.
I should have broadened it, but yeah, it's a total straw man.
It doesn't change the fact that your show makes people more repulsive each other.
My show makes people more repulsed.
Yeah, when people are coming into my DMs, it's because of the way people spoke to me in the DMs about the rights to vote and all of that.
And when you're showcasing people who are young and dumb, you give the oppression.
Like you?
I'm not young, but thank you.
How old are you?
38.
Well, I'll take back the young part.
So can you tell me what makes me dumb?
I'm not good at debate.
What have I said?
I agree with the majority of what you say.
So what makes me dumb?
Well, let's investigate your claim first before I have to give an accounting of what would make you dumb.
But you're claiming I bring on these young and dumb women.
How's that?
I don't understand how that's related.
Yeah, because you give an image that we're all asking for people to make a million dollars and that people.
I'm giving a broad of how people perceive it.
That everybody's entitled.
Okay, if I perceived you as a dinosaur, is that correct?
Is that true?
In your head.
Okay, but so is it possible that somebody could have a false perception?
Yeah, that's cool.
You're doing some good things with that, but I think if you're doing some good things about getting rid of people's perceptions on, yeah, feminism did go too far.
You are doing some good things to get rid of some people's perceptions.
But I think if you wanted to be fair on it, you would have a broader sense of people, even maybe bringing young like Trump supporters and testing them out to see if they know how many branches of government there are.
Wait, hold on.
Let me get back.
I don't want you.
You're doing a Gish Gallup.
So basically, I would like an attempt to, maybe we can do one by one.
Yeah, I was going to get back to the point.
Because if you give me like 10 things, it's hard for me.
So I'd like to do one by one.
So, okay, you're saying that there's a lacking of diversity in terms of the guests that we have on the panel.
You're saying, Brian, you bring on a very narrow range, a very narrow type of women onto the show that isn't representative of, you know, there's these really intelligent women out there or there's women on the left.
And by the way, the panels are frequently tend to be a little split politically.
You'll have women who are liberal, women who are moderate.
You'll have women who are right-wing.
You'll have women who are conservatives.
So this idea that I'm, for example, only bringing on liberal women is not true.
Political Diversity On Air00:02:30
And by the way, liberal women and conservative women can equally get the smoke because a lot of these conservative women, they're covert feminists.
They're actually feminists.
And, you know, Sarah Stock, who we had on the show, who recently had this, who was most people would have said based off of her political takes, was like super right-wing, like far right-wing.
And she's a total fucking, she's basically Lauren Southern.
Yeah.
Total grifter.
Yeah.
Total trad fraud.
There's a lot of them out there.
Right.
So this idea that, you know, you can't, I'm not levying this criticisms toward conservative women is completely.
I didn't say that.
So conservative women can get the smoke too.
I didn't.
Honestly, some way, hold on, really quick.
Final thing and I'll pass it back to you.
I think some of these conservative women, you know, I sometimes respect the OF girls, the hoes.
They're real.
The liberal women, because in some ways they tell the truth.
At least they take ownership of being whores.
I totally.
Whereas some of these conservative chicks, the trad, the fake trads, they fucking lie.
They're Sarah Stock.
They're claiming to be trad, but they're not.
They're, I'm a virgin, but they're not.
Some of these, a lot of these girls who come on claiming they're conservative trads.
That's a lie.
I'm a virgin.
By the way, I make it a habit not to expose people, but I'll get DMs from some guy that they were smashing the week before.
So they can all get the smoke.
It's not, I'm not just picking on the liberal women, but we have a vast diversity of guests.
They're young, they're old.
We've had women who are 18 all the way to in their 70s.
We've had women who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s come on the show.
We've had women.
Yeah, she's 38.
We've had women who have bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, PhDs.
We've had doctors, we have had lawyers, we have had professional women.
And yes, we've had like women who are sex workers.
We've had OnlyFans girls on.
We've had women who've dropped out of college, dropped out of high school even.
So we've had a vast diversity of guests in terms of their age, in terms of their profession, their political leaning, their educational achievement.
By the way, I'm not some intellectual Titan here.
I dropped out of community college.
I used to do silly prank videos.
I'm not, I wasn't schooled.
I don't have a philosophical foundation for my, when I engage in these debates.
Defending My Family00:05:28
Sometimes I get smoked.
I'm on the back foot sometimes.
So this idea that I'm some intellectual Titan bullying these uneducated women, actually, the truth is the majority of our guests on average have higher educational achievement than me, the college dropout.
Look, I that wasn't really about the really, it's, it's kind of, it's mostly, it's not about any of that.
It's, I realize my issues is when he's on this show and the way he talks to people.
I do like you.
I just don't like the way you speak to people.
You've spoken to, you've spoken to me worse today than I've spoken to you.
No, I mean, you're being great.
It's every now and then you'll go.
Yeah, you'll say some fucked up shit.
When people do horrible things to me and I respond.
And hang on, hang on.
Let me defend myself here for a second.
Right.
What it seems to me is that the most common complaint that I hear is that I don't allow myself to get bullied, attacked, my wife to get attacked, my family members to get attacked and doxed, and I'm not a passive bitch when that happens.
That seems to actually be what all those criticisms tend to reduce to.
Give me an example of when it is that I was way out of line where the other person wasn't doing everything in their power to be agitating or to come after me first.
Agitating?
What do you mean by did they call you something messed up first or did you just call them whores and type of stuff?
First of all, when I call a woman a whore or a prostitute, it's because she's a whore or a prostitute.
Like, do you recognize the distinction?
It's like... I get what you're saying.
So...
So if you're not a prostitute, Charlie, we're just stating a fact.
Oh, what was the fact?
That she had your wife has three baby daddies.
Which is not meant to be an insult, was it?
It's not an insult.
It's not.
Well, help me out here.
It's not an insult.
I'm just wondering, if you're married to a man and you have his children, is he your baby daddy?
I mean, technically.
That's what you consider a baby daddy.
So every couple out there, every married couple, all of their wives have baby daddy.
I mean, technically, yeah.
So then I guess my response to the future should just be, well, so what?
You got a baby daddy.
Does that even make sense?
I mean, that sounds like a bad idea.
I don't think she meant it as an insult at all.
Of course she did.
Not only that, her prescription, honestly, and the reason that it got so brutal back and forth was because she basically wanted me to kill my kids.
I saw the episode.
didn't want you to yeah she she did twisting what happened she was making a dig at you because she said it would be better to have aborted she said it would be better for me to kill my kids yeah From my perspective, it looked like she was taking a dig at like having Rachel called her, smacked her around, which was hilarious.
The whole point was, is like, fine, if you women want to make digs at my wife, do it to my wife.
Because watching her completely dismantle and destroy your worldviews is one of the funnest things that anybody has ever seen on planet Earth.
And the reason women tend to attack me through her is because they're petrified of her for good reason.
Your wife is awesome.
I'm just saying you just took it as an insult and she didn't really say anything insulting.
Bullshit.
That's lies and bullshit and reframing.
And not only that, I didn't see it.
Let me just seed the ground.
That one time, let's just assume for a second.
One time after a six-hour debate with a bad faith interlocutor who was so stupid, the thing she had a degree in, I still smoked her on.
Oh, I saw that.
Okay.
The thing she had a degree in that she studied her whole life, I still beat her on that topic too, just having a passive knowledge of it.
Okay.
Let's just assume for a second that one time I lost control briefly.
So what?
Done thousands of debates.
I mean, how many debates have you done?
This one.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is like, and you haven't exactly kept your cool.
You haven't exactly been cool, calm, and collected.
You haven't exactly balanced the room.
You haven't exactly had the best showing.
And so the thing is, is it's like, even if it's the case that I were to grant this, that out of six hours of completely decimating this person's worldview, she managed to get in 15 seconds of a dunk that liberals went crazy over, who were homosexuals mostly, by the way.
The fact of the matter is, is like, so what?
Anybody else who's in my shoes, right?
They just get decimated by these people over and over and over and over and over again.
They can't keep their cool.
They can't stay calm.
They can't stay collected.
Case in point.
What do you mean?
Like, yeah, my brain gets foggy and I lose track of what I'm saying, but I haven't been mad.
I've stuck up for the conversation that we had.
The only time I got annoyed was when he went against the terms of what we agreed to.
Oh, so you got annoyed?
Yeah, I wasn't mean to him.
Was I mean to him?
How could you be annoyed?
I wasn't.
When you felt like somebody was being bad faith and misrepresenting something, hang on.
I didn't wasn't that.
Are you saying that when you felt like somebody was being misrepresentative of a victim?
I stuck up for myself in a nice manner.
You stuck up for myself.
In a nice polite manner.
Every time I do something wrong, I apologize.
Jesus' Teachings Misinterpreted00:15:43
I think that for having a bad thing.
Well, now go do 3,000 more of these, and we'll see if you ever lose control in one.
But the thing is, it's funny, is it's like, yeah, of course people are going to attack me viciously.
And occasionally they're going to get some vicious attack back.
But generally speaking, I match energy.
I think that sometimes your attacks go a lot harder than the others.
I mean, I'd have to relook.
Yeah, exactly.
You have no examples.
Are your yawns genuine, by the way?
I remember this yawning like every single second.
What?
I don't know.
You know how somebody could yawn?
I don't know what a yawn is, but sometimes you can yawn like in a way to be okay.
Do I seem like I'm trying to be rude to anybody?
Well, yeah, but that aside, well, if it's a fake yawn, if it's a fake yawn, that's what I'm saying.
Look, I just consider it, I just consider it trolling.
Like, I don't even care.
But the thing is, is like the reason that I always bring this up is because there's just never any good examples ever.
Most of the time that women are trying to tell and police me is because they're actually saying that I just need to be passive.
I'm not allowed to defend myself.
I'm not allowed to defend my family.
That would be Jesus' way.
I mean, defend yourself, but Jesus's way.
Wait, didn't Jesus like throwing?
Blessed are the people.
was in the church for taking money.
That wasn't in during, yeah.
And he didn't call everybody.
Yeah, can I ask you a question?
Are you aware that at the time of Jesus Christ, that if you made a personal insult towards somebody, they would often kill you?
Yeah.
Did Jesus call people vipers?
Yeah.
And that's a killable offense.
Jesus didn't say that, though.
That's like the Old Testament.
No.
What?
How could Jesus say that in the Old Testament?
Show me where without Paul.
Yeah.
Let's take Paul out of it.
Sure.
Did he say to kill them?
Kill?
What?
So what do you say?
Did he say, yeah, you said it was a punishment?
It was so insulting you would get killed for saying it to somebody.
People like you, you live in what's called presentism.
You see, in common parlance, a lot of the words that we consider to be insulting are moderate insults.
Ultimately, they're moderate insults.
Like, you're a stupid bitch, you're an idiot, you're tarded, blah, Those aren't things people generally kill each other over.
In the time of Christ, they did.
They would kill you for insulting them and slighting their honor or slighting their wife.
And oftentimes the law would back them up on this.
And so the thing is, is like when Jesus would say something like that, right?
That caused so much insult as to cause a person to respond by killing them.
And so this idea that tards have that for some reason Jesus who called people whitewashed tombs, killable offense, called them vipers, killable offense.
He said that they were hypocrites, killable offense.
And by the way, they did end up killing him, by the way.
They did.
They crucified him.
And so the thing is, is it's like this is what's called tard theology.
What happens is a bunch of people got together and decided that Jesus was a tree-hugging hippie, when in fact, when you're really speaking truth to power, it's the most insulting thing on planet earth to the powerful.
And so what ends up happening is there's this great conflation which happens that Jesus was all about hugs and kisses.
Well, his words were like.
Except when he was calling people broods of vipers.
Can you look that up?
Sure.
Look it up.
It's in Matthew.
Yeah.
No, not calling people vipers, but he said something that, did he say it was a killable offense?
No, no, no.
Andrew's saying that back then.
But Jesus didn't say that.
Yes, he did.
No.
No, wait.
No, no, no.
He was insulting people.
He was insulting them by calling them broods of vipers, by calling them whitewashed tombs.
These were things which were so insulting, people would kill you over them.
So don't tell me Jesus didn't insult people.
He gave them the ultimate insults.
So insulting that it was a killable offense in his time.
I think saying vipers is talking about people doing like, yeah, like evil things.
I understand.
No, I do understand, but it was a killable offense.
When you insult a person, do you generally expect that they're going to kill you?
No, I get exactly what you're saying.
I just don't think, yeah, Jesus didn't say he was going to kill people.
No, that's not what Andrew's saying.
But I know what you're saying.
I get that.
Andrew's contention is not that Jesus said that that's a killable offense.
That it was at the time.
I get it.
But those are two separate things.
So there's what Jesus said, and there's the social cultural zeitgeist of thousands of years ago.
Yeah, so why are you calling what Jesus actually did say woke?
And even though it was a different time period.
First of all, what means infantilization?
Okay, so that was a whole different time period.
Why are you using that for modern times?
Like, it just doesn't make sense.
If you can agree, during the time period, things were different and the Bible was written.
We have context.
And not only do we have context, but I have church history which has an apostolic succession, which goes all the way back to the time of Christ, to the original apostles, which would include Paul.
I mean, he wasn't technically an original apostle, was he?
Okay.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
Were you aware that Paul hung out with Jesus' apostles?
Yeah, and a lot of them.
Wait, I'm not.
I just want to make sure that I wasn't finished answering.
Yeah.
And a lot of them were very skeptical, skeptical.
Which ones?
James.
Yes, he was.
Can you look that up?
No.
What do you want to say?
They all accepted.
They all accepted.
Eventually, they accepted and calling him a brother of Christ or whatever.
But did James?
He was a bishop in Ephesus.
What are you talking about?
Paul was the greatest evangelist of all time.
Paul set up Timothy as a bishop.
Paul was in Ephesus.
Paul was in Corinth.
And literally, apostles backed his place.
A few of them.
No, we can look in Acts.
You can look in Acts at the very first.
Stop.
You can look in Acts in the very first ecumenical council.
Paul was looked to for leadership, in fact.
So the thing is.
For that time period.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
You're just arguing to argue.
We're getting soft.
I'm not arguing anything.
We're getting soft topics.
He's asking me questions.
Let me just bring it back then.
Yeah, I know.
You reject Paul.
Yeah, I reject Paul, but even like James, and the original thing was, your contention is essentially Jesus, was this like hippie tree hugger, that never was harsh, or I guess he and Andrew's saying, well, actually there's this example where Jesus said you brew the vipers, and so that's the origination, I guess.
Moving it on to the back to this, but what people don't know, moving it on, moving on, hold on, I'm allowed to make my last point.
I mean make it.
We're supposed to follow what Jesus told us to do.
You don't know anything Jesus told us to do.
Literally wait.
Are you Christian?
I actually want to hear one thing that you think Jesus told us to do, love God, love your neighbors.
Are you follow the love God?
Love your neighbors, follow the commandments.
I call myself a follower of the way, which means the original before the Bible, sometimes before the listen.
Let me, what's the denomination of the church you go to Protestant.
Okay, I don't have one in Protestant.
It's not a denomination, it's an allocation.
Yeah okay, I've been to so many, a thousand different types of churches.
I don't call myself a Christian.
I go to church for the community and love of God.
So you don't even follow Christ.
I follow Christ.
It's a different.
A follower of the way is the.
Uh, Jesus tells you the way um, which um is following the commandments.
Yeah, that's a hippie shit, Yeah.
I remember reading the way.
Yeah, so I've tried to become more, bring myself more towards, was he hot?
Was he God?
No.
No, Jesus was a God.
He was a prophet.
He's a prophet.
Yeah.
Okay.
So he's not God.
No.
So you deny the divinity of Christ.
Can you stop?
I'm so sorry.
I'm a very twitchy person.
Do you deny the divinity of Christ?
Um.
He is divine.
No, I don't.
How is he divine if he's just a prophet?
I mean, he's just as divine as Buddha.
I mean, I think it's all the same God with a different dialect and different cultures.
I don't.
You're spiritual.
So it's monism.
I mean, sort of.
I mean, not sort of.
It just is, right?
So all different denominations have truth.
No, I wouldn't say all.
I just, I believe what I believe.
I also believe in like reincarnation.
I don't fit whatever.
Like, don't make fun of me.
I'm not making fun of y'all for your beliefs.
Well, no, the thing is, is like, I just am not going to.
Here's the thing, like, my position.
I don't get or take lectures from non-Christians on Christianity because they don't know what the fuck they're ever talking about.
You don't own Jesus.
Christianity was created after he passed away and people are interpreting it different ways.
I follow what he said, and I've looked into the history of all of it.
You have, huh?
Yeah.
All right, well, listen.
Can you just tell me what happened in Acts?
Yeah, okay, I don't know.
What happened in Acts?
Yeah, what happened?
Just tell me.
You've researched it all.
What happened in Acts?
Well, she wants to look it up on our.
Why do you need to look it up?
I thought she researched it.
Can I, can I, yeah, I don't.
I don't think, I think it's almost more of a rhetorical question in the sense that I don't think he actually has an interesting question.
But can I just give you the list of what Paul said compared to Jesus and how I, yeah.
Oh, you're going to have to be able to do that.
I had a Pauline the Pauline contradictions, the supposed Pauline contradictions.
Yeah.
Really?
That's what you came equipped with?
That's what you came equipped with was the supposed Pauline contradictions?
Really?
Okay.
We can go through them if you want.
You can't even tell me what happened in Acts.
In Acts, there was like the on the hill, this.
Got me.
Man, that's why I don't ever listen to non-Christians about Christianity anymore.
Shouldn't you listen to Jesus above anything else instead of Paul?
Well, here's the thing that's funny.
Did Jesus himself write anything?
No.
So who am I listening to?
He told us exactly what to do and his disciples and who becomes a disciple.
Did he appear to his disciples?
Disciples need witness.
Did he appear to his disciples post-death?
Yeah.
Okay, and is that true?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
Then why couldn't he appear to Paul?
I think that Paul.
That's not my question.
My question is, why couldn't he appear to Paul if he appeared to his other disciples?
Why not?
Because he wasn't a disciple.
Why couldn't he appear to Paul?
He could.
Okay, so then he could, right?
Paul's on the road to Damascus, right?
Jesus makes an appearance.
Is that correct?
If you think it's Jesus, he warns him.
This is verified by other apostles who tested him.
They had power given to them by Christ, didn't they?
Because he went to each of them post-death.
But you know better.
What do they know?
They were just his apostles.
First of all, they were still human.
And I think Paul is a test because Jesus warned us ahead of a time that there would be fake apostles.
And he told us exactly.
He warned us in several different statements that there would be heresies and fake apostles and even commended people.
What was Paul's name?
Paulos and Saul was the original.
And what did he do?
Do you remember?
Murdered a bunch of Christians.
What did he do?
What do you mean?
For work?
Yeah, I don't know that.
You don't know anything about the very...
I just told you his name is Saul.
You don't know.
What do you mean?
I don't know what all you don't know anything about the context of the very thing it is that you're talking about, which is why I never listen to lectures about Christianity.
You have to know what someone did for a living.
Checkmate.
Checkmate.
You have to know what someone did for a living.
It's very important, especially with Paul, to see how Paul's beginnings, right, changed into something far more humble when he became a tent maker afterwards.
And this is why, in fact, they tried to drive Paul out.
What you're talking about, there were fake apostles.
They were called super apostles.
And they tried to drive Paul out.
That's what happened.
And he had to go and put a stop to that.
That literally happened.
And the thing that's so funny is like, you don't know any of that.
You don't know any of the history.
You don't know what happened with the cult of Artemis.
You don't know what happened with any of the Pauline doctrine.
None of you ever do.
You just go.
Paul said mean shit that I don't like.
That means that Jesus is not a head.
to what what jesus said i i don't think paul meant bad but like i don't does that mean everything he ever says is gonna be i gotta redirect the conversation I'm just saying.
I got to redirect the role of it.
Yeah, I'm just saying that if it goes against what Jesus Christ told us and the way he said.
You don't even know what Jesus Christ told us.
I did.
You don't know anything about the Bible.
Just stop.
It's embarrassing.
I think you're a little bit out of the wheelhouse, just a teeny bit.
Andrew's a Christian.
Andrew's an Orthodox Christian.
This is why I wanted you to debate James Tolerico.
But I don't think you have a strong theological foundation, like an understanding.
I'm just telling you.
I'm not going to effectively participate in this.
I'm a redliner.
If you follow red line Christianity, read what Jesus said.
You believe in reincarnation and red line Christianity is it highlights what Jesus actually said in comparing it to what's actually in the Bible.
Red line is way different than modern Christianity.
Well, let me ask you a question about what Jesus said.
Just last question.
What does John 1-1 say?
I don't have all this memorized.
