America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - American Realpolitik feat. JF Gariepy | America First Ep. 148

00:00:05.000 Good evening, everybody.

00:00:06.000 You are watching America First.

00:00:07.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes.

00:00:09.000 We have a great show for you tonight.

00:00:12.000 We will be joined in a moment by a very special guest, Mr. J.F. Gripe.

00:00:18.000 I've got to ask him what's the correct pronunciation on that.

00:00:21.000 I'm not French.

00:00:22.000 But it's J.F. He's coming on, our old pal.

00:00:25.000 He 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.

00:00:35.000 About human sociobiology.

00:00:36.000 So, a great guy, and we'll be having him on.

00:00:40.000 Wait a second.

00:00:43.000 Something's not right there.

00:00:45.000 Oh, what happened to me?

00:00:47.000 Yeah, yeah.

00:00:48.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:00:48.000 Let me.

00:00:50.000 Thank you.

00:00:51.000 All right.

00:00:53.000 Is that it?

00:00:53.000 Boom.

00:00:54.000 What happened?

00:00:55.000 Where did we go?

00:00:57.000 Oh, you know what it is?

00:00:58.000 Okay.

00:00:59.000 I figured it out.

00:01:00.000 JF, can you hear me?

00:01:04.000 All right.

00:01:04.000 Just give me one second.

00:01:05.000 I'm having a real technical issue here.

00:01:11.000 Let me do this.

00:01:12.000 Let me do that.

00:01:14.000 Whoops, that's not going to work.

00:01:15.000 Right now I'm having an issue where my camera is being used by the Hangouts app and therefore it's not being used by my OBS.

00:01:25.000 Yeah, so I'm sure.

00:01:28.000 Right, right.

00:01:29.000 So let me fix this real quick.

00:01:32.000 Can I call you back in one moment while I get this sorted up?

00:01:36.000 All right, thanks.

00:01:38.000 Okay, sorry about that, folks.

00:01:40.000 Let me.

00:01:42.000 Let me go in.

00:01:42.000 Let me get rid of that and I'll add it back in.

00:01:44.000 We'll see if it works here.

00:01:47.000 Now it's just the voice of God right now.

00:01:49.000 Just the voice of God.

00:01:50.000 No, that's not right.

00:01:52.000 Whoops.

00:01:54.000 Let's do this.

00:01:55.000 Video capture.

00:01:59.000 All right.

00:02:00.000 There we are.

00:02:00.000 Okay.

00:02:02.000 All right.

00:02:03.000 Excellent.

00:02:04.000 Off to a great start.

00:02:05.000 It's going to be one of those days, huh?

00:02:07.000 Going to be one of those days.

00:02:08.000 And still no haircut, no shave.

00:02:10.000 I got to work on the grooming.

00:02:11.000 But let's get JF back on.

00:02:14.000 So we got one piece.

00:02:14.000 All right.

00:02:16.000 Got one piece of the puzzle there.

00:02:17.000 Let me throw my audio on and then I'll bring in JF back for another call.

00:02:23.000 Sorry about that, folks.

00:02:24.000 Sorry about that.

00:02:26.000 All right.

00:02:26.000 And I'll have to.

00:02:28.000 Oh, and now it's telling me my microphone's blocked.

00:02:30.000 Let me add in.

00:02:31.000 What?

00:02:33.000 Oh, you know what?

00:02:35.000 Oh, boy.

00:02:37.000 It's always something, isn't it?

00:02:39.000 Let me do this.

00:02:42.000 And this.

00:02:43.000 Bing bong.

00:02:45.000 Okay.

00:02:46.000 Great.

00:02:47.000 Okay.

00:02:48.000 Now let me just do my link here, and we should be all right in a moment.

00:02:53.000 Okay.

00:02:55.000 Sorry about that.

00:02:56.000 It's always, always a little bit of added fun, a little bit of added adventure with the technical.

00:03:02.000 Always a fun go around trying to get the technical stuff sorted out.

00:03:07.000 And it looks like JF is with us now.

00:03:11.000 And here we are.

00:03:12.000 JF, can you hear me?

00:03:13.000 Hello.

00:03:14.000 Yes, I can hear you.

00:03:15.000 Excellent.

00:03:16.000 Excellent.

00:03:16.000 So let me just throw you up on the screen, and we should be.

00:03:19.000 And we should be in business here.

00:03:22.000 Okay.

00:03:23.000 Yes, there we are.

00:03:24.000 Okay.

00:03:25.000 Wait, whoops, one second.

