00:00:22.000But it's J.F. He's coming on, our old pal.
00:00:25.000He was on actually just one week ago last week to talk about biology, to talk about the genesis of apples and bananas and oranges, and also.
00:06:12.000This whole baked Alaska controversy was fun for a few days, but I mean, now it's just gotten to the point where it's a little bit exploitative on the part of Mr. Alaska.
00:06:22.000But we got to get into the original point of concern, which was the serious strike.
00:06:28.000And if I recall, the tweet which you took issue with, which was, and we've been talking about it on the show like all week for two weeks, which is the serious strike on Friday that Trump launched 103, or in concert with France and the UK, launched 105 actually missiles.
00:06:44.000Against three chemical weapons facilities in Syria.
00:06:48.000And I said, satirizing the alt right and a lot of the far right people, I said, every operation overseas is neoconservatism.
00:06:56.000Because in my estimation, when people don't like a military operation, they say, oh, that's neocon, that's zyocon, whatever.
00:07:43.000I don't care about labeling this attack neocon or not.
00:07:47.000The fact is, people, when they say that, when they're pissed off at an intervention, a military intervention, it evokes a lot of memories for us older people who have seen multiple wars based on multiple lies.
00:08:01.000And the strike of Syria has a lot of the characteristics of the previous justifications for strikes or war.
00:08:12.000One, it is based on factual claims that are unverified and potentially that I think you agree.
00:08:20.000Could potentially be a false flag operation.
00:08:23.000I think that I heard you say you recognize that the use of chemical weapons on the part of the Syrian government is not absolutely certain, right?
00:08:37.000So you have a first characteristic, which is deception.
00:08:41.000We have other characteristics, which is, well, first, the idea of intervening in a free country, the idea of causing any sort of military intervention on the development of a given country.
00:08:52.000That's another aspect of previous wars.
00:08:55.000You argue that it's less than the previous war because we're not going to send soldiers, we're not going to try to change the government.
00:09:02.000I grant you that it's less, but it's still something.
00:09:06.000And another characteristic of all previous wars which we have ended up regretting is this involvement, the involvement of Israel's interests.
00:09:18.000We are aligning ourselves with Israel's interests 100% in the strikes.
00:09:31.000And the fourth thing, which I think hurts the most for people who supported Trump, is that we actually believe that Trump was going to be a non interventionist.
00:09:40.000And he's not being full non interventionist by striking a country, which in my view is a country that shouldn't be your prior target for any sort of humanitarian reason.
00:09:53.000That cannot be your target since you recognize, as far as chemical weapon use goes, Because you recognize that the evidence is not very convincing that himself, that Assad has ordered any sort of chemical attack.
00:10:08.000And what we have, what we end up having is a sort of symbolic attack, which in my view is absolutely unjustifiable, which will cause further harm to the reputation of America.
00:10:21.000And the youth of Syria right now, they will grow up to be adults.
00:10:26.000And what they will remember in their head is these missiles coming from the sky, and they will know.
00:10:33.000That America is willing to strike on them for apparently no reason at all and to impede on their scientific and military development.
00:10:46.000And I think those are all fair criticisms.
00:10:48.000And they're all criticisms which I've acknowledged on the show.
00:10:52.000And I think, you know, for example, when you say that it's about people getting these memories about Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, which is, of course, understandable.
00:11:01.000I mean, we've had 25 years in this country of administrations, which We've actually had about 125 years of administrations that lie us into wars.
00:11:10.000You could go back to the Spanish American War, where they do false flag attacks in order to bring us into war.
00:11:18.000I understand that in regard to the chemical attack, there's a strong circumstantial case to be made that no chemical weapons were used.
00:11:27.000It would make no sense for the Assad government to use chemical weapons in this circumstance.
00:11:32.000You know, people say you just look at the a priori kind of method of thinking that would be required.
00:11:38.000The United States says they're going to pull out of Syria, so then Bashar Assad does the one thing that would invite the U.S. back into Syria.
00:11:47.000And I also understand the idea about national sovereignty that it's probably against our interests in terms of principle as a nation that we'd be intervening without really a great justification in sovereign nations and in their affairs.
00:12:01.000You know, there is kind of this weird thing with the United Nations where, in the 70 years since the creation of these big supranational organizations, there's this weird thing where it's like people, or rather nations, are sovereign except when they're not, except when they're doing things we don't like.
00:12:17.000Killing civilians, if they're doing, you know, allegedly they have weapons of mass destruction, then none of that matters.
00:12:25.000But I will contend I mean, would you acknowledge that given the consequences of the strike, that it was probably symbolic?
00:12:37.000I think it is more than symbolic, ultimately.
00:12:40.000But I would be willing to discuss that within this being a purely symbolic strike, I would still disagree with it.
00:12:46.000So I guess we can move there at some point.
00:12:49.000However, I will question that it is purely symbolic.
00:12:52.000What I see there is an attack on the development of a country.
00:12:56.000It's an attack on a country that could have developed a scientific and military progression.
00:13:03.000And it's an attack that Israel wanted to see.
00:13:05.000We know that from the fact that Israel actually attempted to strike many of these targets before America did it, and France and the UK.
00:13:17.000So I would question that it's purely symbolic.
00:13:19.000I think that what we have here is a desire by Israel and by the country who later joined it.
00:13:25.000In just impeding on the development of Syria and telling to other, potentially other countries of the Middle East, if you develop up to a certain point, we will disable some of your facilities.
00:13:42.000And the problem is, it causes legitimate frustration on the side of Muslim countries in this area.
00:13:49.000At some point, they're going to be pissed off.
00:13:51.000And I want you to understand, Nick, I think of things in the hundreds of years time scale.
00:13:56.000I don't really care about what you could accomplish with this strike within five years, although I will argue you couldn't accomplish much.
00:14:04.000But within 100 years, developing a nuclear bomb will not be a problem for any country on this earth.
00:14:13.000A nuclear bomb relies on taking a ball of fissile material, taking another ball of fissile material, putting them distant enough from each other, and then making them collide, both of them.
00:14:25.000There's your recipe for a nuclear bomb.
00:14:28.000It's not going to be hard for anyone to do that within a hundred years.
00:14:32.000And so we have to think of the future, not in terms of making political pressure and having deals that will last five or 10 years, but I would assume that we have to think of a future where everyone will have easy access to massive destruction weapons, and they could even produce them without our knowledge.
00:14:52.000And in that future, having a population of Muslims pissed off at America because of repeated Deceptive attacks, deceptive to its own people and deceptive against the people being attacked, is a very bad place to be for Israel and for America.
00:15:09.000Yeah, well, that's actually a great point.
00:15:12.000And you come at it, I think, from a point of view which is consistent and coherent in the sense that I think you follow through to a logical conclusion, which is the inevitability of nuclear proliferation, which I think is actually a noble argument to make.
00:15:28.000I think you follow it all the way through.
00:15:29.000And in the first place, I would say, You're right that this coincides with Israeli interests.