No, this is important because you denied the divinity of Christ.
What's John 1-1 say?
Does John himself say that Jesus Christ is the word?
he is in the word is God then what is Jesus by the transitive properties we all have and hang on I'm going to ask the question I want the answer.
If it's the case that Jesus is the word and the word is God by the transitive properties of this statement, what would that make Jesus?
He's speaking from, yeah, he has God's message to send.
No, He never said he was.
Jesus is the word.
He's speaking God's words.
He said, okay, first of all.
I don't understand.
It's crazy.
Dude, just, I haven't slept well.
I'm not slept well.
Andrew.
Just explain it to me then.
He's doing today.
His nicotine.
I told you that I'm not a Bible expert.
Well, then why?
Just let me move it on then.
I want to move it on.
I'm trying to move it on, but you want to get the final word.
Okay.
All right.
Did you?
Yeah, I never claimed to be.
I never claimed to be a biblical scholar.
Look, I'm not trying to say you're a biblical scholar, right?
I wouldn't have even brought it here.
That's been established.
The problem comes in.
I'm not a biblical scholar, okay?
But the problem comes in.
You don't have it memorized.
The problem comes in, I don't have, look, I'm not asking you to memorize anything.
What I'm saying to you is this.
The reason that I don't listen to heresychristian.com and heresy Christians who try to tell me what Jesus would do in any given situation use that as their baseline for criticism is because they don't know fucking anything about what they're talking about.
They don't know anything about the New Testament.
They don't know how it was put together, why it was put together.
They don't know anything.
Hang on, because they don't know anything, I don't listen to their criticisms using that as the foundation for criticism.
If you had used something else, we would perhaps be getting into that, but you didn't.
You said, I'm going to criticize you for the baseline of the Bible that you don't know anything about.
Just because I don't have it memorized.
Andrew had the final word on that.
Okay, let me finish up some more of this and hopefully we can get to something more.
Okay, really quick, touching on this very briefly.
Feminine View on Buying Luxury00:14:23
Again, going back to the premise of my show, Male Loneliness Epidemic, your position as my viewer base is incels.
There are incels who can't get laid.
Just curious, I think it is fair to ask, when is the last time that you got laid?
First of all, I don't think the majority of you are incels.
And I said that because when you- Do you think the majority of my audience is insolent?
I don't.
Losers, basically.
Who never get laid.
The people who are saying rude shit in their comments, who watch you religiously and tell people that women that they shouldn't be able to have the right to vote while they're trying to bang them at the same time.
I think that would kind of put them in the insul category.
Hold on.
Words need to have meaning.
Incel stands for involuntarily celibate.
They're becoming an insul if they're coming at women like that.
But why should we even believe that that's true?
What do you mean?
Why should we believe that there's men in your DMs who are trying to date you and telling you?
Yeah.
Okay.
I want to see the actual context.
Yeah, I do.
I do want to see the actual context behind, hey, I want to date you and take your right to vote away.
Why don't they context there?
By the way, I took a poll of my audience and they're just...
I don't care.
They're definitely not insults.
They're just.
I don't think they're insoles.
I'm saying when you go about things a certain way and make things mainstream that aren't and they're trying to date you and they're saying shit like that, then you're kind of narrowing the dating story.
Because a handful of men, by the way, my live streams collect.
I'm not talking about everybody.
Can you stop interrupting, please?
Can you stop?
Okay.
So even if it's true that a handful of men sent you DMs and it originated from my audience, the total viewership just for the live streams, you know, typically after 30 days, we receive about 200,000 views total on my live streams.
So let's even say a dozen people DMs you.
I don't think that that would be representative of the viewer base, not even factoring in the hundreds of millions of monthly views we get across our clips.
So I mean, I don't understand.
I know.
I'm talking about a certain type that maybe clings on to that a little bit too seriously.
I don't think the majority of them are like that.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I don't know why.
It's interesting.
You made a criticism multiple times throughout the show about labeling, yet in your messages to me, you wanted to label my viewers as incels and that my show that I, or perhaps Andrew, were spewing garbage that makes women repulsed by men.
Yeah.
I was talking about exactly what I was going on in my dating life with it.
Right, but people who DM you wouldn't necessarily be representing.
I just said that the majority of them are great, nice people.
I'll pass on that.
I still talk to, I still talk to a lot of them.
I'm hanging out with one of them in the next month.
So then it sounds like it's a very effective dating strategy.
It was just as friends.
I told him.
Oh, yeah.
Just as friends.
Just as.
Yeah.
I straight up told him that.
You're saying somebody in the whatever audience is having a one-on-one rendezvous with you?
Was that there it is?
Yeah, I straight up told him, like, if we do hang out, like, a legit, like, it's just friends.
Yeah.
I mean, he's coming into town, and I said, okay, cool.
I mean, my advice to you is, I mean, everybody who watches my shows is a incel who's getting dated.
Why would I still be talking to these dudes if I thought they were like bad people?
I don't know.
Have you tried to do that?
The majority of them, maybe, maybe you could go out.
It's so horrible.
No.
Don't you live in Austin?
Aren't there a bunch of people?
I don't even date.
I told them.
You should go to an anti-ICE protest and you can try to find a guy that's not.
I don't give a shit about I'm not trying to find a guy.
I'm not trying to find a data guy.
But sometimes you don't have to respond to everything I say.
But anyways, okay, moving off of the incel thing.
To be fair, there are some.
Just admit.
Sure.
Sure.
That's who I was talking about.
If you don't have any evidence as to the makeup of my audience.
I think that there's feminists who have incels in their chat.
So it's when I actually more.
Yeah.
Can I respond?
It's when I watch it live and you see the chats coming in.
Wait, Really quick, though.
So YouTube comments, Twitch, or well, I'll just stick to YouTube.
YouTube comments, YouTube live chat.
Even prior to me ever starting the whatever podcast, you could go watch a baking video and the YouTube comments.
YouTube has a reputation, the comments section, for being like fucking awful, even for content that is not perhaps as controversial as the whatever podcast.
You could like, you know, well, you see a gaming video.
The comments are like insane.
You could look at any video and the comment section is pretty wild.
Live chat, even more wild.
So I don't think I'm talking about being representative of the whatever podcast necessarily.
That's who I'm talking about.
That's just the climate online.
YouTube comments.
And let's face it, that shit's fun.
Like half, that shit's fun for people to go.
Like people like to go and they like to vent.
They like to talk their little shit in comments.
And come on in the scene.
Yeah, because it's fun.
And here's the thing.
I don't think you're above that.
I bet you've been in YouTube comments and talked your little shit before.
She called me a bitch, a little bitch.
No, little bitch.
By the way, you said some very mean things about Andrew, which I'm holding for a little bit.
But I guess moving on here, in any case.
Then later, I undid my response and said, okay.
Okay, we'll get to it.
You don't have any evidence as to the makeup of my audience.
I prefer you debate the actual points, not like do a caricature of what you think my audience is.
You don't have to respond to everything.
It's okay.
It's okay.
I'm moving it on.
You know, it's funny because a lot of the whatever, like if you're talking about hardcore fans versus like random viewers, things like this, I would tear it.
So I would always say you're not going to monolith an entire audience of hundreds of thousands because that's the audience base, right?
Some of them are in the live chat.
Probably before this is done, maybe close to 70, 80,000 who come through the live chat.
And then you have people who just watch videos and like it's it's all over the place.
So you would have to tear it.
But I've been in the whatever Discord and I've been where like the fans hang out and stuff like that.
A lot of them are married, right?
And surprisingly, there's a lot of women.
A lot of women.
A lot of women who are like who are like, we really, you know, they, they consider women watch the show because they consider it a human interest piece.
They're watching for totally different reasons than men.
That's the show.
I love the show.
Yeah, of course, because you're interested in probably what makes people tick.
What makes you tick?
What makes you think like you think?
No, you all have a lot of good views.
I just sometimes.
Am I an incel?
Do you think I'm an incel?
No.
Yes.
Not at all.
No, I'm talking about that one type of people that DM.
It's kind of like the like.
Well, that's a great mod in Daily.
So at first it's Brian, your audience, all your incel homeboys.
Oh, no, actually, it's just like the dozen men who DM'd me.
If I got into detail, if I got into detail, if I got into detail.
Is he going to crack?
Is he going to crack, you think?
Crack about what?
Never mind.
Sorry.
Anyways, he's going to frame mom.
What is it?
This dude's going to show up and he's going to frame mom.
He's going to incel Max.
Totally.
Yeah, I just don't think it's good for society for us to literally make fun of each other all the time.
And it's not everyone on the show.
That's a very feminine view, too, by the way.
What?
Just the idea of like everybody should be nice to each other.
We should all really rally around the things we agree on versus what we disagree on, things like that.
You know, men don't actually think that way very often.
Oftentimes, in fact, the way that men get along best is when they're roasting each other, when they're hard on each other.
They roast each other.
Hang on, when they're awful to each other.
They don't even actually consider a lot of that to be anything other than what's considered pure bonding.
And it's a very feminine view, and women have it all the time, that men need to act like women.
And part of the whole coming together thing and this type of stuff inside of a political frame usually comes from a feminine view.
Men seem to be much more understanding of the fact that there's going to be political tribalism and that it's a fight for dominance and power.
That's what politics actually is.
It's not actually about coming together at all.
It's about imposing your views on society.
Brian, I hang out with mostly dudes a lot of the time calling you.
That doesn't make you one, though.
Doesn't make you one.
Hold on, moving it on.
It wasn't like a serious, like, you're evil message.
Like, no.
Well, hold on.
We'll get into that.
What garbage am I spewing?
I don't think you're spewing garbage.
It's more of that.
I wrote it.
You said I was spewing garbage.
Oh, it's Andrew who spews the garbage.
I've told multiple times that it's very good.
I've never said you have things.
Yeah.
You wrote here.
The whole show's premise, blah, blah, blah.
But you're spewing garbage that makes women repulsed by men.
The garbage, it would be stuff like the voting, him, yeah, and the things he says that women find repulsive.
It's not anything you say.
Your views, I would say, are very based.
Sometimes the way he goes about things that make women 19th, I guess.
So smoky man is indeed bad.
Is there anything besides the voting that you would consider spewing garbage?
Yeah, I talk the stuff about propaganda.
Women being more easily propagated.
There's a study that actually demonstrated this would be a lot of fun.
I looked it up.
I haven't seen anything.
Oh, well, but there is.
I've looked up all of this.
Is there what, one study?
Andrew, what is the no?
There's actually a lot.
I looked it up.
I didn't find anything.
I'll demonstrate it to you very simply, actually.
So can I ask you a question?
Out of men and women, who do you think are the largest retail consumers?
Women.
And so if you have a corporation, you're running advertisements for a product.
If it was the case that men responded better to the advertisements than women, who would you tailor the ads for?
Men, but they are doing that.
And who do they tailor?
No.
No, in fact, because it is the case that women are so much easy.
It's so much easier to make women buy than it is to make men buy because they're much easier to propagandize.
By the way, there are tons and tons of studies about this.
You can go to Rachel Wilson, my wife's sub stack, and she cites a lot of this.
I don't remember what the article was called, but I'm sure that she can DM Brian and we can get it over to you.
But she's talked about especially consumer, consumer idealism and the fact that women are specifically targeted by corporations and things like this because it's so easy to sell them shit because of their emotional responses to advertisements.
Like who was the arms of the angel with the little dogs for?
You know, like when Sarah McGlaughl, is that her name?
Sarah McGoughlin.
McGaughlin.
When she's like in the arms of the angel.
Is that for men?
Or are they trying to make women open their fucking purse and send a bunch of money in because they're like, oh my God, oh, oh, it's it, this, oh, this really gets my heart.
But aren't women more in charge of like buying things for the family and stuff like that?
So now here's the thing that's interesting.
It doesn't seem that's it.
That's a great argument, and it's one leftist women often make, but it falls short, and here's why.
It is true that women generally will buy for the household, right?
Groceries and things like that, but we can adjust for those things by looking at luxury goods and luxury items.
And who do you think buys more of those?
The guys are buying it for sugar for sugar babies.
Yeah, I don't like, yeah.
Hang on.
I'm just going to ask you directly again.
Who do you think's buying all these luxury items for the home?
Can we look up that?
Because I think we've got some dudes doing that too.
Of course, men don't buy it.
Guys do it to try to impress the women.
I'm not telling you that men don't buy luxury items.
I'm asking you, which sex is buying the most of them?
I'd say women, but the dudes are paying for it.
No.
What's going on?
Even if that was the case, so what?
Even if that was the case that men paid for it because they wanted access to sex or something like this, the advertisements are still going to the more easily propagandized sex.
That's women.
I don't think it's the more easily propaganda.
It's really for middle-class people who want to feel rich.
Rich people don't buy that shit.
I don't think it's really based off sex.
It's like.
No, we're talking about even poor people who are buying luxury items.
I'd like to see the study.
I mean, if the study of Rachel Wilson's propaganda, or not propaganda, her Substance on female propaganda.
I mean, I would love to read that, but politically, I would argue that y'all were kind of duped the conservative side.
Conservatives overall?
Dudes Duped By MAGA00:03:40
Oh, no.
No, dudes.
I think dudes were more duped with the last vote.
I don't even care.
So, wait, is it equal in terms of who's prone to propaganda?
Is it equal between men and women?
Is it men more prone or is it women more prone?
I think it's same, but different ways.
Question: Really quick question on this.
In terms of appealing to emotion, who's more prone to that, men or women?
Women.
Okay.
And can propaganda be an effective way of appealing to emotion?
Of course.
That's not the only thing distinction from political papa grant propaganda.
I'd say.
I'm not saying, yeah, I'd say that.
Well, when it comes to all of that.
The dudes got duped when it comes to Trump, is what I'm saying.
Okay, well, we're right about to get into that.
So I guess she sent it over.
Rachel did for Substack.
Okay, I'll see it.
Women often show stronger positive responses, higher trust, better attitudes towards the ad brand, and greater behavioral intent to emotional advertising, especially empathy, sadness, rational appeals than men.
Men prefer to respond better to rational, factual humor, things like this.
Yeah, so I mean, yes.
I don't disagree.
Yes, they are 100%.
No.
Yes, they are.
I mean, research indicates women exhibit more favorable attitudes and trust towards brands using emotional content, while men may suppress emotional responses due to social desirability or stereotypes.
Like, where did that we buy shit or whatever?
But y'all got Trump elected and fell for a lot of lies.
I think they voted for Trump.
They did.
What lies did they fall for?
The America First shit, no more wars, the economy.
Where's the wars?
The Epstein files.
Where's the wars?
Well, bombing Iran.
Is that a war?
I think when they say America First, they mean literally.
That's not my question.
Is that a war?
Not technically, but they're getting ready for women.
So there's no new wars.
Lots of bombings.
Lots of money spent.
The whole point of America.
Is there any new wars?
Technically, no.
Okay.
The money spent, the bombing, all of that, that is what America First is.
No one wanted that.
No one asked for that.
But Trump said he wasn't going to engage America in new wars and then went and made sure that to not engage America in new wars.
Yeah, that's bullshit.
Okay, which new war?
I didn't say that.
No, I'm saying the people saying, oh, I have to fight someone to prevent fighting someone.
That's propaganda they've been using forever.
Okay, but what does that have to do with no new wars?
Literally not getting involved in shit that we don't believe in.
There's no new wars under Trump.
There's no.
That's just a typical liberal talking point.
America first, meaning don't get involved in foreign shit that we have nothing to do with.
And Trump has mostly focused on domestic policy, especially illegal immigration.
Other than immigration, whatever.
I mean, what are the major campaign promises that he did?
Yeah, and then he's a terrible fucking guy.
No new wars, and he focused on illegal immigration.
Did he tell everyone ahead of time that they were going to wear masks with no identification and shoot people in the face?
No.
You mean with Ice?
Hang on.
When it comes to ICE, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, his base is not upset by ICE.
Can you look that up?
Yeah, you can look up all of that.
ICE Officers and Masked Agents00:11:33
You can look up the divide.
I've looked it up.
The majority of all people we're talking about his base.
How does MAGA respond to that?
The 37% that still like him?
Yeah, his base.
His base responds very favorably to what's going on with ICE.
Okay, so like a third of the population.
And by the way, here's the thing.
The susceptibility of propaganda is a fun one.
You'll find the divide is, once again, mostly along sex lines.
I'm so stunned.
I'm so shocked that women get very emotional by the fact that you're going to have to, if you're actually enforcing the immigration policy of your country, separate families, like Joe Biden did.
That's okay.
Like Joe Biden did.
And where the fuck were they?
You're going to have to.
You're going to have to utilize your federal assets in order to remove illegal immigrants, just like Biden did.
The only difference is these fuckers weren't out there when Biden was doing that.
Or when Biden was doing that.
He wasn't allowing masked people.
Yes, they were allowing masked people.
What are you talking about?
Joe Biden had ICE, not like face masks for COVID, but literally to cover their identity and won't respond when it's COVID.
But when asked to identify yourself like cops are supposed to do, law enforcement, they won't.
They're coming out of vans and masses.
That's because people down the street.
That's because leftists.
They're coming into houses without judicial warrants.
Okay, first of all, that's because leftists will dox their entire family and begin harassment campaigns against their fucking families.
That doesn't put them above the law, does it?
First of all, they're not, nobody's saying they're above the law.
But guess what?
That is above the law.
That's against the law.
It's not against the law.
Show me the law.
They're the only.
I just had this debate with Brian Shapiro.
Guess what we found out?
They have to identify themselves, which they don't.
No.
Literally, so yeah.
Federal officers only in some circumstances have to do that.
That's one.
The second that you need to look at is the protocols for their safety, right?
Safety is what matters here.
If it's the case that a bunch of leftists are going to dox your entire family, put it on private websites and then public websites, which they were doing, and funding it from leftist organizations, and then they would harass the shit out of these guys' families.
Yeah, I'd hide my fucking identity too.
Well, I do.
You want me to look something up?
Yeah.
Yeah, but there's also the respondo fast.
You asked me to look it up.
Let me just give it a little bit.
But there's also the safety of the people matter.
Okay, there is no federal law requiring agents to not wear masks.
California did quite a bit later, or I guess recently, they passed a no-secret police act to ban federal agents from wearing masks that conceal their identity while on duty.
But that's just California, and that's very recent.
I know that.
I said identifying themselves.
I said not to identify themselves when asked.
I can look that up.
That's what I was talking about.
Can I take a peek on chart?
Anyone can have a fake uniform.
There's literally been people arrested.
People are rolling up in tanks with fake uniforms.
Someone got arrested for impersonating a cop.
People don't have to do that.
Yeah, an ice cop.
So yeah, I think it's important to have more than just a mask and an ice cream.
So they need to wear no masks and get doxxed by leftists and have their families harassed if they're enforcing the laws of the United States.
Brilliant plan.
Yeah, because they're causing violent situations to happen.
No.
Wait, you're saying it's illegal, though.
No, no.
You just have to.
The leftists are the ones causing the violent situation.
They're the ones surrounding federal buildings and committing violent acts and doing everything they can to agitate federal officers.
That's what leftists are doing.
Tell me this.
Why is it that local police officers inside of these various leftist states won't deploy the local police departments to these federal buildings in order to maintain peace and security?
It's because the fucking governors of these states and the local mayors of these states give them stand down orders so that the feds have to deal with them, knowing the feds aren't trained to do that.
And so what they're doing is they're sparking incidences on purpose, and that's fucking leftist.
No, I mean, but ICE is like cops are supposed to, like, if someone's irritated, what do they call it?
Sorry, my dyslexia brain.
They're supposed to, instead of causing more anger, they're supposed to de-calculate.
Yeah, they're supposed to delete.
Then have the trained local police do their fucking jobs.
Or train ICE better.
Like the people.
ICE is not designed to do riot control.
It's not about riots.
Yes, it is.
The people who got killed weren't involved in riots.
They went to the station.
They hit up to them.
Bullshit.
Smash them in the face.
God on top of it.
Both of those shootings.
No, both of those shootings was confrontations at protests where these people were going to be able to do that.
If you go up to someone who's just standing there, but they went up to him.
First of all, Renee was blocking off the fucking road.
She was told to move.
She refused.
She hit an ICE agent.
She got shot.
She got moving.
Yeah, she got shot for moving.
She was getting into a fucking ICE agent.
She got shot for a movie.
No, no, no.
Well, hold on.
You're forgetting the part where they initially, they wanted her to get out of the road, but then she was blocking the road.
And then there were a couple different agents.
He was approaching her, and he said to exit the vehicle.
He was giving her a lawful order to exit the vehicle.
Once you're being detained by law enforcement, you don't get to leave anymore.
She was being detained.
But you also don't get to shoot them in the face.
The more it's that Alex Predty, though, they came up to him.
He was just standing there.
No, the opposite.
He went towards the officers after they had moved a woman back who they were.
He moved towards the officers.
All he did was shield her from Mace.
He didn't go up to them to fight.
Guess what?
You're not allowed to interfere.
You're not allowed to interfere with federal.
You're not allowed to interfere with cops in the middle of doing their job.
A death sentence.
Well, here's the thing.
Don't resist then.
And you won't get killed.
He got mace in the face.
Six people attacked him.
So don't get involved.
While they were breaking ribs and punching him in the face of the city.
You know what would have stopped all of that?
You know what stops resisting is not beating someone out?
Stops all of that?
If you just let the ICE go get the illegals and throw them out like they're supposed to.
I've got to pee really bad.
But no, we can't do that because that's mean.
I just think they should get better training and there should be consequences.
My question is, Edwards.
Before these two incidences, the two killings occurred, I guess the genesis of what was happening there was that these ICE officers were conducting lawful investigations.
They were doing, like, there was, there's no, the baseline, they were protesting their baseline law enforcement activity, which was apprehending illegal immigrants, right?
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
So like Renee Goode and, well, I guess Alex Predi, that happened after Renee Goode.
So you could argue he was in the streets because he was upset about Renee Goode.
In any case, you acknowledge that prior to Renee Goode, she was upset with their lawful conduct, which was apprehending illegal immigrants.
So why was she?
I think that's stupid.
Yeah, but why was she interfering with lawful law enforcement operations?
I mean, I think because of, see, like Obama deported a shit ton of people.
Right, it's completely political.
No, no, no.
No, I think it's the way they're going about it.
Oh, what's the difference?
The masks, the chasing.
They had masks then.
Because they didn't chase people down the streets.
I'm going to tell you right now.
They didn't chase brown people down the streets.
They didn't arrest people from the works that were citizens.
Listen.
Even though they were.
Oh, my God.
This is crazy.
I grew up in California.
Home depots got raided constantly by ICE.
When I was a kid, they were getting raided by ICE.
Here's how it used to work.
You'd go pull up in front of a Home Depot.
You'd be wearing masks.
Yeah, and you'd pull up in front of a Home Depot and you'd go against it.
Yeah, you'd go three.
Like SWAT teams wear masks too.
They would go three.
And three Mexicans would jump in the back.
You take them.
They do your day labor and you drop them back off in front of the Home Depot by five.
That's how people used to do things all the time.
ICE knew all about that.
They would go do raids on Home Depots.
They would do raids in department stores.
They do raids at Taco.
Hell, when I was a kid, they did a massive task force raid on tons and tons and tons of burger joints like McDonald's and Taco Bell and shit.
And we couldn't get hamburgers for like a week because they arrested all the employees.
Nobody gave a fuck.
Nobody gave a fuck.
They only give a fuck now because it's Trump and that means it's fascism.
I think the whole masks and not providing information proof that they actually are who they like people are like it's wait can I ask you a question?
Would there be a need for these ICE agents to wear masks if there wasn't a foundational objection from the left to the baseline enforcement objectives that they're trying to see out?
So that's just apprehending illegal immigrants.
The issue is that the left has an issue with the foundational operational procedures of ICE, which is lawful and legitimate and valid immigration enforcement.
So it's just an escalation.
So it's like, okay, you have ICE who's trying to enforce immigration law.
Leftists don't like it.
They're trying to dox these people, ruin their reputation, follow them around while they're conducting lawful operation.
Then ICE is like, wow, these people are like basically trying to interfere with us and dox us and find our family and our children.
We need to now put in place these things to protect our family.
And then you're now using that as further justification to continue your essential bullying of what is otherwise lawful immigration enforcement.
Yes.
Can I explain this?
Okay, do you think if they started off in masks, they didn't start wearing masks.
I have a question for you.
If everybody in the country was like 100% okay with the immigration efforts being undertaken by law enforcement, would there be a need for ICE to wear masks?
No, but like doxing what it means everything.
No, no, no, not just that they don't agree.
What are the actions that these gigators are doing?
They're doxing, but doxing doesn't mean anything if you're being illegal.
Like if you're being fully transparent and letting people know actually what's going on and stuff, hiding yourself.
There's videos of them saying, hey, we're about to apprehend a child rapist.
And there's literally the activists are like, I don't care.
There's videos of this.
They say, I don't care.
We don't care.
Even if you're apprehending people who are like child predators, they're like, we don't care.
We just don't like that you're part of immigration enforcement.
Yeah, they're dumb.
They need to let them do their jobs.
They ran.
But they need to let them do their jobs.
If they let them do their jobs.
Do it without a mask.
They need to be accountable.
They don't need the need for them to wear their masks if they allow them to do their job.
Do you realize that they were creating masks?
Obama, like he deported way more people at a faster rate.
It's not political.
This is political.
They didn't wear masks.
It wasn't political.
There was no resistance to it.
But ICE officers didn't act the way that they are now.
Yes, they did.
Con Man Criticisms00:03:37
What was the difference?
What were they doing different?
They were going to home departments.
They were wearing masks, macing babies.
They're actually macing.
They're macing babies?
The very first thing they do.
I don't think ICE did that before.
Can I put it in the middle of the morning?
Wait, hold on.
Really quick.
There's way more scrutiny on law enforcement ever since like 2020, the BLM George Floyd riots.
There's more law enforcement officers at body cams, which Flutter P, Brian.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Go P.
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
Go P.
I mean, they should have the.
I think all.
But I think there's more scrutiny.
There is transparency.
Okay.
All right.
We have some super chats here.
We have Latumio, Brian is scary.
Andrew is awesome.
Hey, 140.
I'll save this for when she's back.
The only campaign promise Trump hasn't made good on his term limits in Congress, which is definitely disappointing, but in all other areas, he's mostly kept his word.
Thank you, Matt Jacob, for the super chat.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Appreciate it, guys, for the message.
Excuse me, messages there.
$200 will be TTS.
I guess we'll do $100 reads and then $10 and up if you want your message displayed.
All right.
Well, while we are waiting on that, yeah, Erudite tomorrow.
Guys, if you're watching the stream, we have Andrew doing a 1v1 debate with not so erudite.
Which I prefer, by the way.
Yeah, this was kind of a unique one today.
And most of the debates are 1v1s.
Actually, this is the first one I've ever seen where it was not that ever.
Not what?
Not 1v1.
We did a 2v2.
Well, that's 2v2.
Yeah, 2v2.
Although, to be fair, you did do most of the talking for that one.
So it's basically a 1v2.
You did.
No, you got to talk about the 2020.
When they got to the criticisms for whatever, you tingled it.
I did a little bit, but yeah, I kind of, I mean, those two degenerate feminists.
That guy still talks shit, by the way.
The fuck was his name?
The Pillow Talk guy or whatever.
Oh, yeah, he got wrecked.
They talk shit after they get wrecked.
That's how it works.
Didn't that guy say something like he was basically trying to do a justification of how it's okay to be immoral or something?
I'm trying to remember what he said.
It was really bad.
Yeah.
It was really bad.
Yeah, those guys.
Those guys were something else.
Terrible.
Terrible.
Wrong way, wrong way, wrong way, wrong way.
I know.
It's hard to follow instructions that have been repeated 20 times.
Dude, I have no sleep, ADHD, dyslexia.
Didn't you arrive yesterday or two days ago?
I have insomnia.
It's not easy to manage.
And why did you ask for a debate given all these disadvantages?
That's why.
I mean, because I have a greater message.
Just be transparent.
That's it.
They should be more transparent.
All right, here, there's a super chat for you.
Can women, or excuse me, can men be women?
No.
Like, is a transgender woman?
Is that a male or female?
It's a male.
Okay.
Do you consider them women?
Are transgender?
I don't, but I think they should be able to live their lives however they feel like it.
But like, not, what about sports?
I don't think they should be involved in sports.
Here, moving on then, you wrote, you are all about cult, I guess me and Andrew, I guess.
Redactions And Retractions00:14:10
You are all about culture wars, which spread hate and divide our country.
You used your show to promote Trump because you're dumb enough to be brainwashed by a con man.
Now you're going to have to come to terms with not only helping get a predator criminal, con man, grifter elected, but also with the fact that you will forever look like a dumbass for falling for his bullshit.
So you wrote that.
Yeah, that's true.
It is.
Because, yeah.
What do you mean, predator?
Yeah, I was going to ask, what do you mean, predator criminal?
I mean, yeah, all things point to that.
I mean, he nothing points to that.
Should we bring up all of the things?
Sure.
I mean, just the fact that he said he'd drain the swamp and bring a predatory person.
He was barred from even having a charity in New York because of a fake charity, a fake university.
Predatory criminal.
What does that mean, Predator?
It's predatory.
He went into the dressing rooms of Miss Universe, where there are minors.
No, Miss USA.
Yeah, whatever.
No, there's no minors there.
That's an adult beauty pageant.
It starts at 16.
But also, it doesn't matter if it's teenagers dressing and basically bragged about getting a pass because he owns it, that he can go and see all these beautiful women changing and stuff, and he gets a pass.
Yeah, he's running a beauty pageant for beauty and gets to see beautiful.
That's crazy to me.
Why would you watching women change is not predatory to you without their consent?
What?
And like him.
Without their consent.
It's without their consent.
How many of these beauty queens have come forward and said that Donald Trump was in there spying on him without their consent?
There's a lot of stories from people that said that they stopped going to the pageants because of the I don't know the names of them.
I've seen several interviews of how they were treated in the pageant.
And it connects with Jeffrey Epstein and the whole modeling world.
And it was a different time that, yeah, there was a lot of, yeah, and yeah, there was a lot of creepy shit going on.
And several, like 26 different women came forward saying that they're all frauds.
Oh my God.
See, that's where.
See, this is where the Epstein class comes in is rich people never have consequences for everything.
And they say, oh, people are doing it for power, for money, or political reasons.
But a lot of these people came forward way before he was political.
Which ones?
The 13-year-old that.
You mean the one that's not credible?
Who proved that she wasn't credible?
The same investigator.
When she retracted her name, there's an interview that shows her lawyer saying the reason she retracted is because she's getting threats and escape.
Yeah, what's he supposed to say?
She retracted because she's a fucking liar.
But there's also proof of all of the Epstein survivors that still now getting threatened.
Hang on, what's the proof that Trump in any way, shape, or form was involved with a cover-up of a pedophilic organization?
Because that's where you're going, right?
Because his actions are proof.
And he's in, like, there's still just a small portion of redacting stuff that should not be redacted.
Mostly 90% of the redactions plus, you can go to Michael Tracy's Twitter to track this.
Most of the redactions in the Epstein files are because victims demand them.
And people are not.
That's not what the victims are saying.
The victims are saying.
Which ones?
For what?
Which ones are even victims?
Virginia Guffray was not a victim.
Yeah, I don't have the name.
She claimed she was a victim, but she was a fucking, she's a chronic liar.
She's a fucking chronic liar.
And that's documented.
The Republican Party is like trying.
Yeah.
He's legit.
He said there was no, I didn't say accomplices, not accomplices.
What's the word that they're using?
He said that no one else was involved in sex trafficking.
And there's proof of.
We don't have any evidence of any sex trafficking.
Yes, there is.
Okay, tell me who was sex trafficked.
Their names are redacted.
So your evidence is you have evidence.
The evidence is that Pam Bondi and what's his name?
Cash Potato.
Cash, they under oath said that there's not any accomplices or a list of any kind.
And Thomas Massey says differently.
He's seen the files.
He said he's willing to say the names.
The same Thomas Massey, who along with Roe Conna, decided that they were going to unredact the names of four innocent people.
And those innocent people got completely fucking inundated, according to their lawyers, with death threats and everything else, because they were assuming that they were part of a massive pedophilic cult that doesn't exist.
Yeah.
The law that they put saying that no people except that we're victims, like the women, children, allowed to be able to memorize.
Because listen, I'm just going to tell you right now, here's what we have for evidence.
You have zero evidence.
Yeah, because Trump's covering it up.
How?
How is he covering it up?
There's redaction.
You're changing the law of the Epstein Transparency Act.
Here's what Trump's in the files doing.
Trump is in the files assisting law enforcement against Ghelaine Maxwell.
That's all that he's in the files doing wrong.
Periods.
In 2006, or seven, whenever he made a statement saying, oh, I'm glad that you're doing this investigation, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And said he cut off Epstein from his life.
But then the Epstein files show that up to 2016 that he was still in contact and a few times hung out with Epstein.
First of all, this is insanity.
Let's back up.
Let's start with this.
Who are you accusing Donald Trump?
Are you accusing him of being a PDF?
I say that there's either he's a pedoprotector, which is, I would say, 99% likely.
Now give me your evidence, your best piece of evidence.
What is it?
His actions.
Since all of the actions.
So what's your best piece of evidence?
First of all, the Democratic hoax is that they're calling this guy a PF.
And he knew it, by the way.
He knew that the second the files were released, because of all the redactions, Democrats are going to run and say that he's part of a pedophilic ring, even though we have no evidence of that at all.
We don't have the evidence because they won't give it to us.
So wait a second.
So you don't know.
I think they're protecting pedophiles, hanging out with pedophiles.
Add all of the women that have came forward.
Which ones?
Which ones do you find credible?
Which ones?
I find them all credible until we see the file, until we actually see what and the invest how the investigation actually named them uncredible because it's the same people.
They did name them uncredible.
The same people who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal.
No, those are the same.
This is FBI investigators who are investigating this.
First of all.
The FBI that lied on the stand about there being no co-conspirators.
Who were the co-conspirators?
Massey says there's at least six of them that he's uncovered so far.
Okay.
And he's going to name them.
It has to be in the Senate to legally name them.
Oh, got it.
So there are no co-conspirators that you can name.
You just made it up.
Because they won't give them to us.
But I listened to Thomas Massey and all the other people that have read the files are saying that.
And if you take MTG, Marjorie Taylor, I know for sure that you're a PDF.
I can't prove it, though, because law enforcement won't give me the evidence I need to show you that you're a PDF.
Own words through several interviews throughout the years, all of the women that came forward, the girl that said she was threatened.
Which one of those girls do you find the most credible?
I mean, I'd say all of them.
No, which one specifically?
Give me one name of any of those girls that you found credible.
I don't know their name.
You don't know anything about them?
Donald Johnson.
No, no, nothing about him.
There's Kate.
Do you have every name memorized in him?
I don't need to.
I'm not making the claim.
I'm following the actual evidence that he's covering up for his friends.
Show me the evidence.
Where is it?
Where can I look at it?
The lies.
What lies?
That there even is co-conspirators that there is that.
Yeah, him saying that he said he never went on the plane.
He said he lost, he stopped, he banned Epstein from.
He did ban Epstein from his properties.
Not only that, he worked with law enforcement.
He didn't work with them.
He made a statement.
He made a statement, which someone who's covering up would do exactly that.
Yeah, why didn't Biden release the Epstein file?
Yes, he's directly involved with that.
He's not a pedo.
There's no proof of that yet.
There's no proof that Trump is.
You just made it up.
I didn't make it up.
There are women who have come forward who said he did this thing.
And which ones did you find the most credible?
The girl that tracted her statement.
You found her.
And why did you find her credible?
The one who retracted her sworn statement?
Because she was a minor and it directly involved Epstein as well.
Hang on.
Did she make the claims when she was a minor?
Did she make the claims when she was an adult when people were getting millions of dollars in cash settlements when they said that they were a victim of Jeffrey Epstein?
Oh, actually, new evidence have come out that have directly correlated her suing the Epstein estate around the time the claims were made and it being settled.
I don't know if you've read that.
Again.
So, yeah, if she sued the Epstein estate and won during that time period, nothing.
There was all kinds of settlements.
If there was no proof of that, then why would they have settled it?
There were all kinds of settlements which came out of the Epstein saga.
But here's what did not come out of the Epstein saga, at least thus far.
There is not a single shred of evidence that Donald Trump participated in any sort of sexual activity with any minors at all, nor that he was part of some PDF ring, nor that there even was a PDF ring.
And you know what?
Evidence you have evidence.
Here's the evidence you have for this.
I don't have evidence.
There's a lot of the emails.
Which things?
Can we look it up?
Do you think I have it all known?
Go ahead.
I actually want you to.
We can go through them one at a time.
You can show me the best evidence you have that Donald Trump's a PDF.
I didn't say there's direct evidence of it.
So no evidence.
So he's a PDF, but you have no evidence he's a PDF.
First of all, it's very hard to prove if someone graped you or not.
If you compare it to murder cases where there's what they call it, the type of evidence.
Sorry, my brain's circumstantial evidence.
You can be convicted of murder without any actual DNA.
That's nice.
What's the most credible piece of evidence you have?
Donald Trump's a PDF.
The women's statements that are connected to it.
Him being liable.
Can we go to the girls?
Can you tell me?
His own words of how he talks to women.
Him being held liable of grape.
The way he was specifically liable of SA, yes, he was.
By our courts.
You know what?
I'll just grant you that Donald Trump has graped 300 women, let's say.
He's graped them.
He just did.
I'm just going to logically.
I'll just say he did.
What's your best piece of evidence that Donald Trump is a PDF and did anything?
I don't know for sure.
He was a PDF, but I know he's a pedo protector.
Okay, show me how he's protecting PDFs.
Literally, the proof is what's happening with Epstein files.
What's the proof?
Him lying about him saying that he was going to be transparent, bring the Epstein files out.
He has brought the Epstein files out.
After being forced by there was enough votes to where even if he didn't.
Dan Bongino goes, Dan Bongino becomes the assistant deputy director of the SB FBI.
He comes out, right?
He's done now.
He's back on his podcast.
He says, you know why there's all these redactions?
The victims want it.
There's porn in it, right?
And lawyers are suing for it.
So what are you talking about?
Well, lawyers suing doesn't make it against the law.
Yeah, they can tie up redactions forever because they're victims.
If there's, yeah, they're supposed to, of course, edit out the people that are the victim, like the female.
And all sorts of information which can point to what their identity is, which would be a massive redaction.
No, that's why you redacted the future.
Look, I would love it.
I would love it if you redacted, if they had unredacted files and could release them.
I would love that.
I would adore it.
There's proof that they're redacting people that were guys that have nothing to do with the survivors.
Let's try this instead of the conspirator shit.
Let me just ask you this.
Unredacted Files Desired00:15:45
Not conspiracy.
Okay.
Name one of these people who you think is currently in government who's a PDF because of the Epstein files that you've read.
I think they're pedo protectors.
Name one.
No, no, no.
That's not what I asked you, name one who's a PDF.
Which PDFs are they protecting?
Did they say that there is any?
Which PDFs are they protecting?
The Epstein class.
Who?
Who are they?
They're donors.
What are their names?
Nothing.
Should I bring up the list?
Go ahead.
And then show me your most compelling piece of evidence that they're a PDF.
Go ahead.
You're living in the midst of a left-wing disinformation campaign.
Literally the right time.
What about MTG?
MTG saying the same thing.
Oh, MTG who left disaffected from Donald Trump.
She was all sorts of pissed off because she wanted to do the gold mirror.
She left because she realized it was all a lie.
Fucking hell.
And that he's covering Pedo.
And not only that, let's point this out.
It's really funny to me that suddenly, oh, the left is so concerned about supposed baby eating and baby killing.
It's like they do that every day.
That's what the left does.
They kill untold swaths of children.
And suddenly, oh, Trump's at the head of a baby killing, baby molesting fucking empire.
People are more aware of, I mean, I don't know about that conspiracy, but I think people are more aware that both sides have been propaganded and we've all been lied to, or both sides can agree.
Name for me the strongest piece of evidence that you have that Donald J. Trump ever did anything like this with children.
I didn't say there was actual.
Then why do you say you're leaning towards that?
The circumstances point to that.
No, they don't.
If a sheep.
None of the circumstances point to that.
If a dude surrounds himself by sheep fuckers, and okay, which, okay, so if he's surrounded by PDFs, name those people.
Well, he was friends with Diddy.
He was friends with Epstein.
Do you mean Diddy?
I'm sorry.
Was Diddy charged with being a PDF?
Convicted of being a PDF?
No.
No.
People came forward about it.
And then he went to trial.
And then what happened?
What happened at Diddy's trial?
What did he get charged?
What did he get convicted of?
Sending sex workers across state lines.
Nothing to do with children?
Well, all I have to say is if you surround yourself.
You're not going to have to do any of these PDFs.
Name one.
Name one he's surrounding himself with.
Who?
You got to Google it?
Jeffrey Epstein.
You told me to find them.
Jeffrey Epstein was not convicted of being a PDF.
What are you talking about?