00:15:33.000And this is something that people think is lost on me or something.
00:15:38.000I fully recognize that Israel wants to see Bashar al Assad removed.
00:15:42.000They want to see, in the words of Oded Yunnan's 1980s plan for Israel, they want to see all the nations of Israel disintegrated into what did he call it?
00:15:51.000A mosaic of tribal fiefdoms so they couldn't present a threat to Israel.
00:15:55.000They talk about how they want to destroy Iraq so they could destroy Israel, so they could dominate Lebanon.
00:16:02.000And I simply think that Trump is using my theory, and I'll get to the point about proliferation, but to answer the first point about Israel, I completely acknowledge that the neocons in the administration, like John Bolton, like Mike Pompeo, Absolutely, we want it for Israel's national security interests.
00:16:19.000And you heard this even on Tucker Carlson, where he asked that one senator, Why is this in our interest?
00:16:24.000And he says, Oh, well, if we care about Israel.
00:17:11.000I look at the things he says, his deal making and all that.
00:17:15.000And I say, this isn't entirely consistent with the narrative about him.
00:17:19.000That he just changed his mind, or he's been compromised, or he's been blackmailed, or whatever it is like that.
00:17:25.000So I think that the strike will remain limited.
00:17:27.000But on the bigger point, which is it doesn't matter if it's limited, it doesn't matter if it's symbolic, the entire policy of trying to stop proliferation is flawed, which is what you're arguing, which I think that's at the end of the day what it's all about.
00:17:42.000Because what the symbolic strike theory suggests is that we're doing a symbolic strike in order to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction on the part of North Korea, ultimately to get.
00:17:53.000Denuclearization there, to get denuclearization in Iran, and to prevent the spread of chemical weapons.
00:17:58.000I guess that's a tertiary concern with Bashar Assad because inevitably nuclear chemical weapons will spread.
00:18:04.000I would just say I think that, I mean, I still support going against proliferation.
00:18:10.000I don't think it's entirely inevitable that every country in the world will get nuclear weapons.
00:18:15.000I think that it is in our national security interest to prevent the spread of these weapons.
00:18:20.000I mean, and I would even ask you, and because this is a discussion, I would ask you as a scientist, I mean, do you know enough about nuclear and the technology to say definitively that within 100 years the advances will be such that it'll be readily available to, say, people like ISIS, to say, you know, people that have limited resources, limited geography, like you said, people we couldn't even monitor?
00:18:42.000I mean, would that be possible in 50, 100 years?
00:18:46.000I mean, it all depends on the economic developments, but what you need essentially is a mine.
00:18:51.000So you need capacities to undertake a cooperative type mining operation.
00:18:58.000A mine, a right place to get fissile material, and you need a bunch of scientists, which don't need to be.
00:19:28.000But with the cooperation of a state, certainly.
00:19:32.000I do think that any state who has some access to fissile material and to its own mining capabilities, it wouldn't be a problem.
00:19:40.000Okay, so then if we assume then that in 50 to 100 years, maybe not non state actors, but definitely state actors would easily get a nuclear weapon, you're saying it would be a bad idea for us to basically commit these sins in the Middle East that will be remembered for 100 years because.
00:20:00.000I mean, that's a big reason why I'm against our support for Israel because you look at our unapologetic, unwavering support for Israel, that's a big reason why we can't get along with any of our Arab.
00:20:11.000Allies, or people like Syria, people like Iran, that's one of the only things holding us back.
00:20:17.000But I would just say I mean, I think we would really have to think long and hard before we give up nuclear proliferation.
00:20:23.000Because I look at a situation like the Middle East, and it's easy to say now that, well, we should be nice to them because in 50 to 100 years, they could get nuclear weapons easily.
00:20:33.000But the nightmare scenario that I think a lot of people have in mind, not just neocons, but even people non interventionists like myself, which I might say I don't favor.
00:20:45.000Where I might say, I'm not willing to go to war over this, but I do think it's in our interest to prevent against it.
00:20:51.000I mean, could you imagine a scenario where Iran gets a nuclear weapon because Israel does?
00:20:56.000And then to balance that, Saudi Arabia gets a nuclear weapon, and then Qatar does, and then Turkey does, and then Egypt does.
00:21:01.000I mean, that's the problem with proliferation you get one country who gets one, and then they all want one to balance against it.
00:21:08.000And there is an argument to be made, and it has been made by neorealist foreign policy thinkers that.
00:21:13.000More nuclear weapons creates balance because then people are just not going to go to war with each other because it would be too costly.
00:21:19.000But then there's a more realist lens which says, well, more people having nuclear weapons will be more conflicts, will be more and a higher probability that nuclear weapons get used.
00:21:29.000And if that happens and there's a higher probability that everybody uses their nuclear weapons, I mean, what would be your contention against that?
00:21:37.000That that's just inevitable and we have to live with that?
00:21:39.000Yeah, I mean, the game theoretical scenarios, there are multiple.
00:21:43.000The two stable systems that you propose are.
00:22:09.000You cannot be hurt by a tread display, but the tread display evolved precisely because the monkeys didn't want to risk their lives every time they meet another male.
00:22:18.000And so, yes, you can have a signaling system of Cooperation that occurs in systems that are highly armed.
00:22:25.000The other scenario that you raise is also possible, which is everyone having a nuclear weapon.
00:22:31.000Then it becomes, there's also the question of first strike and who becomes the first user of the nuclear weapon.
00:22:38.000And we end up in scenarios of kind of psychotic theory of mind planning, just like Sam Harris even has been speculating about.
00:22:47.000Sam Harris has been asking, is one of his books, could we be morally justified to do a nuclear first strike against a country like?
00:22:55.000Well, this is what happens when you allow people to have nuclear weapons.
00:23:49.000And I want to ask you because since we're going to talk about the future, to what extent do you think that Israel is a viable country within a 200 year time range?
00:24:03.000I think it all depends on how successful they are in implementing their current plan.
00:24:08.000What they're essentially trying to do right now, and what they've undertaken in the past 25 to 30 years, is to basically exploit the structural weaknesses in all of the nation states that have been created since the Sykes-Picot Agreement that was put together by France and Britain, and make it so that they could destroy all levels of organization higher than the tribal.
00:24:29.000Make it so that Iraq, Syria doesn't exist.
00:24:32.000You just have these little tiny tribes that can be easily sparred against each other, manipulated, defeated, and so they pose no threat.
00:24:40.000If that were the case in the next 50 to 100 years, I would say it's probably viable.
00:24:44.000I wouldn't see, you know, if Iraq continues to be as it is, which is split into these three different countries essentially, or Syria split up, if all these countries are divided and the U.S. has continued to be used as their instrument of sowing havoc and disintegrating these countries, then I would say it's probably very viable.
00:25:02.000If that's not the case, then it's very difficult.
00:25:04.000Then we're looking at comprehensive peace.