Neither was Glene Maxwell.
They were convicted of trafficking prostitutes.
A prostitute.
A minor is not a prostitute.
A minor's also not a prepubescent child.
And yes, it's true that Jeffrey Epstein should have been convicted for doing the trafficking to himself of people who were being recruited at a local high school to have sex with him.
Totally agree with that.
But this idea that they show that their emails show that.
The emails don't show that.
Yeah, they do.
Then show me them.
Show me the best piece of evidence you have that Donald J. Trump is part of a PDF protection ring and who the PDFs in this ring are.
Who are they?
Nothing.
I'm trying to look it up, but every time I do, you keep saying more shit.
You got to look it up because you don't have the facts on your side.
What do you mean?
The facts on my side?
The facts on your side.
He's hiding shit.
It's just pure incredulity.
You have no evidence.
That's stupid.
Yeah, it's stupid because you have no evidence at all.
Because they're covering it.
Oh, because it's a big cover-up.
Well, that's an unfalsified thing.
Literally, the people who have seen the files are saying that, yeah, they're freaking out.
UFOs are real, but I can't prove it because they're covering it up.
The government's covering it up.
Literally, the people who have seen the unredacted files say that there's at least six people so far that were involved.
So therefore, it's true.
There needs to be an investigation.
Oh, okay.
You're going to investigate it.
Go investigate it.
Even though that's what all of the files are, is investigations.
That's what all of them are.
And do you think they're going to unredact the victims' names?
Do you think they're going to unredact most of these things?
I think that things didn't get investigated properly because how do you know?
You don't even know the details of any of the investigations.
You don't even know the details of the investigations.
And the email showed originally that there was 10 co-conspirators and it said where they're living and that they were doing subpoenas and all of this crap.
Okay.
Let's back up.
Okay.
What was Epstein actually charged with?
Do you even know?
Like sex trafficking of some sort?
Do you know any of the specifics of the case?
What about Elaine?
Of the case I think.
Elaine Maxwell.
Do you know any of the specifics of the case?
She mostly trafficked the girls to Epstein, but a few times I think she actually did touch the girls.
Okay.
Do you know the details of her case?
Like what?
The graping the girl?
Anything.
Just give me any of the details of these.
Do you know?
Do you even know where this occurred?
Like where the Epstein stuff occurred?
I mean, some are in the island, some are in New York, some are in his office.
It's all in Florida, basically.
I wasn't done speaking, but it's literally all over the place.
It wasn't just a island.
So what was he charged with?
I don't know the name of the case.
You don't know?
You don't know anything about any of these cases.
You don't know anything about what's going on in the files.
You don't know anything about any of these cases.
I do.
Okay, well, then give me your most compelling piece of evidence.
Every time I keep trying to look up.
You have to Google the evidence that you know somebody knows every freaking name of the people they've owned.
You don't have any names.
Yeah, Bill Clinton was there.
There's no proof that he did anything.
I don't know the names.
Let me look up the name.
I don't have it memorized.
Does it make it untrue that I don't have these douchebags' names memorized?
No, I'm not even asking you for that.
I asked you for the details of the cases, what your most compelling evidence is, anything you can reference.
You got nothing.
What you have is, I was on.
If you read all of the emails, it shows exactly what's happening.
I was on X.
Oh, my God.
I didn't use X.
Oh, well, I'm glad you asked.
You want to know what happened?
What happened is a woman named Virginia Gufri.
I know her.
Okay, do you know that she's a chronic serial liar and that her story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese?
She claims that she was trafficked by her dad, completely unverified.
Claims that she was graped.
Claims that she was graped by two men, falsely accused them of it.
How do you know it's false?
Because the police investigated it, determined it was consensual.
She's made grape allegations multiple times.
She's had retract.
Okay.
She claimed that Epstein's lawyer graped her and then had to retract that too.
She had to retract that Dershowitz did this to her.
And then she said later, well, the thing is, it's like I was just confused because I was just graped by so many.
She claimed she was with him for four years.
She wasn't with him for four years.
That would have been completely impossible, right?
You don't know anything about this.
You should just, it's embarrassing.
It's fucking embarrassing.
Oh, it's embarrassing for you.
I don't find it embarrassing that you don't.
What I find embarrassing is you're sticking up for administration who's obviously lying to us.
They're not following the law that they were instructed to do, are they?
They lied about there being co-conspirators.
What laws?
Co-conspirators.
What laws?
The Epstein Transparency Act says it doesn't matter if it embarrasses them or that they can only redact the actual victims' names.
And they're going against that.
And they're also not, yeah, they're not, and they have to redact like the photo of someone actually.
They're going to keep on doing these dumps.
They're going to keep on.
They said that they were done.
And this is all.
Oh, no.
There's going to be more.
And by the way, that was it.
Let me point this out to you, too, right?
You don't even know what's in them.
All you've seen is what dummies are posting.
I don't use X, first of all.
I've read a lot of these emails.
Okay, which ones did you find?
There's like a torture thing where they talk about like a nine-year-old.
There's what?
You don't know.
What do you mean?
Nothing.
You know, that's the thing is like.
I don't have it all memorized.
I've read.
I've read.
I didn't read the entire so much on things that they just clearly don't know shit about.
Like, you don't know anything about the Epstein case.
What do you mean?
I literally get updates on all the files all the time and read through what the updates are.
How come you don't know?
You're not familiar with any of the content of it.
My brain doesn't memorize things easily.
That's it.
Then why do you read if you can't maintain anything?
I don't read.
I watch the videos and then I read what they found and fact check it because my brain remember it.
My brain processes stuff through videos because that's a discussion.
That's fine.
Look, not everybody is going to read something and then memorize it.
Sure, you can use video.
But what's the point of doing that if you can't remember the details of any of the things that you're doing?
I don't have their names memorized.
I'm not even asking for names, details of the case.
What are they charged with?
What are the details around the one who spawned all of this, which is Virginia Guffray?
What?
You don't know any of it.
And it's like, what a waste of time.
Anyway, I'm going to go have a smoke.
Literally I mean they're out of I'm supposed to have all of these these memorized when there's like millions upon millions of documents that I'm reading every day.
I'm supposed to like I don't know that conversation is not my I don't know anything.
I don't really know much about it.
I can't really speak on it.
I think Andrew was just looking for like what's the evidence that he was looking for the evidence The evidence I never said that the evidence that he's covering shit up I think is there.
I think Andrew's frustration might have just been you at least he was looking for evidence like what is Trump's involvement in all that and again I'm not an expert in this so I don't know the details.
He's involved in covering it up at the very least.
But so what's the evidence for that?
Him calling it a Democrat hoax and saying that he doesn't want you to even follow him anymore if he yeah, if you and every time the Epstein files are brought up he like wants people to shut up about it.
He was he was he lied about what was in the files and he yeah many times he lied about his relationship with Epstein because there's now proof out that their communication and stuff did not end when he said it did.
He lied about being on the plane all kind.
I think I think I don't know the details of it.
I mean and then yeah but like his own staff lied about his staff lied on the stand.
Logically can somebody lie about something but they not be guilty of like a different unrelated crime?
Yeah, I mean that's why I said at minimum he's covering it up.
If like if Trump has lied is that evidence of like something else sinister or also by the way sometimes either misremembering things or you know isn't necessarily a lie.
Yeah, but I think like if I were to say if he said he lost communication in 2008 and it comes out that he was talking hanging out with Trump in 2016 I think that's a pretty big lie.
But if somebody said like, have you ever hung out with somebody by the name of Quincy Smith and you don't remember them, I get like a little bit, look again, I'm not.
I don't know how to parse all the that stuff.
It's not really a focus of my attention.
But it does occur to me that if somebody could approach me and like interrogate me and be like do you ever recall meeting uh, you know somebody by the name of Jackson Mcdougal and be like no well, hold on, here's a photo of you with Jackson Mcdougal 20 years ago at some frat party, and i'd be like Okay, I get that.
I get that.
I don't know.
As someone who's very forgetful, obviously.
I don't know about that.
I think it's a pretty big lie to cover up several years of relationship, pretend you're never on the plane.
I think, and then trying to, yeah, all of the rest of it, all directions point to that he's covering up.
Several people on his staff were found to be in the Epstein files, too.
There is that.
I guess my, anyways, whatever.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Anyways, we'll move it on to a different look.
I'm just sick of this narrative that lefties have that Donald Trump that Donald Trump is a PDF and he's protecting PDFs and they never have any fucking evidence.
They can never point to anything.
And the best that they can come up with is, Andrew must be protecting PDFs because he says there's no evidence DGT ever did anything with children.
And there's nothing to do with it.
If there is no evidence, then why didn't he just release the files?
He can't.
You can't unilaterally do it.
And he says, here's the other thing.
Let's say that he's hiding them for some reason we don't know.
Let's just say that he is, right?
The absence of evidence is not evidence for you that Trump ever did anything with anybody.
And I'm tired of the Libtards doing everything they can do to pretend, pretend like they didn't have fucking presidents before who had access to these same files, refused to release them.
They're involved in the two.
Oh, yeah, sure.
That's what the deep state is.
Yeah, so here's the thing that's going on, right?
You don't have any evidence that Trump was part of any pedophilic ring.
You don't have any evidence that Trump's a PDF.
You don't have nothing.
And you're not even familiar with the files.
Yes, I am.
No, you're not.
I've literally stayed up to date with all the information just because I don't know.
I don't know any of it.
Yes, I do.
Okay, whatever you say.
The thing is, let me let this chat come through.
Let Amio donated $200 to prove I'm not stupid and show Andrew my support.
Love you, man.
You are the closest to Charlie to me.
Thanks, man.
Predatory Claims and Evidence00:06:49
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Lisa.
Now, for the whatever audience, so that we're clear on my position here, I would love if all the files came out unredacted.
I think that that would be great.
Okay, but here's the thing.
In the interim time, you're not going to come to me with zero fucking evidence and say that the president's PDF because the left has been running this gambit for the last year straight with no proof.
And that is an op and it's a disinformation campaign.
And so when I put these people to the question, the reason that I do it as aggressively as I do is to prove they have nothing from which to base this on.
Zero.
It's all just, well, we don't have evidence, so therefore it's true.
And it's fucking crazy.
Isn't searching for the film?
No, how many women have come forward?
And how many creepy statements has he made?
He admitted to margin and tell me the woman who came forward who you think is the most credible, please.
I think because of the massive amounts of people that have came forward, there needs to be further investigation.
Celebrities have him all of the lies, plus of the people who are pedos that he's hung out with, several of them which have been found to be in the Epstein files.
I think if you hang out with Pedos.
Well, which ones are the Pedos he's hanging out with?
There's no direct evidence because we don't.
Then why do you keep saying he's hanging out with Pedo's?
Because he's hanging out with all the people listed in the files.
He's trying to keep more evidence of what actually happened away from the public.
He's lied about his relationship with Trump after he was already convicted.
Let me make sure I got this right.
He said he cut off Trump for, I mean, off Epstein for being creepy.
There's proof that he was still like with Trump in 2000.
I mean, with Epstein in 2007, let me just make sure I got this right.
Trump's a PDF.
You have no evidence that he's a PDF.
Trump hangs out with PDFs.
You can't name a single.
You can't stop, stop.
You can't name a single PDF he's hanging out with.
Your evidence that he's hanging out with PDFs is that you don't have any evidence that he's hanging out with PDFs.
And your evidence that he is a PDF is that you don't have any evidence he's a PDF.
Brilliant leftist.
Dude, I'm brilliant.
So fucking dumb.
Yeah, no, I don't think I'm the one who's so fucking dumb.
Circumstantial evidence can get you convicted of murder.
That does have fun.
That's true.
Grape is like pretty much the only exception to where the laws are different, where you can't have someone say, This is the person who did it to me.
So believe all women.
Don't believe all women.
I think.
So believe women based on evidence.
Yeah.
Okay, then give me your most compelling piece of evidence from one of these women.
Of what?
Trump?
Yeah.
Most of them said that he didn't do anything of them.
What I'm mostly saying is that we need, I said it most likely he's a pedopredor, but if he didn't have anything to hide, then and all of these 26 women are false.
I think it's predatory to speak about dating.
I think it's predatory to call the president PDF with zero evidence, but it's predatory to say, I'm going to be dating you in 10 years to a 10-year-old.
I think it's predatory to go into locker rooms where teenagers are changing.
How is that not predatory?
It was teenagers he walked into that were changing.
He admitted to it.
Can you tell me what the what?
Can you tell me a single locker room he walked into where teenagers were changing?
It was his Trump campaign does deny it, by the way.
They denied the allegations.
He literally said it.
He said something on Howard Stern about this USA pageants.
Yeah.
He wasn't saying anything about teenagers.
There are teenagers.
And it was without consent.
But it was contestants who alleged that Trump entered changing rooms while they were undressing.
But Trump's campaign denied the allegations.
But he said it on Howard Stern before AI existed.
Yeah, let's just go.
Is that not predatory?
Let me just grant it.
Let's just grant that Trump used to like to peep at women at the beauty pageants and watch them change.
Okay.
And then add all of this.
What's the most credible woman who has accused him of SA?
The girl that won civically about SA in court.
Who?
I don't remember her name.
The girl that got finger-banged.
Oh, you mean the one who named her cat vagina and is a lunatic?
Well, the courts.
Whose name, of course, you don't know.
Dude, I don't remember stuff that way.
What I do remember is the details of what she alleges happened and who she told people about.
There was not a single piece of evidence going on.
The court.
That was a Mickey Mouse ass trial.
Our peers followed the evidence and voted in her favor.
No, no, no, no.
First of all, they didn't find him guilty of a single crime.
What happened?
Liable is different than guilty.
He got a pro, it was a process in civil liability, which is easy to prove.
And by the way, she had all sorts of coaching.
She's a lunatic.
She said that grape was sexy.
No, she didn't say grapevine.
Yes, she did.
See, you're taking her words and mixing it.
She said men think that way.
If you watch the full interview, she definitely watched the interview.
She said that it's sexualized and that woman is crazy as shit.
Well, the courts disagree.
And even then, right?
What is the most that had nothing to do with the Epstein files?
What is the most compelling evidence that you can cite in the Epstein files that Trump's a PDF?
What?
I said, most likely, that he's a... I said predator.
I never said PDF.
You...
You did.
You said it lean.
I'm leaning towards he is.
Due to the circumstances of the way he speaks about minor women, the way he barged in on teenagers, all of the women who have come forward, and then the fact that he's lying about what's in the Epstein files, telling its base, I don't want you to follow me if your most compelling piece of evidence is you don't have any evidence.
No, literally, there's proof in the files that he kept communicating with Epstein and hung out with him in 2016, that he lied about being a bad person.
Even if that was all true, what's the most compelling piece of evidence?
He's a pedo protector, and he has predatory behavior.
Okay.
It is, you said, I'll give you, if, let's give you that.
Him barging in on naked women is predatory.
I never said he great little kids.
I never said that.
He's at least covering up for them.
FCC, TikTok, and Fairness00:15:47
Are we moving on?
Yeah, we can move on in a minute.
Can have you tilt your mic down and straighten it for me?
Tilt it down?
There you go.
Okay.
Here, you said.
Just like talking point, just lefty talking points.
You write, you wrote here, there's a great awakening happen.
Everyone is done with culture wars and bullying each other.
We are going to come together to fight the corruption.
Bullying is out.
Identity politics is out.
Blaming each other for our government's corruption is out.
And soon, if you, me, Brian, don't change your angle, you'll be out too.
Hope you have some savings, LOL.
So that was just you hoping that I come into financial rule.
I don't hope that happens.
You said hope you have some savings to indicate that.
I hope you do have savings.
I guess because these are unrelated.
The dating, the dating discussions.
I like mine.
I don't.
Bro, okay, whatever.
You also wrote, look at Kansas and Tucker.
They stopped engaging in culture wars, accepted they were wrong, and now we're at the top.
But you had a chance to talk about real issues and stop the bullshit.
That's why I was mad.
You left me on red.
And now you're destined to be a has-been LOL.
Destined to be a has-been.
Okay.
Well, eventually when.
I mean, who are you?
A never has-been?
A nobody?
No.
I don't know.
My point of all of that is we can all agree that we've all been propaganda and podcasts fell for that propaganda on both sides.
And you contributed to what's happening now.
And so many other people did.
And like the majority, I watch a shit ton of right-wing.
Majority of them agree that they were wrong.
About what?
About trying to elect Trump?
Yeah, that they got bambooed.
Should I have pushed Maula?
No, I think they both sucked.
But I think of the people that, no, I, Also, it's a bit of a post-production.
No, I think that the people who keep fighting for Trump, even though there's a thousand things, like everything he campaigned on for the most part, other than the border, like he's basically done on immigration, to be honest.
I think he's not doing enough on immigration.
I think for the amount of money that we're paying for extra money for ICE, he should be pulling higher numbers considering.
Yeah, it would have been nice to deport more people.
Yeah, I mean, we didn't have to pay all this extra money because the other administrations...
Yeah, because they weren't doing anything.
They deported way more.
Because they had an open border and more came in.
Well, you think, but somehow there's...
Wait, so where are all of these people that came in if they can't find them?
They're stopping.
All of the other administrations are.
Well, they're being stopped at the border in the second issue.
There's way less border crossings because Trump will collect their ass and deport them.
Yes, I give him credit.
That's great.
But sorry, I got to move it on.
Hey, it is what it is for the sake of time.
You also said, Congrats, you're now in my top five douchebag YouTubers.
You listed it.
Andrew Tate, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Wilson, me, and Brian Atlas, and then Nick Fuentes.
And then you said, congrats, you're more douchey than Nick Fuentes.
I said that because at least Nick keeps it real.
My issue was: you call him a douchebag, and now he keeps it real.
He keeps it real, but he's not.
Well, he may have douchey views.
My issue was at the time is I felt like you.
My observation is that like you had all these talking points for MAGA.
And when I brought, I mean, to get him Trump elected and all this stuff, but there's certain people in the mainstream.
Okay.
Well, I mean, you weren't that much, but election night stream.
Yeah, well, it's more like the same questions that everyone else on the right was saying.
Which did contribute to more questions about what is a woman?
Was that Trump propaganda?
No.
Let me continue what I was saying.
Is that there's certain people don't worry, just focus.
I'm trying to, but every time I'm trying to get to a point, you're freaking tired.
Just yawn.
Okay, go ahead, continue.
I'm not trying to.
And you look there, you look at you're looking.
Dude, like, this is my brain.
I'm not trying to.
It's okay.
Go ahead.
Well, good.
Every time I'm trying to say something, you're interrupting me back.
I've been trying to be better about not interrupting, but every time I'm about to freaking say something, you have to say more shit until I forget what the fuck I'm saying.
I'll move it on.
No, see, exactly.
Well, you lost your train of thought.
It happens to the best of us.
Dude, you want me to answer?
You haven't even got me.
Let me answer what I was saying.
It's sprattle.
No, you haven't even let me answer.
I'd let you answer.
No, I never even got to my full point before you keep interrupting it.
Okay, well, just for sake of time about the Nick Fuentes thing, blah, blah, blah.
Because Nick Fluent, first of all, Nick Fluentes literally.
We're not talking about Nick at this moment.
It's because what I was trying to get at is I wanted to talk about real things and have real people on the podcasts.
And every time I brought up James Tallerico, you shot it down.
And I didn't shot it down.
And then after the Trump and after Trump became president, I don't see anything talking about what actually is happening in the administration that could be bad for Trump.
And you helped him get elected.
The majority of everyone else who helped him get elected are now.
I have a dating podcast.
I did an election night stream with Andrew.
And look, I lean conservative, but my dating podcast is not.
I don't know how.
Okay.
My issue was that, yeah, I, when I see people, let's say him.
Do you think Kamala would have been better than Trump?
I think it would have been.
What were our choices?
Both shit.
I think that Kamala would have been like another Biden.
Too many people would have come in.
It would have been worse.
It would have been fucking terrible.
Yeah, I don't know.
And also, I've seen a lot of free speech has opened up quite a bit since.
What about TikTok and what about the FCC?
And yeah, TikTok is now censoring Epstein, Trump, the border.
No, don't say I'm all over the place when I'm bringing up a valid point about censorship.
But every time I have a good point, you say moving on.
All these platforms, like from 2000 to 2024, there was like massive amounts of censorship on these platforms.
Luckily, since Trump term two, actually quite a lot of these platforms kind of opened themselves up a bit in terms of their moderation policies, massive broadening of free speech acceptance here.
Well, that's great.
What about TikTok?
What about it?
TikTok's a left, like left-sided platform.
No, TikTok, whoever bought it is like aligned with Trump.
And the recently changes.
There's still more leftists on there.
They're censoring the leftists.