00:25:06.000Then we're looking at they have to make a peace agreement with Iran.
00:25:23.000I mean, Israel's only 70 years old today, so it's tough to say.
00:25:27.000Yeah, and what's happening right now is that the countries around Israel are getting more and more populated.
00:25:34.000The world population is increasing, but Muslim countries are at the top of the increase rate.
00:25:40.000And so at some point, there will be space missing.
00:25:43.000And enemies like Israel, who Almost every young Muslim child in the world is getting brought up with the idea that Jews are a problem.
00:25:55.000And this is something we need to consider.
00:25:57.000Not all of them will be anti Semite, but most of them will be brought into some sort of environment that could favor anti Semitism.
00:26:06.000And we have a global solidarity network based on religion, which can form a global alliance very quick.
00:26:13.000Although you can have tribal conflicts, these tribal conflicts will be won by one or the other side.
00:26:19.000And eventually, the entire Muslim population of this globe will be unified if they have to fight against a common enemy.
00:26:27.000And I don't see Israel surviving that.
00:26:30.000My fear is that I'm not even sure if I see America surviving that.
00:26:34.000America has a technological edge, but once you bump on this technological limit, there is a point at which our arms will not be improved, our economy will not progress as fast as others.
00:26:49.000At this point, everyone will reach us.
00:26:52.000They will remember the atoms that we've done at slowing them down so they couldn't get there, but they will get there.
00:27:00.000But so you're saying that it's basically inevitable because of population growth that will lead to economic growth, and then that will inevitably lead to nuclear weapons.
00:27:09.000I just think that's in our best interest to prevent that from happening.
00:27:13.000And I think we can do that reasonably.
00:27:15.000I think Russia would be a great partner in that eventually.
00:27:19.000I think that's why ultimately it's a great idea to partner with Russia because.
00:27:23.000You know, you read, for example, Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilization, and he talks about this.
00:27:27.000He talks about what you're referring to as the Islamic resurgence, which is this population explosion, which started around the 70s and 80s.
00:27:35.000And so you have a very young population, and it's still growing, a very fundamentalist population.
00:27:41.000They are adhering to this very right wing, or not right wing, but a very extreme fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.
00:27:50.000And gradually, the fault lines in the world on how the world order is divided are not ideological.
00:27:56.000Now it's in terms of these civilizational groupings, like you said, which would be.
00:28:00.000The Muslim world directed towards a single goal, all united.
00:28:04.000The Christian world or the Western world, maybe all united.
00:28:07.000And he talks about how Sam Huntington does, and I think this would be the future, would be some kind of an alliance between the West and between the Orthodox civilization, between Europe and the United States and Russia.
00:28:19.000And I think even to an extent, I think we could cooperate with China on that, with Sino civilization.
00:28:23.000I think it's in the interest of all the greater civilizations, the advanced ones, the development ones, to stop the proliferation of WMDs.
00:28:33.000I think it's doable at the end of the day that the pressure is there to denuclearize these kinds of countries.
00:28:40.000And so I think right now it's our last bet to do that in terms of we're gradually giving way to this multipolar world where China has a lot more influence and Russia will, relatively speaking, relative to our power, have more influence.
00:28:55.000I think now is the time to say this is the standard, these are the rules.
00:29:00.000If you have these weapons, there's going to be a consequence.
00:29:03.000And people might be able to easily develop then, but there still will be consequences.
00:29:07.000I think it's important to set that precedent because I don't think it's entirely inevitable that a country like Syria will have nuclear weapons.
00:29:17.000And I think the issue that you risk is it's like, well, they might inevitably get a nuclear weapon, but if they don't, then we're going to have proliferation.
00:29:25.000Then Syria's going to get one, Iran will get one, Saudi Arabia, Qatar.
00:29:29.000And that's a terrible scenario where, because of the security dilemma, they'll all be building up their arsenals.
00:29:35.000It's a very volatile and unstable region.
00:29:37.000One day you're going to have doomsday.
00:30:22.000I'm willing to entertain the idea that the principle okay, suppose that we care about this short term and we want to enforce some sort of disarmament policy on certain types of weapons.
00:30:35.000However, the problem in this case, and the Western media is Already discovering the bullshit of this story that Syria has been using gas attacks.
00:30:49.000If the Western media could convince guys like me and you, imagine the Arab media.
00:30:56.000I mean, it's going to be conspiracy theory all over us.
00:31:00.000They don't even need the conspiracy theory to be true, to be globally adhered within the Muslim population.
00:31:07.000And so the idea that rational people like you and I are convinced that the possibility of a false flag attack or that the gas attack.
00:31:15.000May have not happened at all or may have been caused by rebels, maybe rebels funded by external forces, discredit any sort of intervention because then what the Muslim population will be remembering is these people will attack even if there is no evidence that we are guilty.
00:31:38.000And so these people have done their first strike already and they are after us and they will use any sort of justification even if they know they're false.
00:31:48.000And they will have Nick Fruentes admitting on YouTube as an America first show, showing this is the typical American.
00:31:56.000He actually believes that the chemical attacks have not been caused by Assad, but he still advocates for repression of Assad.
00:32:04.000This violates principles which, at the individual level, we would say it violates the presumption of innocence.
00:32:10.000But a similar principle must be applied to countries.
00:32:13.000We cannot say, oh, a certain event that's negative has occurred, therefore I'm going to punish a random act.
00:32:20.000Assad, as long as we don't have evidence of his involvement in chemical attacks, there's no reason to attack the legitimate structure of his government.
00:32:30.000I just don't see where that becomes a threat to the United States.
00:32:34.000I mean, I see where the Syrian people might be disillusioned with the United States, but I mean, realistically, we don't see Syria being sewed back together for a long time, and then even still, it's not like they're any kind of a great power.
00:32:47.000Admittedly, it's not, I mean, it is a problematic situation.
00:32:50.000And I hate using that word, but it is, you know, it does present problems that we do strike without establishing all the evidence.
00:33:24.000More of a national security concern than the nuclear arsenal in North Korea.
00:33:28.000I would concede to you that in a vacuum, if we had the luxury of many different choices and many different outcomes, we could say, well, we have to act in a moral way, we have to act in an honest way.
00:33:40.000But I look at the situation with North Korea and I see very limited options.
00:33:45.000It's a very constrained situation for how do we disarm this country without going to war.
00:33:50.000There's very few options, and one of them is diplomacy.
00:33:53.000The only way that we can make diplomacy work is to convince them that the alternative will be far worse.
00:33:58.000And I think the only way to do that is to demonstrate that you have the willingness to use your military capability.
00:34:10.000But I think that the pros outweigh the cons, and that if we end up achieving denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula because we did this missile strike, I think that outweighs the negative consequences, which I'm willing to acknowledge are there, which I'm willing to acknowledge creates bad blood.
00:34:27.000And we look at even the situation in Yemen.
00:34:29.000We look at many of the situations in the Middle East where we're.
00:35:03.000I don't think there's anything in the short term which is concerning about North Korea in the sense that if North Korea got an ICBM capability and they could deliver a nuclear warhead to DC, if they had the Triad, if they had submarines, bombers, and missiles, I wouldn't be concerned tomorrow that they would nuke us.
00:35:22.000My concern is that what happens when the North Korean regime, which is incredibly fragile, collapses?
00:35:27.000Who do those arms fall into the hands of?
00:35:38.000And so I've said on the show all the time I'm willing to acknowledge there is a lot of propaganda and alarmist like warmongering on the part of the United States that says North Korea is going to nuke us tomorrow.
00:36:30.000They have a capability, they don't have an arsenal.
00:36:32.000Korea does have an arsenal, they already have the weapons.
00:36:35.000You know, Syria, and it's notable because after the Iraq war, And I was against the Iraq war.
00:36:40.000I think we served Israeli interests completely.
00:36:43.000And we were sold into that by Israeli neocons, essentially, double agents in our own government.
00:36:48.000Nevertheless, one of the positive externalities of the Iraq war was that Syria, Libya, and Iran all suspended their nuclear programs.
00:36:56.000Iran temporarily, but they all took them off because they said if the United States is willing to exercise force over nonproliferation, well, then it's become too costly for us to do these weapons.
00:37:08.000So at the end of the day, it's that they have an arsenal.
00:37:11.000I guess that our difference boils down to how long we look at this over.
00:37:17.000I mean, you're alarmed by North Korea being the closest worrying country to be acquiring nuclear weapons.
00:37:25.000Okay, they have developed the technology to get there.
00:37:28.000Now, personally, the technological development, I see them as what if in another country in the Middle East, some random country, it's delayed by 30 years or 50 years?
00:37:38.000We're still going to have the same problem.
00:37:40.000And to me, the long term problem is determined by demographics.
00:37:47.000Muslim populations of this world are expanding.
00:37:50.000They are expanding both in their own country in tribal conflict, they are also expanding through immigration.
00:37:57.000So, at some point, there are countries like Canada, France, Sweden, who are subject to potentially be majority Muslim countries.
00:38:05.000And that won't look good at that time if the Muslims are pissed off at America and we've given them a legitimate reason to be pissed off.
00:38:15.000I just happen to think that, I mean, at the end of the day, you're right about how those differences boil down in terms of long, long term versus like short to medium term.
00:38:26.000I think you believe that nonproliferation is not tenable.
00:38:30.000It's just not practical to say that we can limit the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.
00:38:35.000I think it's impractical to say that every country should have nuclear weapons, or rather that that would be a more tenable situation.
00:38:45.000I just think that, or even, not even that.
00:38:53.000But the idea that we could ever rebuild that trust with the Middle East, that we could ever rebuild that peace with the Muslim world, because you're saying that it's inevitable.
00:39:02.000It's kind of foolhardy to try to limit the use of these weapons.
00:39:07.000And therefore, there's some kind of contingency where we earn the good faith of the Muslim world, we earn the good faith of these countries, and they don't turn their nukes on us.
00:39:16.000I think that's a lot less practical than saying limit their use of weapons of mass destruction.
00:39:22.000I think it's basically a foregone conclusion the Muslim world, they fought us for millennia.
00:39:27.000They fought us before Israel, after Israel, and I think there will always be that troubled mentality over there.
00:39:34.000I don't think that's in the cards for us.
00:39:36.000I mean, let's say there is proliferation, we don't do anything to stop it, and the rapprochement doesn't work.
00:39:42.000They still don't like us because it's Christian or because Israel still has influence.
00:39:59.000We will have a cooperative development between the Muslim world and the West.
00:40:04.000I think everything will degrade within the next few, at least maybe 200 years or maybe a few decades.
00:40:12.000So I'm not arguing that let's be their ally, let's try to be kind and see if they're kind to us back.
00:40:17.000I say we are in an escalation of violence.
00:40:20.000This escalation of violence, we should not be the ones doing the first strike.
00:40:25.000What we should be doing is develop air defense systems that are.
00:40:31.000More and more advanced so that we can defend ourselves when shit goes down.
00:40:36.000I think it's my proposal for the solution to current trouble in Middle Eastern: draw a big black marker around the map of Middle Eastern area and North Africa.
00:40:49.000And any missiles that come from there, you need to be prepared to shoot it while it's in the sky.
00:40:55.000I was pretty impressed, I don't know if you were impressed, but by the performance of the Syria air defense, which I believe came mostly from Russia, if I understand correctly.
00:41:05.000They have something that was, to me, not expected in terms of capability to strike down missiles.
00:41:13.000Yeah, well, I mean, they said that they struck down 71.
00:41:17.000I don't know if that's confirmed by both sides, but either way, I mean, they did do a pretty good job.
00:41:22.000They even knocked out, I don't know if you saw, even on Monday, Israel launched like eight missiles at them and they shot down all of them.
00:41:28.000So it is, Assad is, he's not going quietly, and I'm rooting for him, you know?
00:41:49.000Well, because I don't see the strike as intended to implement regime change.
00:41:53.000I think the strike had nothing to do with Syria at all.
00:41:56.000I know it directly affected Syria, but I don't see that as impeding his ability to wage war or stopping him.
00:42:03.000I see that as something that was necessary for us in our diplomacy with Korea.
00:42:08.000That is extremely dangerous discourse.
00:42:10.000I mean, I don't think that you will have an impact personally, but if people start adopting this view and talk about it publicly, people of the Muslim world will be legitimate when they say these Americans will strike us just for symbolic purpose to use us as tools for their own diplomatic negotiation.
00:42:31.000They don't care about hurting our civilization, keeping our civilization down, neutralizing our own ability to develop just for their own interests.
00:42:41.000And I'm very worried about this kind of discourse, to be honest.
00:42:45.000I think that we're kind of past that point with them.
00:42:48.000I would, if we could go back and do it all over, if we could go back 100 years ago after the Ottoman Empire fell apart and we actually gave sovereignty to the various kingdoms there, I would say you're probably right.
00:43:00.000But I think we're already entrenched in there.
00:43:04.000We've already done so much damage to Syria, so much to Iraq.
00:43:08.000We've meddled in there in countless ways.
00:43:10.000We're still in like five or six different countries on the ground.
00:43:14.000And I just think that at a certain point, we're past that mark where we've made the decision we're going to go in, we're going to meddle.
00:43:22.000And now that's a tool at our disposal.
00:43:24.000I just think that, and this is something that I agree with you in principle.
00:43:28.000I think that's where it's difficult because I totally agree with you in principle that it's probably wrong.
00:43:34.000It's probably going to make these people very upset and it's not ideal.
00:43:38.000But I look at it from the real politique lens, from a practical lens, we have a much greater concern in Korea that is just an unacceptable posture that North Korea has where they have this advantage over us.
00:43:51.000And I would be willing to do just about anything to stop that from happening.