No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
Lady, I go on TikTok and deal with more leftists probably than any right-wing personality.
They're censoring certain subjects like Epstein and...
Yeah, okay.
YouTube censors certain subjects too.
There's less free speech now that it's been bought than there was with China.
There's more free speech.
There's more free speech.
I'm talking about TikTok.
And then him going after, like suing literally everybody.
And then the FCC, they wouldn't let, again, James Tallarigo on the, what's it called?
Whatever late night, not Jimmy Fallon.
Yeah, the FCC said that they couldn't have him on.
Because of the fairness and the Fairness Act.
But that's not a law.
Who wanted that?
I don't know, but that's not even the law.
That's leftists who wanted the fairness.
No, but it's not a law for talk shows.
And they're not going after Fox and literally, it's not for talk shows.
Wasn't that a policy?
Wasn't that a policy?
But the policy hasn't changed back.
You can't make threats and tell people they can't have them on if you haven't changed the policy.
Wasn't that Stephen Colbert said that was his company who was like, look, the FCC came in.
His company said that the FCC told him not to.
And his company has to get approved to buy a lot of people.
Well, maybe leftists won't get into the Fairness Act anymore then because they're the ones who are saying that.
I'm just saying that there's and then him calling his administration saying there's a difference between hate speech and speech and saying that they're going after people who use hate speech is the Israeli thing?
Oh, yeah, that's a good point too.
They're not allowing college.
You know, that's a point that I'll grant you.
I will grant you.
The colleges think about it.
I will grant you a point that it is bullshit, absolute fucking bullshit to say that it's the case that if you're anti-Israel, you're going to get deported or something like this.
That's all fucking bullshit.
And I did think that saying Zion Dawn then was a reasonable thing to do to push that administration back away from it.
But while I can grant some of these criticisms as being valid, like that criticism, I had it myself, right?
I'm not blind.
But the thing is, is like, I'm still not going to let you call the guy a fucking PDF because that's PDF.
I call him a predator.
I'm not expecting a PDF or I said predator, did I not?
And I'm not going to allow you to besmirch him on great policies like what's going on with ICE based on the fact that people got killed who were going out of their way to agitate.
Is it a great policy for spending extra money to deport less people?
And then can't you?
Did you say spending less?
Sorry, spending more money to deport less people?
Is that a good policy?
No, we're spending more money for border security.
What about now ICE?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Can you fact check that?
Yeah, you can fact check it.
Okay.
You can look at that.
Go ahead.
But yes, the truth of the matter is, is that the amount of border crossings have gone way down.
I grant that.
That's great.
But the rest of it, with everything else that's going on, everyone else seemed to deport more people without.
Yeah, and the entire left is doing everything they can to tie every case up they can in court.
They do everything that they can.
So the government has to spend all this money in court fighting with the lefties.
Well, that's due process, dude.
It's not due process.
It's an obstruction.
It's literally obstructionist leftist policy.
They give a shit under Biden.
ICIS literally going to court.
What's literally going to courthouses and arresting people during their court hearings?
Good.
While they're doing the right thing by going about the right way.
That's not the right way.
Following the law.
No, the right way would not be coming here in the first place.
That would be the right way.
The wrong way would not be showing up.
First of all, these fucking people show up.
They apply for amnesty when they know they don't qualify for it.
They take advantage of the catch and release.
They take advantage of everything they can possibly take advantage of.
You would do the same.
Doesn't make whether I would or not.
I also assume that the country that I was trying to get into would do the same as my country is and throw my ass out.
Yeah, that's what they would get to.
But we have due process and taking them out.
Illegal immigrants have due process.
In certain ways.
While they're in court, they don't even, they're not listening to the judges' stance on it.
They're literally picking them up from the courthouse while they're trying to do the right thing the American way.
That's their problem.
They're arresting them.
That's not the right thing.
The right thing is not to come here illegally and then retroactively apply to stay.
That's not the right thing.
That's the wrong thing.
So I don't know.
It's like, oh, we're doing the right thing.
It's like, no, you're really not doing the right thing.
You're doing the wrong thing.
Well, I think they're also doing the wrong thing by going ahead of the city.
Why even have a border?
Should we just open the border?
No.
Well, why not?
Because everyone would want to come.
And you just said like, you would want to come.
Strong border security.
But why?
Because if there's too many people, then, yeah, we're obviously fucked.
So grab them and throw their asses back in their country?
Yeah, but due process.
They're using due process.
The problem is, is that you can obstruct to the point of absurdity using paper warfare, using left-wing NGOs, which they do, in order to perform paper warfare to stop even the most hardened criminals from getting deported.
Well, I mean, I think that's an issue with the system itself.
That needs to be.
It just needs left-wing terrorists like Antifa.
Oh, my God.
You can roll your eyes, but they're terrorists, allocated as terrorists.
They have been declared terrorists because that's exactly what they are.
Everyone who says they don't like fascism is a terrorist or what?
That's not what Antifa is.
Antifa utilizes the idea of unorganization while they are secretly organizing.
They use signal apps.
They use all sorts of different things.
We've watched these protests live on my channel many, many, many times.
You can literally watch them as they coordinate.
You can watch as people come over and give interviews, and most of them aren't even from the state.
They're from three neighboring states over.
They're there whipping mobs up in front of federal buildings to obstruct ICE from doing its job for no reason.
Well, just Trump's a fascist.
That's it.
Where are all these signal chats and stuff, though?
Well, first, you can go right this second to Cam Higbee.
He has an X account.
Go to Cam Higbee.
He went in and infiltrated the signal chats at these various locations.
Yes.
Not only verified, but easily.
You could verify it right now.
You can read the chats for yourself.
Saying that people aren't doing that, but to, I mean, it happens literally, yeah, on both sides.
There's crazy shit happening, but to label it.
Say both sides again.
But what there's just both sides.
No, let me finish explaining that real quick, please.
There's right-wing people on Signal Chats opposing immigration enforcement.
No, I mean, in different situations, like there's probably left-wing people that tried to rile up the Jan Sixers and stuff.
I think it goes both ways.
But to label to label anyone who's like, I just want to know how many of these hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people protesting are domestic terrorists.
Because there's like shadow dockets and stuff that usually the ones who stay up after the protest is done start setting shit on fire, burning cop cars, setting up dumpsters, fighting with police.
They burned two, what's the bullshit?
In California, in Los Angeles, they were dropping rocks on cop cars.
They did set them on fire.
They were setting fire to local shops.
Feminism And Its Extremes00:15:33
We watched it all live.
Wait, in California.
Wait, were the BLM riots peaceful?
No.
She grants that, I guess.
No.
What was I saying, Sierra?
Yeah.
I lose my moving things on a little bit.
You said that to me, I guess me and Andrew, you're a cancer on society, but can't look in the mirror.
You're way worse than OnlyFans LOL.
Yeah.
How am I worse than OnlyFans?
Because.
And why am I cancer on society?
Well.
Well, I don't think I was really mad at that.
I already explained myself several times that I thought you didn't want to have real discussions and you had no accountability to the Trump thing.
So I think it's a cancer on society is dividing left and right and women versus men.
Instead of coming up for solutions to problems, you play the blame game based off of, yeah, and then you don't show a broad picture of what's happening.
Like, I think it would be great to have dudes in the same age bracket come on the show.
Yeah, just go start a show.
Yeah, I might do that.
And yeah, I just, I think.
What is he?
I just think, I think it's, it's not just you, it's the whole propaganda of the internet thing.
And at that point in time, I thought you were kind of not picking and choosing people who wouldn't have, like, yeah, who education or anything to be a good opponent.
You DM the whatever Instagram, we let you on, basically.
I mean, if you can make it to Santa Barbara, you want to be on the show?
We pretty much let you on.
Yeah, I think that anything...
We let you on.
Yeah, 140 IQ, we let you on.
I think people who make things left versus right and women versus men are doing harm to society.
Well, really quick on that note, so I think this all would be, I think we can just blame feminism entirely.
They went too far.
Well, I think there's a reactionary component where you basically had feminists on the offensive.
You had feminists who were belligerent.
You had feminists who were the aggressors with their narratives, with their attacks on men, with their attacks on all kinds of systems, their attacks on the family.
You know, even you might say, well, that's, what was it, stage three?
What are the different wave?
Third waves, yeah.
No, feminism from its inception was anti-family.
You can go back into the 1800s, early 1900s, and find anti-natalist, anti-family perspectives in feminist dogma.
I kind of disagree with that on the first wave.
Right, but so feminism has always been antagonistic towards men.
And so if you start poking at somebody, they're going to poke back.
They're going to one extreme causes one extreme.
Well, yeah, but so this idea that the blame would be on me, if somebody is attacking me, I'm going to attack back.
And so I didn't, you know, I guess I just don't understand this criticism of people who have like a sort of reactionary response to feminism when feminism is extremely belligerent.
It has all the cars.
It holds all the cards.
It holds all the power.
If you go to a university and you would agree universities, their systems, they have their institutions, massive power.
They have massive billion dollar, perhaps in total, trillion dollar endowments at all these institutions.
Massive influence.
There's not manosphere classes being taught.
There's not red pill classes being taught.
There's not men's rights advocacy being taught in universities.
It's all feminism.
It's all women's studies, gender studies, feminist studies classes.
My message, hold on.
Most people don't even take those classes.
How would it matter if they're in every single time?
It's not like it's mandatory.
It extends beyond just the classes, the administration.
It's all steeped in feminist ideology.
Corporations, the media, the news, it's all steeped in feminist ideology.
And so it's interesting to me that you point to me and my podcast and perhaps a few other podcasters who have anti-feminist viewpoints.
And you want to say that, you know, this is, it's literally David and Goliath.
My message is I'm David.
Feminism is the Goliath that I'm going up against.
I don't have influence.
I don't have power.
But these feminists, they hold all the cards.
They hold everything.
I get where you're coming from, but one extreme causes a different extreme.
Feminists went too far.
Anti-feminism is not extremism.
It's counter-extremism.
Well, hold on, let me phrase that better.
It's counter to extremism.
Well, I'd say, I mean, the first wave of feminism was bad back then, too.
Well, I mean, so back in my, like from my research, like in the 50s, there was more drug use.
50% of, 30 to 50% of men were creating, I mean, were committing adultery.
It was more common.
50% of men were.
It said 33 to 50% of men were changing.
I was like 15s?
Yeah, and then women was, I think, like 20%.
The numbers have gone way more down.
I don't know where, okay.
Why are you laughing?
And then they're not.
Dude, everything's fake.
Here, I'll tell you what.
Take a second.
Pull those numbers up and tell me where they're sourced.
I know you don't know.
That's why I'm asking you to do it.
I am.
I think feminism is a cancer on society, and I'm the antidote.
Well, yeah.
And Andrew's the antidote.
I think metal ground is probably the antidote.
Like, hey, you went too far.
Let's not try to take away your right to vote or anything.
Let's all chill out here.
I mean, even foundational feminist authors are like insanely misandrist.
They're anti-male.
They're anti-family.
No, no, no, but it's not just like if the core people of that movement are, You can pull up quotes.
Actually, Jake Rattlesnake released this really interesting video recently where he's like pulled these quotes from all the like Sally Miller Gearhart, all these like foundational feminists.
And if you take a feminist class, you're going to read, you're going to hear from them, you're going to read their books, you're going to read their literature.
All from occult feminism, by the way.
They are, they're anti-male, they're man-haters, they're misandrist, and this is like to feminism.
I mean, yeah, I don't call myself a feminist.
Like, like I said when I came on the show before, I was fighting against everyone speaking to each other that way.
I think their extreme caused this extreme, and all I'm saying is let's nobody should be extreme, basically.
That isn't going to solve anything.
We should find some sort of solutions, like telling people it's not right to hate men, telling people it's not right to hate women.
The difference between me and a feminist is they would justify their contempt or hatred for men.
I don't even categorize, I don't categorize myself as a misogynist.
I think women are great.
I think women are great, but you'll find a lot of feminists they love to justify their contempt and hatred for men.
And that's a difference.
That's what I'm saying.
I can do male advocacy without tearing down women.
However, feminists have a very difficult time doing women's advocacy without trying to tear down men.
And that's the difference.
I think where it kind of blurs the lines for me is because there's like no dumb young men giving their viewpoints to.
So not only does it frame just the left as dumbasses, but it also women.
Wait, hold on.
You've had the entire media apparatus for the past 30, 40 years.
If you look at sitcoms, you look at the media, you look at commercials, they paint men as these sort of oafs.
The father figures, Homer Simpson.
You look at friends, you look at sitcoms.
You don't have really good representations of a more traditional masculinity in mass media.
You look at Homer, they're just oafs.
They paint men as oafs.
So this idea that, Brian, you're painting women these ways.
By the way, I'm giving women a microphone to open their mouths.
I'm not making women look stupid.
If women come on the show, but everyone's a freaking stupid person.
Wait, you're saying the women are stupid?
Well, that's very sexist.
But I think, no, I think a lot of dudes are equally as stupid.
That's my whole point.
Have some of the dumbasses on, too.
If they're Trump supporters in that same age group, that would be awesome.
That would be so cool.
Just give us the why don't you start a show and only invite men on?
I would invite some of the people who are.
And there's women who do that anyways.
There's women who do that same thing.
Yeah.
I mean, that's y'all do make a lot of good points at things, but I think, yeah, I think you should be able to see both sides of the dumbass dudes who are also being idiots.
It's equal.
There's stupid men out there.
It's really an issue with our educational system more than left or right.
Like everybody is dumb.
Like that's a problem we should solve.
It's a bit vague, but you wrote that Andrew's been talking about all the shit and of course has grotesque views.
Y'all only want to debate dumbasses.
So what are Andrew's grotesque views?
Or did we already get into that?
I think we pretty much already did.
It's just really the shit he says about periods and who should I debate?
I mean, I know.
James, she wants you to.
Yeah, I know that guy, but who else?
Who should I debate?
I know you debate people of all types, but should I debate everybody?
Hey, maybe do a Charlie Kirk thing, like situation.
Don't I do that?
Don't I debate basically all sorts of people from all walks of life at all times?
Remind me what the question was because I had a point.
That's my question.
My question.
I was going to answer his question.
You said that Andrew had grotesque views.
Oh, just like the, I've heard him through a lot of his stuff.
um really basically he doesn't believe in democracy a lot talking about how's that a grotesque view um Talking about how there's a law not believing that democracy is a great system, a grotesque view.
Doesn't have a constitutional republic?
Yeah, it's a constitutional republic.
He said it's a horrible idea.
And then it was a Christian nationalism to say, I don't care about any of that.
I just care about one question.
Why is opposing democracy a grotesque idea?
When you're trying to replace it with...
That's not my question.
Opposing democracy?
So opposing democracy itself is not a grotesque idea?
I don't think that is, but when you're using power to take away people's rights and not let people get married and yeah, taking dominance.
Are you talking about gay marriage?
Yeah, it's okay to be a Christian leader, but wouldn't that be coherent for the Christian worldview, though?
That gay people can't from a Christian belief.
The majority of Christians believe gay marriage should be legal.
That's not true.
I'll look it up.
And then look up what a nominal Christian is, too.
I know what a nominal Christian is, but the majority of people aren't nominal.
You mean the people that go to church all the time?
So if you say the majority of Christians, you're actually saying that nominal Christians.
Meaning people who don't practice their faith.
But the ones who do practice their faith.
Jesus never said you have to go to church.
I'm not interested in what they think Jesus said.
It doesn't make sense.
I'm interested in this.
What is a nominal Christian?
Someone who has a nomination and goes to church regularly?
No, the opposite.
A nomination?
Huh?
A nominal Christian.
Oh, someone that doesn't have...
Stop.
Bro.
What?
I'm looking.
Yeah, so when you're talking about people who are not nominal Christians, though, what do they say about gay marriage?
Some of them are for, some of them are against.
The overwhelming thing is.
The majority of them are against.
Against.
But legally, I don't know.
A lot of people actually practice their faith from Christianity.
But if you look at the statistics, 10% of people are a Christian nationalist.
Out of the 32% or whatever that are conservatives, it's like 40% of them want to— It's only 40—literally less than half of them want to— Do you like democracy?
In this current state, I think it needs some revision.
But you like it?
Yeah.
How come people weren't allowed to vote on whether or not gay should get married then?
They should be able to.
They were in states until the Supreme Court ruled that they should.
I know that.
But then how come in all the states?
But they should make an amendment.
But in California, they ruled against it.
That was in 2014.
And there was a, yeah, and they should revote it.
Yeah.
So all the Christian nationalists is saying is the same thing.
That it should be up to the states, not the feds, to make a universal law on marriage, but states, and that the states should be allowed to vote it in or vote it out.
Because anytime it's left to the states, they say no.
I mean, looking at the statistics, it seems like if people actually got the chance to vote, then they would.
Then what would your opposition to my plan be?
My opposition is like Project 2025.
What does that have to do with what I just said?
My idea here is that you bring marriage back to the state and that people within the state can vote whether or not LGBTQ people can or cannot get married.
What would your opposition to that be?
opposition would be that we should make a constitutional amendment and then do that like yeah the supreme court if you don't like a constitutional amendment to do what if If you don't like how the Supreme Court ruled, then you have to amend.
No, you don't need to amend it.
That was an interpretation, and they can reinterpret it.
Well, then have them do that.
Yeah, that's the idea.
That's what Christian nationalists are proposing.
But you also said that you want the church to decide be responsible for marriage and that you don't want to.
Yeah, that's a really good idea.
It seems like a terrible idea to have the state responsible for marriage.
They haven't done a bang-up job, have they?
Why Christians Should Control Marriage00:02:30
I mean, there's issues, but I don't think the church, like only allowing Christians to get married is the same.
I've heard you in your interviews talking about it.
If you wanted to go and sign a contract with the state, I don't see why you couldn't do that as a secularist.
You said that the church should, like it shouldn't be, only the church should be responsible for marriage.
Yes, for Christians, and the state should have no say.
Yes.
For only Christians.
Yes.
So everyone else can see that.
Yeah, I don't give a shit if secularists go and fucking go, oh, we're going to get married and divorced in five years.
I don't care.
I don't give a shit.
But I thought you said everyone else should get married.
I want Christian.
If I was a secularist.
You want to allow anyone else to get married.
I think you conflate many things.
So let's walk the position through.
Okay.
Andrew's position.
Secular marriage is fucking stupid.
It's stupid.
It's meaningless.
It's not foundational.
I have no idea why they do it.
You would be better off just walking out in the street with some random guy and being like, hey, we're married.
And he goes, yeah, I agree.
That would be just as good.
But if you wanted to, if you just demanded that the state come in and intervene in your marriage and have contracts with you, fine.
I don't fucking care.
What I'm saying is that I think Christians should be able to exempt themselves from state control and that should be governed by the church.
I mean, yeah, that's fair.
Duh.
I mean, it's a completely reasonable.
The problem with you is like, you don't even know my position.
No, I do know that position because I've literally watched it.
Why did you just strawman it?
I'm not straw manning it.
Like you literally just said that you don't think anyone other than Christian should have the right to get married.
You didn't say it about the state in that interview.
No, you did not.
Listen, what I said was that marriage should go back to the church.
I don't consider secular marriage valid.
I don't even consider it valid.
Well, I don't think people consider themselves Christian.
Yeah, that's nice.
Anybody, from my view, who will marry two men or marry two women or marry three people together, that's not a valid institution from my view anymore.
Well, I mean, that's your view, but.
That's right.
And I'm going to rule from my view.
I'm going to advocate for the rule from my view, not from your.
I don't fucking care about your view.
Your view is dumb.
So I'm not going to advocate that we rule from that view.
I mean, all I have to say is that your view is highly unpopular.
And yeah, none of that basically is.
Debate and Disagreement00:14:39
Yeah, that's what leftists used to say about abortion, too.
Your view is highly unpopular.
But guess what?
Times are changing.
Well, yeah, times are changing.
Trump, yeah, all of your little Trump supporters, the majority of the young people now against that.
Project 2025, yes, they're implementing a lot of it, which is all Christian nationalist beliefs.
But when the whole Epstein thing happened, it kind of derailed all of that to a point.
By design.
What, their Project 2025?
Dumb twats are running around claiming that Trump is part of a pedo ring, just made up, completely made up by leftists.
Yeah, I never said he, I said he was a pedoprotector.
Yeah, whatever, he's not.
You just made that up too.
You have no evidence of that either.
Yeah, literally, literally, the majority of all people.
Every country, literally, even on the right, they know that he's covering shit up.
Whatever.
You're in a small part of the populace that still thinks he's a very good person.
It doesn't matter.
I'm going to end up being completely vindicated on it, like I am every other view I have.
I mean, we'll see about that.