00:43:55.000Unfortunately, that's how it works in foreign policy.
00:43:57.000Like, for example, in the Reagan administration, we supported Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because we wanted to take out Russia.
00:44:05.000And people say, oh, well, that led to the creation of Al Qaeda and to the current situation in Afghanistan and all that.
00:44:12.000And I say, you just simply, in terms of foreign policy, you don't have that hindsight.
00:44:36.000It wasn't ideal, but I think at the end of the day, we have to be practical about it.
00:44:42.000Well, ultimately, that's why people say to you, you're taking the neocon position.
00:44:47.000Because deep inside you, even if you don't send troops, even if you do it in a different way, you are trying to social engineer a part of humanity.
00:44:57.000You're doing it in a tactical fashion, you're doing it in a kind of contoured way.
00:45:01.000You're not replacing a region, but you are trying to change the world with missiles.
00:45:08.000And what you're describing is a mentality that is of someone within the escalation of violence.
00:45:15.000And there is no place for peace in that plan.
00:45:18.000In that plan, you're describing a guy who's willing to strike for pragmatic reasons, even if it's against the wrong target.
00:45:27.000And there is no other response that you will get from these people than violence and intergenerational hatred.
00:45:37.000It's like when these, it's like in a case of violence, of inter individual violence situation where the guy says, Oh, this guy is about to get close to me.
00:45:52.000The escalation of violence that you describe, we may be committed to going down that path.
00:45:58.000But I suggest that if there is a place for peace in this world, it is true first, recognizing that the, The people who commit acts of aggression are those we are legitimately intervening on, and this does not include Astad.
00:46:12.000And second, we do not participate in the escalation of violence when there are other solutions, especially when the only solution available right now is tracking an innocent target.
00:46:24.000In fact, a target that is essentially just a country, a free country, trying to develop itself, which is slowly getting out of its civil war, which seems to be largely resolved or will be resolved soon.
00:46:37.000The people of Syria will not forget this.
00:46:40.000It will be imprinted in their mind and in the mind of their children.
00:46:44.000And what you're describing is nothing else than the escalation of violence, which inevitably will lead to an answer when they can.
00:46:55.000I think at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to that.
00:46:59.000I simply don't believe that we'll ever achieve world peace.
00:47:02.000I think those kinds of things are secured through deterrence, I think they're secured through missile strikes, through a certain degree of fear of reprisal.
00:47:11.000And, you know, I don't think that makes me a neocon.
00:47:30.000We can never guarantee our security, but we have to be pragmatic about it and we have to make trade offs ultimately.
00:47:36.000And so I'll admit it's not something that we should be proud of.
00:47:40.000I don't think it's a principled stand to take that we're in favor of strikes.
00:47:44.000But I think if you're looking at it from the perspective of your principles, Justice or some conception of innocence or whatever, I think you're going to find it's not principled.
00:47:55.000If your principle is self defense and the pursuit of self interest, I think just about anything can be justified.
00:48:02.000And additionally, this was a strike that had no casualties.
00:48:05.000I think it's worth mentioning that nobody even died in the strike.
00:48:08.000They blew up, my battery's dying here, so we might have to switch over to a different headset.
00:48:26.000It was basically a failure, the strike was.
00:48:28.000And so I think I would take a strike that kills nobody, that is a failure, over the possibility that we could go to war with North Korea.
00:48:36.000I mean, I think we're kind of isolating the Syria strike and saying, we'll look at the consequences of this one action, but not looking at the alternative, which is to say, you know, what happens if we completely pulled out of Syria and we let North Korea develop their nuclear arsenal?
00:48:51.000Is Syria going to ever not have bad blood with us?
00:48:54.000At the end of the day, Syria has bad blood with us because we support Israel, and Israel's been in a continuous state of war with Syria since 1948.
00:49:02.000So we've got to get rid of our relationship with Israel.
00:49:05.000We've got to completely get out of Syria.
00:49:08.000Are they going to say, we no longer have bad blood against you?
00:49:12.000So I just think you're isolating a few bad outcomes without looking at the entire, all the potentialities and the context of it, and even the specifics of this strike.
00:49:25.000On the question of casualty, I will say it's probably the most dramatic thing that people will survive this and they will remember that they were the victim of an act of aggression.
00:49:36.000Now, on the question of justice, I want to clarify I'm not looking at this from a fundamental principle point of view.
00:49:43.000My argument is not justice is good, therefore let's follow something that is just.
00:49:48.000My argument is that justice is something that your opponent will perceive.
00:49:53.000And I'm saying it is sometimes pragmatic.
00:50:00.000Because as long as your opponent can frame what you did as an act of aggression, and they do, and they've done this for all of the wars that America has been involved in in the Middle East, I say being just for once, being a true leader of the world that's truly headed for peace, would be even a good pragmatic strategy.
00:50:22.000Because who knows, if we were to stop supporting Israel, if we were to stop intervening in countries we have nothing to do in, Who knows what the perception of America would be in a hundred years?
00:50:35.000It's certainly not by continuing the current behavior that you're going to create a sense that America is just.
00:50:42.000And as long as there are victims of the unjust actions of America, America is living on the credit card of international credibility.
00:50:51.000I just think that that kind of credibility is a very dubious thing.
00:50:56.000I mean, Barack Obama's strategy was let's try and create goodwill.
00:50:59.000And it's admittedly, this is something boomers say, this is something neocons say, but Barack Obama showed goodwill towards all these countries.
00:52:15.000And I understand that Muammar Gaddafi maybe was a part of that, but I think that by and large, we tried this kind of rapprochement with the world.
00:52:23.000And sure, he did drone bombings, he did other things.
00:52:26.000I'm not saying he was perfect, but I am saying that he, alternatively, relatively speaking, was more engaging with these rival powers.
00:53:47.000So, what I was about to say is out of these countries that you name, I think you trust too much their words and you don't trust their actions.
00:53:54.000First, you are not entitled to countries reciprocating.
00:53:58.000You should just be satisfied that they're not attacking you.
00:54:01.000If you start saying a country doesn't have the legitimate right to arm itself, then you are already invading on their freedom.
00:54:09.000You're already telling them that they cannot do something that you do on your side.
00:54:14.000And that's the root of the injustice, which also motivates people to be pissed off at America in this world.
00:54:28.000And that's a legitimate critique of America.
00:54:32.000And as long as you leave it hanging there, as long as you provide validity to that, I'm not surprised that the Muslims want to eradicate America in some countries, eventually, probably in all.
00:54:43.000I'm not surprised that they are pissed off at this government and at the governments that will come in the future because they have a repeated history of always taking the side of interventionists, either with troops or without troops, and of not letting other countries do what the U.S. does.
00:55:02.000And I don't think that maintaining injustice in this world is a viable option in the long term.
00:55:10.000But I mean, don't you think that's the idea that Iran has like a right to arm themselves?
00:55:17.000In my opinion, that kind of thing is just simply not in the world that we live in.