We should take you seriously because, after all, your views are completely coherent.
Yeah, not being able to do that.
When you reference things you don't know anything about.
I do.
I don't have a great memory.
It doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Like, I have dyslexia.
I haven't slept.
And I've never been in a debate.
And then y'all keep before I even answer, y'all say something else.
You've been in multiple debates on whatever.
I've watched them.
I've been on whatever.
Engaged in multiple debates.
Yeah, and then y'all kept trying to shut me up before I got to the point.
Look, it's not my idea to have a 2v.
I always do 1v1 debates.
I didn't want a 2v.
Always.
I always do 1v1.
But the thing is, is like, look, when Brian's going back and forth with you, I'm not saying anything.
I've been sitting here quietly.
Well, I appreciate that.
But yeah, I wanted to debate you.
And then, yeah, every time I try to say something, then get to my point, then y'all say something to where I never get to my point.
And then we'll move along, moving along.
Well, do you understand, though?
Try to look at it from the opposition view.
So I try to be real short and concise with the things that I say so that I can reiterate what it is that I'm saying so that other people can understand it the best way possible.
When somebody else is going like and then it's all incoherent and it sounds like babble, of course, people try to rein that in.
I'm trying to be charitable, though.
Well, I appreciate that, but I'm never debated.
My brain thinks differently, different ways than other people's brains.
And I'm doing the best I can.
And I knew that I would not win the debate.
That's not my purpose of being here.
My purpose is literally what I said in my beginning is follow the money.
Don't vote for the PACs.
Literally all of that.
Stop hating each other.
Why ask for a debate if you I don't understand?
I mean I knew that I would win a debate.
My purpose here.
My purpose of being here is not to change Andrew's views, is to put out my point with a greater message that for the truth of not don't switch to being dim or Republican if it's a corporate puppet versus someone who's not.
Pick whoever's in the party that's not.
Don't vote for the bad person.
We go.
Got it.
You also wrote good job grifting off Candace and Charlie.
Yeah.
I mean, that was based off of him calling people murderers, calling Candace crazy, and then you reposting.
She is crazy.
She's an idiot.
And then literally, she's rejectively.
She can't even pronounce the word she says.
She's so fucking stupid.
That doesn't mean that you're stupid.
I have a condition that caused me to do that and neurological issues that cause her.
Her neurological issue is that she's fucking stupid.
Well, literally, half the world believes more than the majority of people know what happened.
FBI is not really telling us exactly what's going on.
She's proven a lot of lies that are going on.
Totally right.
And when Charlie Kirk walked into rooms, the light flickered and he went to an X-Men school and he was a time traveler.
I know.
I mean, this is all stuff that Charlie Kirk said.
So is he crazy too?
No, it's all stated out of context, always.
And that's the most charitable.
Why do you think Candace doesn't debate with anybody?
She doesn't debate with anybody who will challenge these views because she gets destroyed.
She's on Pierce.
She's on Piers Morgan all the time.
Him calling her.
Yeah.
Because she's debating with Pierce Morgan.
Give me somebody like Steven Crowder.
She was offered, she was offered $30,000 to debate with Steven Crowder on these various issues.
Nope, she's not going to do it.
Right?
She's not going to debate with any of these people.
But you're also not realizing that there's like six other podcasters.
Yeah.
All right.
I'll see if I can do it.
She's not going to do it.
She believes that.
In fact, tell her she can bring Ian Carol both at the same time.
What about the other podcasters who are doing their own investigations?
Can they come on too?
There's several other people who are also investigating and using their platform with other people to find stuff out.
Investigating what?
What happened to Charlie Kirk?
Well, that's fine.
I don't mind anybody investigating what happened to Charlie Kirk.
They're backing up.
Do you think there's an inside job or what do you think?
Yeah, at some point, I think our CEI has been doing shady.
Do you think that's Tyler who killed him?
He might have killed him, yeah, but I don't think he was the only one involved.
But I don't understand.
Do you think Erica Kirk's a PDF too?
There's some grooming texts that came out, but I don't have any evidence that she's a PDF.
Even though the person who those texts were to literally said, and she's an adult and has been for a long time, that wasn't grooming.
You took it completely out of control.
Can this be a bad thing?
You took it completely out of content.
And that's what she said.
She said at the time, like most people who've been groomed, she didn't see anything wrong with it.
But as an adult, she looks back and it's like, yeah, that's kind of weird.
That is not true.
That is factually not.
She literally said it was not grooming at all, that she had a great relationship with her, and she helped her out.
That's what she actually said.
What are you doing?
Well, no one's actually.
Did you hear her say that or what?
Not only that, but...
Where is it?
Where's who's ever accused Erica Kirk?
Where's a single victim?
This is my biggest problem with these people, right?
It's like they always make all these crazy.
Yeah, and the victim says they weren't a victim.
They're saying, I want to touch your butt and like stuff about vagines and stuff like that.
The victim claims they weren't victimized.
She said at the time.
No, she claimed she wasn't victimized.
So it's like, that's the craziest part is like, did you hear her come to say that?
You know what I would like one day?
I would like one day for you people when you get involved in these fucking massive, crazy ass tinfoil hack conspiracies, which by the way, I love conspiracies and many are true.
The problem is, is like our quality of conspiracy theorist has gone way down.
I don't know why, but since the Art Bell days, it's just rapidly decreasing.
I would like for there to actually be victims.
Show me the victims.
Where are they?
Of what?
Of Erica Kirk.
Where's her victims?
I didn't say she was a PDF file.
I never claimed that.
A groomer, though.
I mean, literally, if Brian was on that, if those texts were about Brian, everyone would be calling him a groomer, too.
Except the victim.
That's kind of how grooming works.
I was groomed as well.
Even though they're adults.
I didn't see anything wrong with it as well when I said that.
That's amazing.
So now by this time.
Later in life, nobody could ever say they were victimized.
Can I ask you a question?
Let's say you have an uncle and say, you know, it's an older uncle and you're like 13 and your uncle's like, you're very handsome.
Or says to a woman, you're going to grow up to be a beautiful lady or something.
Is that grooming?
No, but what's grimming is Erica saying, I want to be inside your lady garden.
I think that's grimming.
I ain't going to defend that.
You know what I'm saying?
This is crazy.
She said, I want to be inside your lady garden.
And she also said she wanted to touch her butt and like all kinds of stuff saying, oh, I haven't.
Okay, that shit might be a little weird.
That's what I'm saying.
But I'll know the details.
I'll know the details.
What's the context if I want to be inside your lady garden?
Where's the context?
Girl Sonaro donated $200.
That was a question for the new genius lady.
Dude, I don't think I'm a genius.
I usually handle situations where there simply isn't enough data to make a logically sound decision, but you are still forced to act.
Wait, I usually handle it very simply.
Like, what?
I need more context to that.
That's all you wrote.
That's all there is.
There's literally no data for it and no context to anything?
I guess.
I mean, that's kind of broad.
Like, have a vote from the people?
I don't freaking know.
And consult other people and see what they have to say about it.
Like, in your staff?
Or literally, I mean.
Okay.
But I guess what was the thing about the grifting off Candace and Charlie thing?
It's because when I wanted to talk about Candace and all of what was happening, that was, and also it was a James Halerico thing.
It was when I saw that you had were reposting Candace's interview.
That took me off because he was calling her crazy.
I was trying to talk to you about Candace and all this alternative.
Yeah, months ago.
I reposted.
It was right when he died.
And the whole Candace thing, it was like a battle.
I was like, I mean, I get that, yeah, maybe posting Charlie's stuff to, you know, keep his legacy alive.
But then when I saw that you were reposting Candace's stuff, I was like, dude, like, you won't talk about Candace, but then you're reposting yourself.
I had her on the show.
No, that's what I was saying.
I was just saying, I wanted to talk about that.
I don't have any beef with Candace.
No, I don't think you do.
I mean, I don't agree with her with her on everything.
I don't agree with her on everything, too.
But my beef was that I off that I wanted.
How do you define grifting?
What is posting Candace's stuff, but not being willing to talk about her after a murder and stuff.
Like, I was mad that you were leaving me on, because I said, I want to debate, and you said, about what?
And I said, only if you're willing to talk about things that are deeper than dating.
And you had me explain everything I want to talk about.
I'm not going to ask for you to give prompts about what.
No, you never said prompts.
So I told you everything I want to talk about about the corruption and everything.
And then, and yeah, and you left me on red and then posted Candace's stuff.
I'm like, dude, he doesn't want to talk about it, but then he's financially benefiting off of reposting this stuff.
I was on the show, and we posted the full version, the full portion of her appearance.
But how do you define grifting?
I think the grift part was not wanting to talk about.
Define grifting.
Grifting is making money off something in an immoral way.
Immoral.
So is making money grifting in and of itself?
It can be.
So everybody's a grifter.
I mean, pretty much.
If you don't, I would say if you're like spreading lies to make money or not willing, only willing to talk.
Listen, let me finish this.
When you're only talking about one perspective but not willing to have people on That wouldn't even be grifting, but no, but the grift was that he was calling everyone murderous.
I had an ulterior idea, and I was telling you, hey, watch all these other people who are showing evidence of this and this and this.
I think something might be wrong with this case.
And then he has all his disagreements about Candace in the narrative.
I want to talk about it.
You leave me on red, but then you post Candace's stuff.
Her appearance.
We repost old content all the time.
I get that, but it's literally the same time as all of this.
Everyone's making money off Candace and Charlie.
That was my issue with it.
I guess two things here really quick.
I think my definition- He makes money off of me too.
Is that grifting?
If somebody gets murdered and somebody else has an ulterior idea of what happened, and I'm trying to get that out.
And then you're saying that.
Then Candace would be a grifter?
To a point, everyone's grifter.
Candace's stuff with like the assassination.
And Andrew has said this many times.
I think it was us.
Yeah, okay.
Poor taste.
Andrew has said this many times.
I don't think that Candace has forwarded any compelling evidence as to like alternative explanations of the assassination.
Perhaps there's coincidences, but in terms of what's the word you use as a matter of fact, that's why it's an investigation.
Compelling evidence.
That's why it's an investigation.
Affirmative evidence.
It's like, where's the actual evidence?
Look, if everything is just skepticism.
She's proven like several things that people are lying about in TPS USA.
Andrew, would you agree if some evidence did come forward?
You'd be totally prepared to believe it.
In fact.
The weapon alone.
The story with the weapon alone doesn't make sense.
With the 30-odd six?
Yeah.
Because there's no way a 30-odd six could penetrate.
Oh, boy.
Are you talking about that Ian Carol?
No, it wasn't Ian Carrington.
It was Ian Carr.
Well, he was saying how he was apparently a ballistics expert.
It's not just one.
The Whole Internet's Talking00:04:25
The whole internet's talking about this.
Yeah, but Andrew.
Except it happened with Martin Luther King.
Huh?
I saw your video.
This happened before with the same type of weapon with another political leader who was, and it did not penetrate all the way through.
And the reason that you don't use cow bones and things like this is because they, or ballistic jail, you have to use a pig spine in order to simulate what happens with a human being.
But this has happened before, especially if you're using soft point ammunition, which makes sense.
If this is a hunting rifle, it's SP ammo, right?
That there wouldn't be any penetration.
The entrance wound was actually quite large.
The timing of it, though, the firearm, too, doesn't have that in the impact on the barrel or something.
It can have an impact on the twist brain.
If you add the timeframe to what they said happened, it doesn't make sense.
Listen, do you see what I mean, though?
That's not affirmative evidence.
What you need is affirmative evidence.
What that means is this.
Yeah, so here's the thing, right?
It's just always endless investigations.
This was what happened.
Here's why I'm so skeptical.
I'll explain.
Let me explain my reasoning.
I remember when the Steele dossier came out and I heard Democrats in unison for two years say where there's smoke, there's fire.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
We need more investigations, more investigations, more investigations.
Things aren't adding up.
And where there's smoke, there's fire, more, and it was all bullshit.
The whole Russia collusion thing, total fucking bullshit.
From the ground up, it was total bullshit.
It was a complete hoax and it was a con job.
And at the time, I remember, and people forget, but I was around.
I was doing political content at the time.
You don't want the reasoning?
I do.
I know.
What I'm saying to you is that I remember them for years doing this.
And I remember a bunch of stupid ass right-wingers falling for that psyop too and coming in and saying, Hey, Andrew, look, there are a lot of questions.
You know, they are bringing up a lot of valid points.
Hey, Andrew, you know, they were.
And it was all fucking a crock of shit.
And the Never Trumpers were all behind it too.
Those are guys on our side.
And it was all bullshit.
And so the thing is, is like now when I hear people and they have endless fucking questions but posit no affirmative evidence, I instantly stop.
I instantly don't believe them.
Instantly don't believe them until they give me affirmative evidence.
All they do is endlessly call for investigations.
I want more investigations.
This has proven a shit ton of lies from TPSP USA.
And then there's a test.
I'm going to assume that they're all lies.
That's not affirmative evidence of an alternative explanation to Kirk's murder.
It's not.
It's not.
That's why it's investigated.
There's a lot of shady crap going on.
Yeah, more investigations.
Well, if our FBI is not being transparent, and if the story doesn't make sense, it forces the public to go through the conspiracy route.
Candace has been correct about Epstein's connection, like things that before it was cool, she was telling everybody was.
She says that Bridget Macrone is a man.
Brigitte McCrone is a man based on a book.
It's based off of a book.
By a lunatic who has been proven to be a lunatic many, many times.
What do you mean?
This guy has all sorts of mental issues.
And yes, also in court.
And not only that, not only that, you know what's missing from all that Brigitte McCrone shit?
A single piece of affirmative evidence.
A single piece.
Yeah, I don't think that makes her crazy.
Zero evidence.
I don't think that makes her crazy.
I think it's necessary.
She's doing endless Russia claims.
I don't think the continuation is that she's zero evidence.
I mean, I think, I believe there is evidence.
I don't think she's crazy.
I think she listened.
I genuinely don't think there are people who are crazies online.
I genuinely don't think Candace Owens is crazy.
I told my wife this.
We were arguing about it.
And I was like, she's not crazy.
She's just fucking stupid.
But people can't fathom that.
They're like, no, it can't be possible because she's popular, this and that, blah, blah, blah.
But think about this.
Think about the incongruence here.
Why are all these men listening to a fucking woman to begin with?
That's insane.
And the second thing.
She wrote a book about the second thing is she was a former Democrat operative.
She was a former Democrat.
Yeah.
Counter Narrative Pushed00:02:49
She was an operative.
She was suing based on racial issues.
She had a doxing website that was left-wing based.
The whole shift to the right.
It's all propaganda.
The whole shift to the right is recent.
And it's like, no, look, she's an opportunist.
She's an opportunist.
And the most important part is just this.
And Fuentes got this right with Ian Carroll, too, right?
Ian Carroll probably go back to delivering fucking pizzas, okay?
These people are just not smart.
I don't know what else to say.
They're not smart people.
I think Candace Owens is pretty smart.
But on the grifting thing, the grifting thing.
But it's really just about the Candace.
Well, then the Charlie.
But so I want.
Yeah, because I had reposted some stuff around that time.
I do want to point out, I think I would frame it as counter narrative.
So people on your side, the left.
My side, I'd say you're left.
Okay.
Sorry, sorry.
It's not my side.
Regardless of people on the left, Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever, whatever, instead of just simply recognizing the tragedy for what it was, almost immediately the other side, within hours, started clipping him out of context to try to paint him as a racist sexist misogynist transphobic, etc.
In an effort to diminish or lessen the impact of his assassination.
I agree with seeing that, seeing this and also being, like you know, like completely shocked by what happened.
We'd had him on the podcast two times, I and, by the way, when Charlie came on, he he was a saint.
He was such he was nice to everybody, very sweet, he should.
People wanted to clip him and paint him as this monster and I was like well, if they're gonna clip him, I want to push out like some counter narrative, like here he is being really nice to these women when they're accusing him of being this monster, this sexist.
He hated women, he was a misogynist, and so I was like, let me push out that all the nice things like how, how pleasant he was to the other women panelists on the show when he came out, while the other side wanted to paint him in a negative light, which I thought look, you can disagree with Charlie, but it did seem a little despicable.
You know, it did seem like an effort to try to diminish the impact of what happened, and you had people rejoicing, people who were happy.
Yeah, completely discover all those messed up dude, like I had to unfriend people who were like laughing me, like being sad about Charlie Cook.
I didn't like Charlie Cook, but I would.
I cried several times because it was all.
Claims and Cures00:05:46
I have a question for you, though.
I have a question.
Yeah, you've done a lot of research on on me, on Andrew I.
I did a little digging of my own not really digging, I mean, on your instagram you include a link to a website.
Oh, that's my grandfather grandfather um, he was one of the original uh, metaphysical um authors before.
It was cool, but so he's not alive anymore, so I don't want to tell anyone talking shit about my grandfather.
Well, i'm not I mean, i'm not really going to talk shit, but yeah um, you accuse me of grifting.
I suspect you accuse Andrew of grifting um, me personally.
I think grifting would be uh, doing something for profit uh saying, for example, saying something that you don't believe in.
Yeah, I agree with that.
So yeah like uh, if you're larping as, like a conservative because you feel as though this will be my pathway to making money.
So i'm gonna espouse a conservative viewpoint, even if you don't believe it.
That that's what I would be consider grifting.
Uh, if you happen to be conservative and you make money by doing it, but you genuinely believe that in which you were espousing, that wouldn't be grifting.
No, I said my only thing.
Grift was.
The candid part is what I said.
You, because you promote, you have a large fall, decently large following on instagram 20 000 followers on instagram.
Uh, and I looked at the website your grandfather and uh, it's interesting, you accused me of being a grifter.
I've never made any money off of that.
What are you talking about?
I'm keeping my legacy alive.
I promote the website.
I don't make money off that.
It's not my money.
That's my family legacy.
Well, the estate, I assume you said he passed away.
I'm sorry to hear that.
But the estate makes money like your parents just.
Like a thousand bucks a month.
What?
Okay, which would I assume would pass down to you.
But I mean, my I'm trying to keep my family legacy alive.
Well, my research into that, he had a grandfather had a heavy focus on ESP, psychic abilities, mind over matter claims.
I mean, look at the CIA.
There's actually proof of that shit work.
I mean, if you look at the CIA, they had programs like that too, like projects.
His claims of projects like that.
Telephone pieces.
That's one of them.
He had telepathy.
The CIA used that program.
And he talked about that CIA program in his book.
But he sells books.
Okay, but here's okay.
In his books, it's influencing reality with thoughts, developing extra ESP, extra sensory perception, healing the body through visualization, telepathic communications.
These claims are not supported by mainstream science.
He graduated from NIT.
By the way, he claimed that you could develop telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, precognition.
There's a lot of psychology.
The CIA had these programs.
Hold on, here's where it gets a little iffy on the grift.
By the way, I said I don't want to talk about my reproducible scientific evidence that humans can develop psychic powers, just throwing that out there.
Yeah, look at the CIA.
He claimed he doesn't make that claim.
He claimed through visualization that you could cure physical diseases, speed tissue regeneration, fix chronic conditions, eliminate pain immediately.
Dude, I don't want you to talk shit about my grandfather.
I'm literally, it's facts.
What does this have to do with me?
Act is also claiming act as a potent substitute for medical treatment.
Pretty funny how defensive you get when people attack.
Hold on, hold on.
Dude, like, did he?
He wrote the book.
It's my grandfather's dead, and you're psychotronic power.
Yeah, it's a great book.
Okay.
It's very popular.
So it's a great book.
Also, he claims you can communicate with inner psychic entities.
Now, dude, if y'all are religious, you believe in shit like that too.
Like, what's so crazy about it?
If the claim is, like, if he was pushing people away from, for example, if somebody had cancer and he was pushing away from he, uh, which, I mean, if you read the Bible and stuff, too.
No, if you read the Bible, pseudoscience, it says fasting and uh praying, especially long periods, can heal you.
He literally, a lot of the stuff that's in the Bible, he was saying too, that God can heal you.
He, you know, that he.
Did he claim that visualization can cure physical diseases?
It's about your mindset.
It can cure cancer.
Did he claim that?
I mean, I don't know if he claimed that it will cure cancer.
As a chronically ill person, when I was really negative in my life, didn't know what was going wrong with me.
The sicker I got because I was so worried and like, oh, poor me, poor everything.
I got this really negative place to where like I legit lost the ability to walk and stuff.
And it took me finding the light again.
You could say God or whatever to where my chronic illness like got better, like three times better.
And that's not doing his technique.
Just literally not being depressed and stressed.
And like, yeah, stress actually kill.
There's proof that stress will age, stress will cause literally that.