00:55:24.000That's not in our lived reality that, well, Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, so I guess they just get nuclear weapons.
00:55:30.000I mean, I think that we should be pursuing our security and national interests.
00:55:35.000Even when they contradict the interests of other nations or the rights of other nations.
00:55:39.000I mean, if we could disarm Russia, if Russia didn't have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, I'd be in favor of that.
00:55:48.000If we could make that happen in some way that wouldn't entail a big war, if I could snap my fingers tomorrow and Russia would be stopped from ever getting a nuclear arsenal, I would do that.
00:55:58.000I don't care that they have a right to defend themselves.
00:56:02.000That they have that stockpile, even by virtue of it existing, is a latent threat to our security and our interests.
00:56:08.000And I would rather have our country be succeeding and be secure than Russia have its right to arm itself.
00:56:15.000I think that that's our right as the country with the most guns, the most successful country.
00:56:21.000There's no moral equality between these different countries in the first place.
00:56:25.000And then in the second place, we assume that if Iran had nuclear weapons, would they respect, you know, if Iran was the great superpower of the world, would they respect our right to self development and to nuclear weapons?
00:56:36.000If China was the hegemon in the world, would they say, well, We could swipe the United States' weapons, but we're not going to because they have a right to.
00:56:44.000I just think it's a naive interpretation of the world.
00:56:47.000I mean, you look at China with their Belt and Road Initiative, they build these great ports, these great highways in places like Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, all over the place.
00:56:59.000And they say, okay, we're going to build these for you and we're going to build it on debt.
00:57:03.000The countries can't pay back the debt, so China says, well, you'll just lease it to us for 100 years.
00:57:08.000And we could station our ships there, we could put our troops there, we could do all kinds of things.
00:57:48.000And we want to be the best at it for the longest time.
00:57:50.000And maybe in the future, we'll have to negotiate that down and we'll have to find some way to finesse China and Russia into the equation, into that system.
00:58:00.000And there might have to be some kind of a consolation or reconciliation.
00:58:04.000But for the time being, I think it's the most practical way.
00:58:08.000Well, it is clearly what I would characterize as a neocon and interventionist approach where you believe that.
00:58:16.000The US is entitled to stuff that you would not grant to others.
00:58:20.000And this system, it is internally consistent.
00:58:23.000I'm not saying you're completely beside the track here.
00:58:26.000Okay, there's a world hegemon and they're responsible to keep peace across the globe in whatever ways well, not peace, but at least to protect their interests in whatever ways they find is justified for them.
00:58:38.000But this argument holds as long as the US is the hegemon.
00:58:42.000And if I were you, I would start thinking about a world in which the US is just another country, a pretty average country indeed.
00:58:52.000Well, I mean, that's the thing though, is and that gets back to the point about the tweet.
00:59:33.000So they were just like you, an American supremacist who believed that intervening in others' liberties is needed to protect America's interests.
00:59:42.000And we see what this seeded in the world.
01:00:44.000A neoconservative would say, therefore, we have to invade North Korea and we have to impose our values.
01:00:52.000It's almost like Francis Fukuyama, who says that the entire world has to become a liberal capitalist democracy and then there'll be no war, then there'll be only peace, and the only wars will be these violent relapses into history.
01:01:18.000I'm not saying go in and invade countries, go in and impose our values, but just make it so that they're not a threat to us.
01:01:25.000And you seem to think that, I mean, well, let's, I think this would be informative is even if let's concede for a moment this scenario and let's say that we know North Korea is a threat to the United States.
01:01:38.000Let's say we know they have a nuclear arsenal and it's inevitable for the sake of argument that they will strike us in the next 25 years.
01:01:46.000Even though they have a right to arm themselves, even though they have a right to have that arsenal, would it still be okay for us to go in and invade them, even though they have a right to arm themselves or to attack them or to some way get them to denuclearize?
01:02:01.000No, I don't think it would be justified.
01:02:04.000I think that in a multipolar world, you want to protect your space, but you don't want to invade on the capacity of others to acquire similar armaments to you.
01:02:14.000I mean, you can maintain that just because America is so far ahead.
01:02:19.000In terms of technological and economical development, but this situation cannot be maintained.
01:02:24.000Do you recognize that within the next 100 years, America will not be the power that it is economically right now?
01:02:34.000So it seems that you're having a strategy that is probably working for now and working for the next few decades, but that will not be maintainable.
01:02:44.000Soon there will be Chinese people or Muslim people thinking exactly like you, but not of America.
01:03:03.000They say like India superpower 2050, and they don't use toilets.
01:03:06.000But, you know, India will be there to an extent.
01:03:09.000Brazil, South Africa, Russia may rise up again.
01:03:12.000We will live in a multipolar order within the century, no doubt.
01:03:15.000I just think that it would be silly for us to say, let's not pursue our interests to their fullest extent now.
01:03:22.000Because we may want to have goodwill later.
01:03:26.000I think there's no such thing as goodwill.
01:03:28.000I think that countries get a taste of power, and this is borne out by the history.
01:03:32.000This is borne out by the record of history that countries get a taste of power.
01:03:35.000They're able to disarm countries next to them, they're able to take out their competitors, and they do it.
01:03:40.000You know, I mean, we've been fighting the Muslims since Islam even existed, since the first caliphate, the second caliphate, the Ottoman Empire.
01:03:49.000What ill will did we do towards them to have them invade in the Balkans or in Spain or in France?
01:03:55.000To cause the siege of Vienna or the taking of Constantinople.
01:03:58.000I mean, this has always been going on.
01:04:01.000And to say we're going to declaw ourselves, we're going to take out our talons and take out our teeth and say, you know, we recognize the right of everybody and hopefully they will not think the way that we did, I think that's just a fool's errand.
01:04:17.000I don't think we should go and invade everybody.
01:04:19.000I just think we should pursue our interests.
01:04:22.000Personally, yeah, I'm certainly not saying let's cultivate goodwill and let's think that they will remain our friends if we're kind to them.
01:04:29.000What I say is the sentences that you say right now in the public space will be used against America in a hundred years.
01:04:37.000There will be people saying exactly the same words, but for their country.
01:04:41.000And America will be easy to ignore in a world where it is not so technologically advanced and so economically advanced.
01:04:49.000So, my conclusion to this would be I mean, start thinking about air defense, start thinking about That will come your way.
01:05:03.000Personally, I'll be moving north because I want to survive the nuclear holocaust.
01:06:52.000Well, this is more of a question for me.
01:06:53.000But does anybody have any questions for Mr. JF?
01:06:56.000Maybe I'll just go into the live chat.
01:06:58.000I'll read those that are for you, and I'll be happy to keep you on the watch and check for the responses.
01:07:06.000Yeah, well, so on the question of all these countries who gave up their WMDs and they were attacked anyway, and how does that help nonproliferation, I think you have to look at the administration.