But I think there is a mind-body connection insofar as, yeah, like let's say you have to.
You the healer.
Yeah, it does help.
Right, so like if you're super stressed out versus like doing meditation, relaxation exercises, that can have an, well, it wouldn't cure cancer, I think.
I don't think it would cure cancer either.
But I just find it interesting.
Accusations and Morals00:13:11
There's a lot of accusations of grifting, but you're promoting your grandfather's work.
What do you mean?
I don't make any money off of it, so it's not a grift.
If you are promoting his work, which eventually would be a good thing.
It's like three views a month, by the way.
Would eventually financially funnel down to you.
The three views per month from my Instagram is a grift.
Okay.
If I made less money, would I still be grifting?
No, you would just be shit posting on the internet.
Okay.
All right.
I guess.
I don't know.
That's all I had on that.
I mean, yeah, like you can literally see how many views my page gets, even though I have all those followers.
There's basically zero views.
My dad asked me to put the link in, and I did because I love my grandparents.
I love my grandfather.
And I don't want his legacy to die.
It's not about money.
I don't make money.
My family barely makes money.
It's about loving my family.
Yeah, but you want them to make money off of it and you want it to get viewed, right?
Yeah, because let's assume for a second.
Because it's a legacy, right?
You don't want to lose it.
Let's assume for a second it was wildly viewed and it was wildly bought.
Is it a grift then?
I guess it could be.
I mean, my thing is using someone else's misfortune or of a situation to make money.
He's saying Candace is crazy.
Everybody's grifters.
But then me trying to be like, dude, this isn't cool.
Like then you reposting Candace's stuff without, it was the Candace.
It's not the Charlie part.
It's like, because you know Candace is popular in the moment and you not only reposted.
Well, I think if you're going to levy accusations of grifting.
I just thought that video post was a grift.
I think if you're going to levy accusations of grifting towards our direction, I think it's hard to examine.
Yeah, but you want it to.
Well, even, let's assume you didn't eat.
It could all be free.
I'd still have it on my page.
You know what?
Even if we put grifting aside, my objection to the content that you're promoting, let's assume you don't make any money whatsoever, although it would eventually, I suppose, trickle down through the estate.
I could just find it objectionable that you are promoting content that could be deemed as pseudoscientific.
Telepathy.
You can cure cancer or you can cure illnesses.
You can make them better.
You can't just cure cancer through positive vibes, bro.
I mean, fasting in other ways.
Yeah, I don't think he claimed like you didn't read the books, did you?
No, I don't know the specific claims, but I did look into it.
And the Bible says fasting and all of that does heal.
Jesus can heal absent Christ.
It does the opposite in the Bible.
I mean, yeah, my grandfather believed in Christ, too.
But I think delaying, like, starting chemotherapy, for example.
Oh, he would never condone that.
Okay, well, I'll know the exact positions.
I'm saying if that was the case.
Yeah, that'd be cool.
If he was like, no, read my book about visualization and meditation, and that will go to jail if they did that.
That will cure your ailments.
Well, that would be fucked.
They should go to jail.
So, yeah, I don't know, but I'm asking you if that was the case.
No, that was not the case.
And he does have some pretty out there pseudoscientific claims.
Yeah, he's wacky, okay?
He's also very smart and promoted.
I put a link in there because my dad asked me to.
There's literally zero up to three clicks per month.
Like, I don't know if that's a grift.
Is that a grift?
If zero, mostly zero.
If you don't make money, I would still object to somebody promoting pseudoscientific content.
But anyways, whatever.
Whatever.
Like, that's my grandfather.
Like, that's my grandfather.
That's my family.
I think it's only fair if you've basically been interrogating us on our positions that we investigate a little bit on.
Now you know, I didn't believe in everything my grandfather said, but ESP.
Telekinesis.
Anyways, whatever.
Can you move the pencil with your mind?
No.
Well, then what sort of telekinesis is this?
And couldn't you like control everything?
Dude, who did I even say that I believe in everything you said?
No.
And yeah, I don't want to keep telling about my grandfather.
Okay, then we'll move it on.
That's my family.
You don't want to want people doing that to your family.
It was funny earlier when you said somebody brought it up.
He said it's fine because it's just a fact.
Well, this is just a fact.
These are just facts.
What facts?
He's just reading you facts.
Why are you so defensive when it's just facts?
That's so weird.
Why are you so defensive when it's just facts, right?
I can't be a grift if I don't make money.
It's fine.
So it's just facts.
We're just stating facts.
Facts of what?
Yeah, what do you mean?
Remember earlier, she was just stating facts.
I had no reason to ever question.
It was just facts, right?
All those incel men who are DMing you definitely bought like all the books from your grandfather.
They're stating facts.
They're going to learn the telepathy so they can seduce you.
Hey, he actually has books on how to do that with the opposite sex.
Mind control books.
Yeah, which I believe is wrong.
But aren't the books?
So you don't believe in the content.
No, I believe it's possible to do that.
It's my grandfather.
People are manipulating people and Hitler wins.
My grandfather's.
I guess it's.
Well, hold on.
That might be a little far.
Bit of a stretch.
Literally a book about.
It's literally about charisma and shit.
If your grandfather was Epstein.
Okay.
I'm going to maintain the integrity of this island.
I don't think you should manipulate people.
Shut up.
I'm dyslexic.
Okay.
Not you.
I was laughing at his joke.
That was just funny.
I'm going to maintain the integrity.
Did he have children, Epstein?
I don't think I don't think he did, actually.
Ghillane, how do you say her name?
Ghislaine?
Ghillane?
Ghislaine.
Ghislaine?
I actually don't know.
I don't think he did, though.
Jack can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
She was kind of.
Anyways, whatever.
He had a brother.
You wrote something very mean about Andrew.
You said that.
I almost.
I don't even remember.
You said that.
Oh, did I say he's your cuck?
Oh, I remember what I said.
What did you say?
I said he's a cuck.
Oh, there we go.
Oh, go ahead.
Well, and my perspective of that is that you're a smart person, and I think that you're sticking to a viewpoint.
You're a very smart person, and I think you're sticking to.
How many, well, let's start with this.
I think that you're.
You shouldn't be defending Trump as much as you do.
Why does that make him a cuck, though?
That you're like, he's a cuck for Trump.
Yeah.
That cuck is a very broad term used these days.
Maybe his cupbish?
No, I don't think so.
For Trump?
I think if you what the no, I don't I don't I think that you're like oh that is I think you're a cuck for James Tallarico.
I definitely am.
What did you say?
Your body count was again, um, I didn't say, and I've I've um yeah, I don't, date, I don't think she needs to get laid.
To be honest I, I don't want.
I think it's been a while Andrew, she might be, she could be the more than mine's getting laid.
More than 20 no no, more than 15 no, I gave the range 10 to 20 in the last like what, like eight years, there's been three people or something.
Three people, three people yeah, so okay well, you called him a cuck and then you said, oh, I was just being for trumpet.
You have a huge issue with me platforming Andrew the way I do.
It's just the way he speaks to people.
Really, Andrew almost overwhelmingly matches energy.
Well, almost all the time literally, Andrew will be polite.
He matched the energy of the other people when I was on the show, the way y'all, like usually y'all don't get to that energy until later on.
Like remember when the, the girl who had the lisp, he wasn't, he didn't do, he didn't mock her lisp.
First, she was being antagonistic towards me and, like the good friend that Andrew is, he defended me, that's true, by insulting her.
Hey, but she had it coming.
Okay, she she was very misfiled, by the way.
She assaulted.
Didn't she assault you and she did.
She assaulted physically.
Hang on, i've been assaulted.
I did not defend her actually, on this show, i've been assaulted multiple times on this show, by the way, by a crazy ass woman.
I don't know what it is about the whatever podcast Andrew, that it seems like you go everywhere else.
Things are mostly fine.
Well, y'all took that energy out on me.
Something crazy going on.
It's because y'all took that chaotic energy and it's because I drive women fucking crazy.
That's it.
I drive them crazy and they can't help it.
They just lose their minds.
Yeah um, you took that energy of what she did and brought it directly to me.
No, I went back and watched that, the episode that I was on with you.
You were very nice.
It's actually him who.
So how come i'm getting the grief?
Um, I wrote that before that episode.
Actually, this is what they do Andrew, on the internet over message, they have all the smoke.
Then, when confronted, you did laugh at me.
When confronted in person, they completely backpedal.
They completely the way you speak to people and you talk about morals and Christianity like um it.
My issue is the delivery, not the message, the tone, the tone, the tone yeah tone policing, whatever.
It's not the tone, it's actually the words.
What?
Which words um talking about, like dick sucking and all kinds of crazy?
You've said like it's a dating podcast.
Sometimes these topics quote all of it.
But um yeah, basically calling them all evil and shit like that.
I don't call them all evil, not all of them, but I call evil people evil, who.
You know what it is.
No, it's purely evil.
I don't.
I agree.
Well, maybe there are some people who are purely evil, but the thing is, is like, usually the only time that I'll go after a person hard is when they're advocating for an evil ideology.
Meaning, they double down on the ideology.
So we're in an argument and they're promoting evil fucking ideologies.
And yeah, I'll go pretty hard at them.
Sorry, can we second?
Okay.
I get that, but again, I can't remember exact moments, but sometimes I feel like as long as you go, it kind of promotes other men speaking to women that way.
And you see that through the chat.
I wish more men would speak to women in a more firm way.
I wish that they'd be like, stop being a stupid fucking bitch.
I actually do.
I wish that more men would look at women and say, stop being a stupid fucking bitch.
I do.
I wish that.
And you know who else wishes that?
Women.
Women often tell me, you know what?
I wish more men would tell women to stop being stupid fucking bitches too.
I do.
That's what I hear all the time.
I bet you're one of them.
Don't you wish more men would tell stupid bitches when they're being stupid bitches to stop being a stupid bitch?
I wouldn't use those words, but sure.
Are you going to fill it and drink?
What the fuck?
Sorry.
Vindication.
See my brain.
Vindication.
Put it back down.
Yes, I do think.
Now, not every woman.
I'm just in the wrong cup.
Sorry, I do have a woman.
Not every woman's a stupid bitch.
Most women aren't stupid bitches.
But there are some women who act like stupid bitches, and I wish more men would tell them to stop being a stupid bitch.
Yes.
Can men be stupid bitches?
Well, we call them the F-sler.
Stupid F-slur.
F or what?
S?
What did you say?
We can't say that.
We won't repeat it.
But they get called way worse than a bitch.
We call them the F-sler.
That's what we reserve for when men are being out.
But the thing is, is like for some reason, there's like, even when women are being the most horrible fucking people on planet Earth, you have to still treat them with kid gloves.
I'm like, fuck that.
Tell them, stop being a stupid bitch.
No, with the Charlie thing, you said, well, I'm better than you and stuff like that.
The Mindset of the Murderous Left00:10:43
Okay.
No, I asked her a question.
I said, is the reason that you're attacking me this way when I didn't do that to you because I'm better than you?
The point that I was making is don't try to posture from a position of moral superiority when it is actually the case that I have superior morals.
See, I mean, that sounds like you think you're superior to me.
What?
I mean, to me.
My moral positions are superior to Charlie's.
100%.
Not even close.
You know how I know that?
Because she doesn't have moral positions.
She's a moral anti-realist.
So I have to have my moral positions almost definitionally are superior because she's an anti-she doesn't believe that there's moral facts.
Like, that's not Charlie Kirk for the viewers.
We're talking about chart.
Yeah, Charlie.
Oh, yeah.
Chuck Chuck.
Yeah, Chuck.
That girl, that lady.
Okay, you said that the majority of political violence has been on the right.
Not with like riots, but actually murder.
Like, yeah.
So if you exclude the primary category in which even if you protesting is you mean riding?
Yeah.
I mean, I think murdering people and like hitting kicking cars and stuff are different levels.
Destroying a building versus murdering people.
I think there's a different level of violence there.
I just didn't like that you said the left is murderers.
And like I was mad.
Murderous.
Murderous.
Whatever.
They are murderous.
Yeah, a few of them might be.
No, no, no, not a few.
Collectively, they are.
They want to murder babies en masse.
Murder them.
Anything?
I mean, I don't condone abortions, but I don't believe if you can't force something into a ladiesby, you shouldn't be able to force something out.
And if you look at the Jewish at the Bible, it was just a fine if you accidentally hurt, killed a baby during a fight.
It's just a fine, but if...
Well, I'm glad I'm not Jewish, but anyway...
No, but Christianity, I mean, you're not.
That's not the question.
The question is who collectively right now wants to collectivize the ability to murder babies?
Is it the left or the right?
The majority of all people.
Answer my question.
I mean, the left, but the majority of all people want some sort of abortion rights.
Like the way it's.
In Texas is, they might have changed things.
A lot of people were dying, and I don't think a child should be forced to have a baby.
They weren't, not a lot, almost none.
But in fact, almost none.
The vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to the health of the mother.
That's insanity.
And even if we granted, even if we granted the exception.
It's up to the doctors.
But even if we granted the exception for if it's the case that there was incest, SA, or direct health ramifications to the mom.
If you're minor, I would add minor.
Fine.
I'll even add that as an exception, right?
The vast majority of abortions will not be that.
And so the thing is, is like, don't tell me the left isn't murderous when you just got done telling me that they non-stop.
Can I finish my point?
When they collectivize to murder children, by your own admission, how's that not murderous?
I said political violence, like literally killing political opponents.
I didn't talk about abortion.
I said murderous because that's murder and they have murderous intent because they're collectivizing to murder babies.
So that when you after Charlie Kirk's death, you're talking about abortions, not us literally trying to murder them.
No, I'm talking about the mindset of the murderous left.
They're murderous.
It's a murderous mindset.
They don't.
Half of the population is murderous.
No, first of all, that's not half the population.
But if you're talking about inside of the United States, if you're on the left and you support that, then you have murderous intent, yes.
That's your opinion.
That's your opinion, too.
I don't condone abortion.
I don't.
I would never have a.
It depends.
It's a loss of life.
It depends on how old the baby is.
I would stop it like at 20 weeks or less.
Well, they don't want to do that either.
Isn't that what was in.
No, they want to have it clear up.
Yeah, that's cool.
And again, that's gross.
I wouldn't have to.
Collectively, that's what they want.
And they want it in shrine.
You're wrong.
I literally watch both sides.
The majority of people.
No, but I watch all of the content.
You're just saying something that from what I'm seeing doesn't really exist.
Do you agree from my view that I believe that abortion is murder?
Yeah.
I see nothing wrong with that.
So then it's completely consistent for me to say that left is collectively a murderous person.
In the context of it, you didn't really say babies.
You're just talking about us being violent.
I wasn't on the podcast with you.
That's right.
I watched all the reactions and Destiny was being a piece of shit, too.
I don't condone that either.
I don't give a fuck about that guy.
I'm talking about Piers Morgan.
I'm saying to you, when you were on Pierce Morgan, that's why I was like, okay, he's kind of like condoning, you're stirring up what could be more political violence with this sort of speech.
Is what my guy who said no political violence versus Destiny, who said there could be, you call us all murderous and he no, he was fucked up too, like no, he was just the one who was disgusting.
I disavowed political violence across the board.
You didn't say oh, because of babies, you just literally called them murderous.
And and so of course, the right's gonna do have murderous intent.
They do to kill everybody.
They believe that they're living in Nazi Germany under Orange Hitler.
Yes, they have murderous intent.
Besides just abortion, they have murderous intent.
Somebody gets murdered in our entire, our um administration themselves.
Or trying to like using messaging instead of calm it down, be peaceful, to stir up more violence is.
Is that?
Oh yeah, they're calming it down?
Remember they how they tried to shoot Trump in the face, wasn't that?
Boy is real calm when Destiny came out and said, the guy who, who died there during that assassination attempt?
Well, he had it coming.
Do you know the info?
Hang on, stop bro, let me.
Can I finish my point?
Previous Trump supporter.
All right whatever, i'll tell you what you talk.
I'm just gonna sit here.
I'm just saying, because it's not this, not even a conversation anymore.
Honestly, I didn't mean to i'm, I didn't mean to, I don't even care about it, it's not it to me, it can be done.
Then it's not even that important we're.
I think we're close to the end but yeah uh, really quick abortion.
Um, are you uh fine with abortion at any point?
No, that's out.
I I said 20 weeks or less.
I missed that part, my bad.
Yeah uh okay, I guess we're gonna do a different topic.
I mean, there's basically, oh, you did say that you think Andrew Himself is paid for.
Oh, I didn't say that I, I said I was questioning.
You said yeah, you did say makes me wonder, makes me wonder.
I was looking at the Christian Nationalist movement and all of the.
I don't think you're paid for.
That was more of like a huh, who's paying you?
I don't think you're paid for.
It's the Jews.
I was talking because when you see like uh, they're paying me no no, when you see that, did you get your 7 000?
So here's i'll, i'll.
No, i'm saying when you see the Christian Nationalist I was talking about Christian National.
Hang on, i'll disclose every amount of income that I get right now, just to make sure that everybody no no, i'll disclose.
Do you want the explanation?
Has paid for him.
Good, you have to stop talking though, or I can't give it to you.
So the thing is is i'll disclose every amount of sources of income that I make.
I make some money from a contract with Rumble.
Uh, most of my money comes from my audience in direct super chats.
If uh, some money comes from my wife's books, which I take and then spend on guns, some of my revenue comes in from debate university.
Oh, I would say so, all of my.
So, all of my revenue, as far as I know.
My point with that, okay, all of my revenue, as far as I know, comes in from me.
So I bought and paid for myself.
Yeah, my point is this, uh was about.
I was talking about Christian nationalism and the money supply and all the people in the government who like, are lying to our faces and um yeah, supposedly Christian.
And I was talking about how Texas uh turned red and like, the oil companies and um, all the churches involved and all of that.
I never said he was.
I was talking about the Christian Nationalist movement.
Yeah no, I would take money from a Christian nationalist movement if they aligned with my views.
He was, I was.
No, i'm telling you, I would take money from a Christian national.
Like researching how the movement started.
And so I was like, huh, makes me wonder.
It wasn't literally me accusing him of that.
That's fair.
I understand.
I get that.
But now you know.
Yeah.
But I would.
If there was a real movement that aligned with my views, I would take all of their fucking money.
I am the king of the grift.
It's true.
Yeah.
I mean, I just said makes you wonder.
It wasn't about literally, I think you're paid for.
Yeah.
I don't like taking money from.
You know why?
Like, I would stay away.
Did they try to censor you?
What's that?
Does it try to censor you or something?
They try to control what I say.
Sorry, I'm hurting.
They try to control what you say.
They try to control what you do.
So I've always been very adamant about funding through the fan base because that way we can do and say whatever the fuck we want.
And I've not ever taken a major contract with another organization, even though many have been offered.
Grassroots, hell yeah.
That's what I came here to talk about.
All right.
So me and my fans can argue with each other.
We can yell at each other like we will over the Epstein stuff.
Guarantee it.
We'll be arguing like crazy.
People sitting in super chats.
We'll be screaming at each other.
But at the end of the day, we're all trying to move in the right direction.
Yeah, I've been enjoying the MAGA Civil War.
It's been fun to watch y'all fight with each other.
I'm sure it has.
Controlling The Narrative00:03:37
Fucking disinformation leftist scum.
What do you mean?
I watch more right-wing than I do left.
I know, but you've been enjoying that MAGA Civil War, haven't you?
I mean, don't people watch this?
You sound more like an agent of chaos.
I thought Brian was the division guy here, and yet here you are.
You love watching the chaos.
I'm literally here telling people to stop.
You're telling them to stop while you're enjoying that MAGA Civil War.
I'm enjoying watching them come to the conclusion that, hey, we're all fucking idiots.
That's not what's going on.
Stop the hate.
Most of it's leftist.
In fact, a lot of this stuff online, a lot of these supposed MAGA accounts and shit, it's like Rick 2384972841 and Rick 22897412848 who go on and they're like, I voted for Trump.
Now I regret the vote.
And it's like, whatever, dude, who made your account three weeks ago?
I'm literally talking about people like major podcasts fighting each other.
Word.
I'm not talking about probably fake people.
I'm just talking about a few.
There's a few influencers who are going back.
And then people are trying to cancel other people and it seems kind of woke of them.
And it's been Ben Shapiro.
Well, no, the older people getting mad at putting.
The Naily Wire has been hated for years.
And then Nick, people trying to, yeah, Nick Fluentes.
There's no L.
It's not Fluentes.
Fuentes.
Fuentes, whatever.
Fuentes?
Fuentes?
Fuentes.
Nick Fuentes.
Fuentes.
Yeah.
Fuentes.
Fuentes.
Fluentes.
We're pretty much at the tail end here.