01:07:38.000And it's not so much, well, does the United States support nonproliferation so much as it is, in a very general sense, so much as it is Donald Trump striking North Korea, or rather, striking Syria in this fashion.
01:07:51.000Does that encourage or discourage North Korea to denuclearize?
01:07:55.000I think there's no other way to look at it that it encourages them to denuclearize.
01:07:58.000Because although you could make the argument that, well, how could that build the goodwill?
01:09:00.000It's difficult for us to say because we don't have access to the information on the ground, what the Pentagon has.
01:09:06.000But I would bet your bottom dollar that you'll see at the end of the day, at the end of the North Korean negotiations, they will acknowledge that threat and we'll see a favorable outcome as a result.
01:09:19.000What do you have to say about that, Mr. JF?
01:09:21.000Yeah, I've already said my thoughts on this, which is what you've presented there to me is just a micro view in a Time scale that is so small that I wouldn't care about it.
01:09:32.000It's a micro view of a violent escalation, but you're looking at just one step in it.
01:09:39.000There will be responses, there will be legitimate responses to it, and who knows when they will happen.
01:10:08.000I just think that the positives outweigh the negatives.
01:10:12.000And we'll see if we have some more super chats, hopefully, some ones for our guest here.
01:10:18.000Oops, that's not the right thing to click there.
01:10:22.000So let me pull it up on the super chats.
01:10:26.000Sheet Lord says Would JF be opposed to disarming a nation that was building up arms while expressing that they intended to use them against us?
01:10:36.000Well, if the expression was clear, I guess you would be justified.
01:10:40.000It's a threat of violence, and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is violence.
01:10:47.000I think maybe that's where we disagree how do you interpret that kind of violence?
01:10:53.000How do you interpret a just aggression, maybe, that's committed by one country against the United States?
01:11:01.000I see North Korea saying they're going to nuke New York City, they're going to nuke D.C., they're going to attack us, they're going to use chemical weapons, they'll strike the Philippines.
01:11:16.000But I think longer term, the threat is still there.
01:11:19.000And that's why it's in our interest to dismantle it in whatever way we can.
01:11:23.000War would probably be very costly, but I think it's just unacceptable.
01:11:28.000What would you say in that specific instance about North Korea?
01:11:32.000Well, I've looked at the sentences and I'm always not clear if it's poor translation or if they're really saying we are going to nuke America literally.
01:11:45.000Because sometimes they claim that in the newspaper.
01:11:48.000Then I read the original statement and it's more like.
01:11:52.000And so I would need to review the statements clearly, but I don't oppose that if we were to see statements that are truly indicative of a plan to attack, we could be justified in intervening.
01:12:05.000Although I wouldn't say we should intervene at all times.
01:12:08.000We could say that there are some regimes that we're not scared of at all in this world, and we could just ignore them like we ignore trolls on YouTube.
01:12:17.000Well, yeah, I think I'm fine with that.
01:12:26.000But I will concede, though, for people who are saying this, it's worth acknowledging on the situation, particularly with Iran and Syria, that the country that's causing all the proliferation right now, the reason why Iran has to get a nuclear weapon, the reason Assad has to get chemical weapons, is of course because of Israel.
01:12:46.000And so I will acknowledge for anybody who thinks it's in doubt or it's in question that Israel is the number one.
01:12:55.000And really, our national security interest is wholly dependent on to what extent we can disengage with them in the near future, to what extent we can break apart that foreign lobbying power, break apart this spy network they have in our country.
01:13:09.000Because, and I did a whole show about this yesterday for my premium members about the clean break memo, about all these sinister plans where literally the people in the Bush administration that invented the Iraq war and the intelligence to justify it were writing memos for the Israeli government.
01:13:27.00020 years before that, about how we should invade Iraq and Syria for the national security interests of Israel.
01:13:32.000So, I 100%, I'm not coming at this from like Iran and the Muslims are the problem.
01:14:07.000Well, I think it's telling that Israel struck Syria before and after we struck, right?
01:14:13.000I mean, I think it's very interesting because, and that would be my rebuttal for people who say this was in Israel's interest, Israel struck first.
01:14:21.000They struck the Sunday after the strike.
01:14:35.000And so I think that just goes to show that Israel is not.
01:14:39.000Too pleased about what that we had a very restrained and a very limited involvement in Syria because they want to topple Assad, and that's what they're trying to do there.
01:14:48.000I know, I believe me, I know what's going on.
01:14:50.000The reason they strike Syria is to try and get Syria or Iran to hit back, and then that'll draw us into the war.
01:14:57.000They go in there and attack these targets so that eventually Iran goes in and says, All right, enough, and punches them in the nose, and then they cry over to the United States and go, You know, Iran hit me, Iran is being mean to me, and then we, and then the bitch goes in and we clean up the mess.
01:15:17.000Mr. DL says, JF, when talking about 100 to 200 years, you have to think about climate change and sea levels rising over 100 feet in 200 years.
01:15:49.000I think it would be essentially most lands on Earth being immersed.
01:15:53.000I don't think that is the true prediction.
01:15:56.000Now, do I consider climate change in my predictions?
01:16:00.000No, but I think climate change, all it can do if it does rise sea levels is just compress the amount of land available to this growing population.
01:16:10.000So it can only make the matters I describe worse.
01:16:14.000Well, I think it's a good point, though, that.
01:16:18.000The fundamental point there is that there are so many variables.
01:16:22.000When you're talking about a 100 to 200 year time span, there are so many variables.
01:16:28.000That's why I take very little stock in this idea of long term because 200 years ago, the year was 1818.
01:16:49.000We had just gotten done with the Napoleonic Wars.
01:16:52.000France had just tried to take over Europe and they're doing so the world.
01:16:55.000I mean, 200 years is such a long time that to say we should not totally address immediate threats because of threats in 100 years.
01:17:06.000I mean, that's why I just think, and I know he's talking about climate change, but I think the broader point is so many variables, whether it's climate, science, technology, development, nations.
01:17:16.000I mean, we thought Japan was going to overtake us in the 1980s.
01:17:20.000And they've stagnated for so many reasons.
01:17:34.000We can look at the colonial past and see some patterns.
01:17:37.000One pattern that systematically emerged, or almost systematically, is there is some form of revolt from the colonized lands to the main nation.
01:17:46.000It can take many forms it can be a war against the nation, or it can be a separation or seceding.
01:17:53.000Or it can be like the Native Americans where they deal with the government that has been installed over them without their consent.
01:18:01.000But the problem is with the advance of technologies, the next revolted nation, the next nation that's pissed off at a colonial invader, may very well have the nuclear bomb.
01:19:05.000I got to do missile strikes against you.
01:19:07.000I got to have some kind of a reprisal here.
01:19:11.000Here's one from a Russian colluder who says If during the attack Russia had fired on U.S. troops, Iron Rain, and fired anti ship missiles at U.S. destroyers, how would you respond?
01:19:50.000We're going to bomb you for five days.
01:19:52.000And then we called them up on that hotline that we have to prevent like mid air collisions and things of that nature and said, we're going through.