Let me just read the prompts.
And if you guys want to bite on them, I think we can.
I'm freaking tired.
I got to go too, bro.
I'm freaking tired.
Let's get to the super chats.
Okay.
All right.
Well, you guys want to do some super chats then?
Unless you.
Yeah, I'm tired.
All right.
Here's what we're going to do, guys.
We'll do, I guess we'll call it a roast session.
I'm going to lower the TTS to $69 if you guys want to get any messages here at the tail end.
But yeah, guys, that was an interesting little debate.
Thanks for doing it, by the way.
And I understand that you're disadvantaged when you're, uh, you're my speech, my brain.
No, not because.
What?
Or because I've never debated?
No.
Okay.
No.
Okay.
I was early on in debates.
I would go up against four or five people.
That's not the disadvantage, but it's Because in an environment like this, where it's like it's two people against you and a lot of your worldviews, I tried to be very charitable and kind of back off on a lot of this stuff, right?
Have our engagements and then move it over, right?
But generally speaking, on this show and on most shows, I prefer 1v1.
So does Brian, by the way.
Yeah, I do.
The reason this happened today is because specifically it was stated that you wanted.
No, I didn't.
In the past, but I made it clear I want to debate Andrew.
Well, and I asked what was going to be discussed and blah, blah, blah.
You literally.
Why did you think that would be a good idea?
What?
Debating you?
Yeah.
Is it just for clout?
No.
If you've seen my social media, I don't even post shit.
What's the point?
Because I literally have a message to, I don't give a fuck who you vote for.
Just a platform for your message.
What do you mean?
I'm trying to bring people together and make them realize to look at it.
Tim Poole Defends His Views00:03:29
Culture wards are not destroying democracy.
Literally, we need to take care of the corruption before we get to the culture wards.
It's all I'm saying.
Yeah, but it's literally my message.
Just so you know, though, you know what it sounds like on the other end?
It just sounds like leftist talking points.
Just go over and get away from it.
I mean, the right is talking about all the corruption and shit, too.
What are you talking about?
Yeah, we see corruption in a very different way than you do.
We see you as the corruption.
We see the left as the corruption.
They're uncovering all the government corruption.
Literally, no one's talking about the left.
They're talking about like the CIA and all of these laws that have corrupted the government.
It's crazy.
It's like most of the right-wing that are talking about this.
Yeah, the left isn't even really brought up a lot anymore.
You'll see.
I'll see what.
Midterms are coming.
Oh, shit.
Yeah, we will see.
And you'll see what happens when a lot of the curtain comes down and people realize that a lot of this was disinformation, which was perpetuated by left-wing NGOs.
I guarantee to you, it's going to be the steel dossier and where there's smoke, there's fire 2.0.
So all the right-wing people talking about it, they're part of that.
I don't even think it's like, I don't even agree with you about all these right-wing people.
All you mentioned was Candace Owens and Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan's not right-wing.
No, he's independent.
Yeah, Tim Poole's a Trump supporter.
Piers is talking about all that shit too.
So Tim Poole's a Trump supporter.
He's not anymore.
Yes, he is.
Yes, he is.
Tim Poole is still a Trump supporter.
Not Tim Poole.
I was talking about Tim to do with the glasses.
Not Tim Poole.
The guy with the glasses?
The comedian, gay, right-wing sunglasses.
Really funny.
Milo?
Tim.
Gay, right-wing.
What's his last name?
Oh, I guess.
Yeah, I don't remember.
Must be a really influential right-winger.
I mean, I watch him.
I don't remember everyone.
Tim Dylan?
Yeah.
He wears glasses?
Oh, sunglasses and stuff.
The gay comedian.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, Tim Dylan.
Who else do I watch?
Tim Dylan.
Yeah, I like Piers because they bring a lot of people to baby.
They're talking about the corruption, too.
Everywhere I go, they're not denying that there's fucked up ship, fucked up shit happening.
Yeah, but that's not, that hasn't been in question in two decades.
They've all said their support.
They're renouncing their support.
Who?
Tim Dylan and Candace Owens?
Who?
Tim Poole's not denouncing his support.
Most right-wingers who are in mainstream.
Tim did, not Tim Poole, the other Tim.
Most right-wingers in positions of authority or influence are not backing away on supporting Trump.
I don't know where you got that idea, but that is just factually not the case.
It's just not the case.
I don't know about that.
Okay.
All right.
I mean, considering the polls and where the podcast directions have gone, like, I mean, it doesn't seem like pretty much any of them.
Because Trump has a low approval rating.
He's had one before.
And the thing is, it's funny, is like Obama had a very low approval rating of sections of his presidency as well.
Necessary Documents Dispute00:06:52
When you have manufactured scandal, that's what happens.
Sorry, it hurt.
I think that the Epstein who thing really made the difference between this term and last term and the evidence.
Not I mean, it is.
There's proof that he's lying about his relationship with Epstein just to and people in the documents itself.
I think that's enough evidence for a lot of people.
It's just plain bullshit.
It's not because, first of all, Trump was the one who put the finger on Epstein.
He was the one who was repo.
He banned him from Mar-a-Lago.
Ever heard of people?
That's not true that he banned him.
He never belonged to Mar-a-Lago.
And he hung out with Epstein.
He banned him and publicly shit on the guy.
And on top of that, all the releasing of these documents happening under his administration.
After being forced by a law.
Wait, didn't it come out?
He was putting it out before there was a law.
Fake shit that was already out.
No, there was more that came out.
And by the way, it was Trump who put his finger.
He was pointing out that Ghelene Maxwell and Epstein were scum.
Oh, you're with the other keyboard.
Oh, shit.
Are you recording me?
No.
Oh, I just heard my voice.
The stream started on his phone.
All right, I'll let some chats come through unless, did you guys want to confess?
Why the fuck would it matter if I was?
Recording you.
Oh, I just was confused.
It was just weird.
Like, why would it matter?
You're like being recorded by multiples.
There's security cameras.
There's the stream.
But anyway, I just thought it was audio recording from his phone in his pocket.
I don't know.
Dude, I'm sick of this.
I wouldn't want there to not be a record or something.
I don't give a fuck.
I'm tired.
You're surreptitiously recording.
I didn't, did I even say any of that?
Like, why would I think he's doing that that way?
It's just a joke.
Calm down.
Calm down.
I'm just tired.
And yeah, I'm tired and I want to go home.
I know.
You're tired.
You're too late, to be honest.
I feel like you're a little wound up.
I'm just saying.
I don't know.
She's calling us incels and stuff.
I didn't call you an incel, did I?
Maybe she's the incel.
Are you an incel?
Has it been a while?
Do one of my viewer, my garbage spewing viewers.
No, I love men and I'm considering dating.
I just, I, I've just moved to a new place and I'm chronically ill.
How you been?
Great.
You struggling on the dating?
No, I just haven't because I'm trying to focus on making friends in a new city.
You're in Texas?
Yeah, I moved cities and I'm starting over and I don't think it's cool to date if you have no friends because then you like you need to have your own life as well.
So I didn't want to date until I start settling in.
I don't know if this is toxic, but I think it's kind of preferable if a woman doesn't have friends for me.
I think that's preferable.
It's better, you know?
Yeah, I mean.
Especially if her friends are single.
I mean, yeah, I just.
And it's like, oh, we're going to lose her.
We've got to talk shit about Brian so she doesn't, you know, disappear.
Yeah, basically, I just wanted to establish myself.
We'll let the chats come through.
We got to wrap up here.
Yeah, we got to get in and out.
All right, Harry.
That's how you donated $60,000.
Education and preparation are everything.
You only harm your position with ignorance.
Brian C's truth.
Andrew C's bullshit.
Critical thinking should be mandatory.
I have critical thinking.
I've just never debated.
And it's a lot of pressure to try to remember stuff when you're anxious and haven't slept.
And never done this.
Because I told you I have a bigger message.
I knew I was going to not win the debate.
Literally.
Co-opt the platform to give your message.
No, I'm trying to bring people together.
Like, hey, I don't give a fuck if you're left or right.
Just let's vote out now.
Yeah.
I just want people to wake up to all the like corporate puppets in our government and work together.
Corporate.
Living.
Our politicians are the corporate puppets.
Thank you, 40 visions.
What are y'all's views on the Save Act?
Disenfranchising Certain Groups of People.
Immul for it BTW.
I'm cool with the SAVES Act if they don't put it out really right before election, because I think that could be trying to get people not to vote if they gave people time to get the necessary documents.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Oh, yeah, it's real tough to get an ID.
I mean, we have an ID.
You need to have further documents, like proving that you're a citizen, like birth certificate, and it has to match up with the name on your ID, which like for married people.
No, the Save Act isn't saying you have to have a birth certificate and take it with you to the poll.
No.
Then what does it say?
No.
First of all, you have to present your birth certificate to get a state ID.
So then what's a save act?
Like you just have to bring your ID to the camera.
Yes, you actually have to have an ID to vote.
Yes.
Oh, in Texas, you already do.
I mean, can we look at the Save Act?
Yeah, look it up.
I wish I had more details on that.
While she's looking it up, guys, tomorrow, Andrew will be doing another debate.
We're aiming to go live at about 3:30 p.m. Pacific.
That's going to be fantastic.
1v1 debate, so my mug will not be here.
It'll be over there.
It'll be over there off camera for most of it.
So be sure to tune in.
That's 3:30 p.m. tomorrow.
And guys, just can you pull up Twitch, Nathan?
Nathan, pull up the Twitch window.
Guys, if you're watching on Twitch here at the tail end, if you enjoyed the stream, just drop us a follow.
Check if you have an Amazon Prime sub available.
Let me just shout you guys out.
Molly, thank you for the Prime.
Guys, just check if you have a Prime sub available.
See if you can drop one.
Anthetic, thank you.
Chief, thank you.
Thank you, everybody else.
We won't.
There's some that came in earlier that we can't read off, but thank you guys for the support over there on Twitch.
Drop us a follow in the Prime sub.
We have this coming through.
Look at 91 donated $100.
Thank you.
Andrew, do you compete in ITPA or use or do you just shoot at garbage?
That's me.
What do you mean?
Just shoot at garbage.
Yes, I have been to a couple of IDPA tournaments, pistol tournaments.
So, yeah.
But as far as professionally competing, no.
I would like to, though.
Especially USP, USPA, the leagues.
I would like to do that.
But I'd have to get in with one where I'm at.
Chore XD donated $69.
Thank you, Charlie.
Unfalsifiable Claims and Circumstantial Evidence00:02:30
The non-falsifiable arguments that build from conclusion and seek to tailor evidence to the conclusion are so baffling.
But you'll notice they only ever do it in one direction.
Weird how that works.
Isn't it, though?
Well, for instance, I can give you unfalsifiable.
I could make the same claim.
I could say, here's an unfalsifiable claim.
Right this second, there's a nefarious group of people who are behind the scenes who are funding a disinformation campaign designed specifically to hurt President Trump.
No, I can't prove it, but I can give you a bunch of circumstantial evidence for it, including bots and various things like this on X, right?
But nobody wants to do that.
They instead want to work from the idea of guilt first and then try to circumvent facts and put facts in a position which backs up their hypothesis rather than work their way through the facts themselves.
Well, I mean, I see that in some instances on both sides, but I think the evidence on the Epstein thing, I mean, it's kind of pointing to that.
He's covering up torpedoes.
But there is propaganda on both sides.
There is no evidence that he's covering up for Pedos.
That's just completely made up.
Oh, my God.
You can, oh, my God, me, but you didn't provide any.
Yeah, I did.
The Epstein files, him saying there's no co-conspirators.
What in the Epstein files?
The co-conspirator.
Conspirator.
Sorry.
What in the Epstein files even demonstrates that there was any PDF, anything?
What?
The list of people that they're hiring and the email talking about nine-year-olds about like that's not evidence of that, though.
It's not.
And this is what he's talking about.
Yeah, okay, whatever.
He's saying that you retroactively fit the facts.
He didn't release the freaking files.
It's so stupid.
That I agree with.
I wish that they would release them all.
If he's innocent, then come on.
Redact the victim's name, release them so we can all move on with our lives and he can prove himself.
Yeah, and then they'll all get released.
And guess what will happen?
They'll be like, we still think that there needs to be additional investigations until after the midterms when we're in charge and then drop all of it.
There should be investigations on every person who's mentioned.
That hasn't been.
The Epstein files are all.
It doesn't even matter.
A Good Sport00:02:28
I'm not going to relitigate it.
I mean, we're going to talk.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just absence of evidence equals.
Don't agree with me.
Thank you, Kachi.
He was a good sport.
That stupid bunny's smile.
Oh, the TTS changed the B word from one B word to bunny.
Join her.
Oh, I wasn't.
Sorry, my hand.
I'm hurting really bad.
Sorry.
I'm just getting tired.
Something about bunnies.
He said you were a good sport.
And then something.
Yeah, I'd say you're a pretty good sport for the most part.
But one thing that frustrates me, Andrew, and I don't know if you've encountered this, remember the, we're going to schedule you with this guy who sent us a video.
You should play that video.
That pissed me off.
A lot of the times people will send us messages and they'll come on really strong in the messages.
Oh, you're a piece of shit.
I disagree with you.
Here's the thing.
Well, that guy didn't do that, to be no, that guy didn't do that.
But it is frustrating when somebody is like, what you're saying is wrong.
I disagree with you.
XYZ, here are my points.
And then you get them in person and they're like, milquetoast.
And part of me is like, maybe that could actually, maybe they had a change of mind or whatever.
The other thing is, is I think it's just hijacking.
They're just what, no, what goes on is you're here to talk about your points.
You generalize what you're saying, and then you go on the show to elaborate on that.
I don't see what the difference is on that.
But you were, you came on, you so strong in the messages.
You're a cancer on society.
You're a grifter.
You're creating a divide.
This whole divide is a cancer on society.
It's not just you.
But I feel like you didn't back it up.
You kind of, you kind of backpedaled a little bit.
You backpedaled a little bit on some of these things.
It's not good for society.
Like, none of this is.
The Whatever Podcast and Andrew Wilson are fantastic for society.
We're the best for society, the best.
And even if we are divisive, we're the best at division.
The best.
We're the most divisive, the best, bigly divisive.
Okay, I don't know.
I'm just talking shit, but Andrew just went out for a smoke break.
He'll be right back, and then we'll wrap up the show.
Like, yeah, I mean, I think there's bigger things that are going on that without each other having a truce, like, there's going to be no changes coming.
Backpedaling On Aliens00:07:33
Like an alien.
Just a temporary truce.
There's going to be a truce.
Temporary truce.
Alien invasion.
That's the only time that.
If they can come save me, I would love that.
That's the only time we'll all work together.
I think we should.
Literally, we don't have.
I'm not telling anyone to change parties, but just a group.
If aliens do invade, we're probably fucked.
Or maybe they'll be able to do interstellar traveling that's way too advanced.
We're fucked.
Well, maybe they'll see how dumb we are and be like, hey, they'd stop the wars.
They'd stop the wars because alien ship and blow it up.
If you don't stop being dumb, I'll just nuke the whole planet.
And then there are governments.
It's definitely better back then, though, in the 90s.
Yeah.
I would hope that they're friendly and see that we're about to kill each other and then intervene and be like, hey, stop the bullshit or I'm just going to blow up the country.
I'm trying to hook up with the aliens, though, to be honest.
Probably.
Yeah.
It would happen.
Even in that movie, Independence Day, they were all, yes, welcome.
Aliens and they get fucking.
I mean, people are going to be banging robots pretty soon, too.
So I add aliens to that.
That would be a good solution for you, though, because, I mean.
I'm not saying I wouldn't.
You know.
I.
I want a baby, okay?
So I'm probably going to have to bang somebody.
You want a baby?
Yeah.
I have my eggs frozen and I'm getting more frozen.
Well, you're 38, right?
Yeah.
Okay, everyone, don't rush getting married.
Get eggs frozen.
Your eggs are frozen.
Yeah, I'm getting, in July, I'm getting more frozen.
So I feel like you're a lot.
It's going to take a very special man.
Dude, I'm on a debate.
I'm very chill.
You think I talk about politics?
I literally sit around and I write music.
I'm chill.
I literally have never been in an argumentative relationship in my life with a dude.
It's never been like that.
I've never, I'm on a debate, you know.
I think you hen peck.
You probably hen peck your partner.
No, no, dude.
You peck at that.
I've had chill.
I've only been in like chill shit.
If something wasn't chill, I got out of it.
Have you had an abortion?
No, it's actually why I, my last relationship ended.
It's because I told him.
He got an abortion?
No.
I was having like health issues.
That was like when I got chronically ill or whatever.
And at that time, I was having really strong pains.
And I had to stop my birth control.
So I told him, like, hey, if you don't want me to get knocked up, like, use a condom because I can't take this medication.
Oh.
And then I told him, I don't want abortion.
We've been together four years.
So if you want to take your chances by not wrapping it up, then like, I don't care what you're saying because my health is like at risk right now until I go to the doctor.
This is your choice is condoms or like take your chances.
And then.
Oh my God.
Who the hell?
He asked.
And then when I wouldn't take a plan B, he never talked to me again.
How long were you dating him?
Four years.
You see what I mean?
I'm like, dude, like, what the fuck?
He was like, I need money for myself.
You're going back again?
In the end, I broke up with him a lot because he wouldn't even move in with me.
Yeah, he was just using you for exactly.
I mean, four years?
That stain.
I know, right?
Yeah, he's like, it's not the right time.
It's not the right time.
I need money for private schools and all of this stuff.
I'm like, dude, let's just get married.
My wife just uses me for sex, too.
That sounds awesome.
Sucks.
She thinks I'm a fucking object.
Does your wife objectify you, Andrew?
All the time.
I'm serious.
Rachel, we're going to have a topic.
I'm a fucking.
It's just really good.
I need that.
You know what bothers me?
You know what grinds my gears, Andrew?
Is sometimes as a guy, you just want to cuddle.
You just want to cuddle.
That's what I miss.
That's what I miss the most.
Just like pieces of meat.
It's fucking ridiculous.
We're just like pieces of meat.
And it's like, sometimes you just want to talk.
And I feel objectified.
I feel used.
And it's really upsetting.
It upsets me a lot.
You women, all you guys think about is one thing, and it's disgusting.
It's fucking disgusting.
Disgusting.
All you think about is one thing.
I guess this is probably going to be our final chat here.
Well, this was fun like watching someone try to teach a turtle a magic trick.
You want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew Wilson, you got to check out his course, debate university.com.
Be sure to check it out.
Video tutorials, video instructions, et cetera, et cetera.
Reminder, we have a debate tomorrow with Andrew, the great Andrew Wilson, 3.30 p.m. live here on the whatever podcast.
Not so erudite.
Not so erudite.
Years in the making.
They squared up on a dating talk panel.
That was back in, I think it was 2024, or maybe it was even 2023.
So that's going to be a big one.
That's going to be a big one.
So be sure to tune in.
3.30 p.m.
It's going to be a big L for erudite.
So tune into that.
Tune into that.
And then we have Andrew also here for the dating talk this Sunday.
That's 5 p.m. this year.
That should be fun.
I haven't done one in a long time.
That's a fun time.
Those are more chill.
You know, I think that'll be a chill one.
And that'll be a good one.
That'll be a good one.
No, she will not.
I tried to on this past Sunday.
We had this OF virgin Christian.
It's fucking liars.
But she would have been really good.
I said on the show, I was like, I wish I had Andrew on this episode.
I was like, and then I was like, why didn't I just call?
Can I just call you, Andrew?
Just call you, be like.
I don't go live Sunday because you're on.
I've done that.
I should have called you.
I've done that for, I don't know how long.
There has been a couple times where I've had to go live because I had something scheduled.
It's a whole debate.
But then I raid over, but I don't go live on Sunday specifically because I don't want to split, you know, to like split off any of Brian's audience.
So I know that there's some overlap there.
Well, it's much appreciated.
And yeah, that would have been good.
But to get that girl on because she was wild.
Anyways, by the way, actually, those of you who watched that episode, apparently I've received some communications that she's claiming she's certain way, but heard from some ex-boyfriends.
So it was all a grift.
It was all a lie.
She's a liar.
Anyways, let me just double check here, make sure we're all good.
Debate 3.30 tomorrow, Saturday.
That's a breakday, Sunday, dating talk podcast.
Andrew Wilson here for a couple days.
So thank you guys for tuning in.
I hope you enjoyed the debate.
Thank you guys who sent in some messages.
DebateUniversity.com.
Check it out.
Like the video.
Can I try it?
Can I try the Crucible sign-off with whatever?
Hang on.
From all of us here at Whatever Podcast, to all of you out there in whatever podcast land, have a wonderful night.