01:19:59.000And Russia actually ended up informing the Syrian government hey, they're going to strike in these three facilities.
01:20:20.000You look at Russia in terms of its geography, and if they ever were to engage with the United States, we could destroy them economically in about five seconds.
01:20:32.000Russia has no ports that lead to the open ocean that we could not straddle, that we could not stop.
01:20:38.000In St. Petersburg, they're reliant on the Denmark Strait.
01:20:42.000In the Black Sea, they're dependent on the Bosporus Strait, which is controlled by Turkey, a NATO member.
01:20:47.000In Vladivostok, they're in the Sea of Japan, which is controlled by Japan, which we happen to be an ally of theirs.
01:22:08.000It doesn't, I mean, nuclear weapons are a threat to us in the short term, but if we don't get nuked tomorrow, it's not going to matter if we don't have borders, right?
01:22:17.000I mean, it's not going to matter if Europe doesn't get nuked if in 100 years Europe is basically a part of the caliphate or it's a part of sub Saharan Africa.
01:22:25.000So I won't dispute that America has no business having boots on the ground in Syria.
01:22:32.000Has no business having boots on the ground in Yemen to do anything but fight Al Qaeda, and even that's a stretch.
01:22:37.000Those troops should be on the southern border.
01:22:40.000They would be in a better capacity serving American interests if they were standing linked shoulder to shoulder, forming a human barrier in the southern border than they are in Syria.
01:22:52.000And so I will, for people that say you're an interventionist, you're a neocon, believe me, I get it, but I just support the strike.
01:23:00.000And it looks like these are all of our questions here.
01:23:18.000Well, I think my explanation, I'm satisfied with what I could express, so I will just say that I enjoyed seeing your chat and talking with you.
01:23:28.000And Thomas Howard ends with the last super chat $5 US.
01:24:16.000He always brings great conversation, a great insight.
01:24:19.000And I have to say, I'm glad that we're finding people on the show who are really able to provide something that's substantive, that you're not going to hear anywhere else.
01:24:29.000I don't think you're going to hear a conversation anywhere else.
01:24:35.000I don't think you'll hear a conversation about the viability of nonproliferation policy versus.
01:24:42.000How do we prepare for proliferation for all countries?
01:24:45.000So, I really am glad we're able to have those kinds of conversations.
01:24:49.000And that was the case, you know, to bring it all back.
01:24:51.000That was the case I was going to make tomorrow in my Bloodsports with Aaron.
01:24:55.000Aaron was that thought they were going to hire on the Warski Show.
01:25:00.000And I was going to bring it back tomorrow on the fact that people want to hear these conversations.
01:25:05.000They want to hear good, relevant, informed content that's about the issues, that's about the ideas, the things you're not going to hear in the kosher, The pre approved, the controlled press.
01:25:18.000He's always a great sport, always very good humored and funny, and I think very fair too.
01:25:23.000That's the thing I will say about JF, which I appreciate.
01:25:26.000What I appreciate about JF and Sticks and this roster of people we're assembling here, which is that they're fair.
01:25:33.000You know, the biggest problem I have with debating people like Destiny and others is that they're not, I don't think they're willing to hear what you're saying.
01:25:41.000It's about gotcha, it's about I'm wrong and you're right.
01:25:46.000X, Y, and Z. You know, JF, I think more than anybody that I've seen in the blood sports, the debating community, he's willing to restate.
01:25:55.000He'll be able to hear and restate what was intended and what was said in a way that's fair and addresses it head on, which is a fantastic thing.
01:26:03.000You couldn't ask for more in terms of content.
01:27:50.000Think of that the next time anybody wants to challenge Nick the Knife.
01:27:54.000Few are brave enough to do it, few are smart enough to do it.
01:27:57.000I would advise all thoughts that they should probably just become mothers.
01:28:02.000It would be a far better alternative that they just submit to the kitchen, submit to the home, and to the rearing of children, which is a great thing, than to go up against Nick the Knife where they'll get bullied off the internet.
01:28:15.000Begbie says Are we going to keep JF around for questions this time, asking for a chainsaw wielding friend?
01:29:16.000But we have to reorient ourselves in a way that we can build trust, that we can build respect, credibility, all these things, so that we can have a fresh start.
01:30:47.000And I don't agree with the direction he's taken in terms of the LA people he's been hanging around with, some of the streams he's been doing.
01:32:12.000Whether you guys think we are biological weapons in a phenotypic revolution or the cultured thugs of the kingdom of God, victory will be ours and salvation will be our reward.
01:32:22.000To answer for JF, I think this is what he would say.
01:32:25.000He has said, and he said on the stream last week, that it's not, I don't think you can ignore it.
01:32:32.000That the birth rates for atheists are much lower than they are for Christians.
01:32:36.000So, JF has said that it's probably beneficial that we embrace religion, whether you agree with it or not.
01:32:43.000I think that kind of consequentialist rhetoric is wrong from the beginning.
01:32:46.000I understand where a secular person makes that argument.
01:32:50.000I think you have to have authentic believers and you should believe in it because it's true.
01:32:53.000But I think JF, as somebody who doesn't believe, acknowledges that even for people that can't believe in God, they don't believe in God, at the very minimum, they have to acknowledge that.
01:35:34.000My main concern is I'll go out like George Lincoln Rockwell.
01:35:37.000Not that I'm anything like George Lincoln Rockwell.
01:35:40.000But my concern is I'll go to American Renaissance and Hunter Wallace, who's three feet tall, will be there waiting for me with a tiny pistol.
01:35:51.000I'll show up to American Renaissance and then Hunter Wallace will be tugging at my shirt.
01:36:47.000You have to have that appreciation, that respect for your elders.
01:36:50.000Now, when the elders are mean to me or they say nasty things to me, or even sometimes if they just disagree with me, all that respect goes out the window.
01:36:58.000But when they're nice to me, When they agree with me, then we're cool.
01:37:36.000You know, when people don't see it, but when I go off the camera, I just collapse.
01:37:41.000I collapse and I black out because I've expended all this spiritual energy.
01:37:45.000It's like in Teen Titans when Raven uses her powers and she can't use them too much without, you know, doing damage to herself or, you know, like anybody.
01:37:58.000It's a long show and it's a lot of content, but I do it because I love the nation, because I love America and I love all of the Americans in it, except for people who say I'm too skinny.
01:38:09.000Those people are mean and I don't care for them.
01:38:15.000Remember to check us out on makersupport.com slash Nick J. Fuentes for that premium membership.
01:38:20.000If you want more detail about some of the things I hinted at in the show today, the clean break memo, Israel's plan in the 1980s, who these people are who wrote these plans and ended up in the Bush administration, I did what I consider my most important episode.
01:38:37.000It's out there, but it's for the first time, I think I've compiled all of it into one place in a really good resource.
01:38:43.000And that is available to our premium members on SoundCloud on the Maker Support.