00:03:27.000 I'll have to shrink this down a little bit.

00:03:29.000 Bam.

00:03:31.000 Put it over there.

00:03:32.000 Okay, now we're good.

00:03:34.000 All right, all right, all right.

00:03:35.000 So sorry about that.

00:03:36.000 Very sorry about the technical difficulties.

00:03:39.000 But welcome back to the show.

00:03:41.000 We do have a new development before we get into Syria to discuss.

00:03:45.000 Let's talk about the important stuff first.

00:03:49.000 Okay, all right.

00:03:50.000 Yeah, fair enough, fair enough.

00:03:52.000 Wow, wow, a little disappointment.

00:03:54.000 Stuff I was sarcastic in implying that was.

00:03:57.000 Oh, Aaron, okay. 0.73

00:03:58.000 I thought you meant Syria, okay. 1.00

00:04:00.000 No, but you're right.

00:04:02.000 So, tell us, what's our development from Aaron?

00:04:05.000 Can you tell us what we've heard?

00:04:08.000 Well, as you know, there was Aaron who I wanted to hire as a co host at Warski Live.

00:04:13.000 We got a wave of hate from the fans.

00:04:15.000 And so, in response to this wave of hate, we had to find a solution, which was to involve her in a death match.

00:04:22.000 And we thought, who could police Aaron?

00:04:25.000 Who could scan her for beliefs?

00:04:28.000 Who's the intellectual of the internet who could approve her for us?

00:04:32.000 And we asked you, and you accepted.

00:04:34.000 To interact with her for a few hours tomorrow.

00:04:37.000 Now, unfortunately, Erin didn't feel able to handle this, so she has given up.

00:04:43.000 So she will not be appearing on Warski Live again.

00:04:47.000 Oh, it's good to hear.

00:04:47.000 Excellent.

00:04:49.000 I'm honored that you selected me as the paladin of the Bloodsports, a defender of the contest.

00:04:56.000 But I have to say, I was going to go, I don't want to reveal my strategy, but I think overall this will be a good development.

00:05:03.000 I mean, my argument.

00:05:05.000 People expected me, I think, to go in and just bully her and say nasty things.

00:05:10.000 But my approach was going to be I really love what you and Andy do.

00:05:14.000 I think you have a great niche on the internet.

00:05:17.000 You do a great thing, I think, for the community, which is you have real free speech, real free exchange of ideas.

00:05:24.000 And the contest is can they survive when it's no holds barred?

00:05:27.000 There's no rules.

00:05:29.000 And I was getting a little bit irked by the LA reality TV drama that's kind of seeped in.

00:05:34.000 So it's a good thing ultimately.

00:05:36.000 But I am a little disappointed we didn't get to.

00:05:39.000 Jump in the ring, right?

00:05:41.000 Well, we had Mike Enoch earlier on TRS claiming that your approach was going to be full misogyny and insult.

00:05:49.000 And I said, I agree.

00:05:50.000 And everyone agreed.

00:05:52.000 So you would have been surprising.

00:05:54.000 I think you're getting older, Nick.

00:05:56.000 I could be maturing.

00:05:56.000 That's true.

00:05:57.000 I could be mellowing out, as they say.

00:05:59.000 You know, everybody says, he's young.

00:06:01.000 He's young.

00:06:02.000 He'll mellow out when he's older.

00:06:03.000 So could be.

00:06:04.000 I'm a little bit unpredictable still.

00:06:07.000 But, anyhow, enough about it.

00:06:09.000 I'm glad to see this drama start to subside.

00:06:12.000 Side a little bit.

00:06:12.000 This 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.

00:06:22.000 But we got to get into the original point of concern, which was the serious strike.

00:06:28.000 And 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.

00:06:44.000 Against three chemical weapons facilities in Syria.

00:06:48.000 And I said, satirizing the alt right and a lot of the far right people, I said, every operation overseas is neoconservatism.

00:06:56.000 Because in my estimation, when people don't like a military operation, they say, oh, that's neocon, that's zyocon, whatever.

00:07:03.000 And you said I'm oversimplifying.

00:07:05.000 So explain to me, what do you mean I'm oversimplifying?

00:07:08.000 Where do you come at it from?

00:07:10.000 Now, before we begin, I just want to warn you if you put a knife on me tonight, I brought the chainsaw.

00:07:10.000 All right.

00:07:17.000 So you're going to have some new nightmares.

00:07:20.000 You got me.

00:07:22.000 You got me, Brada.

00:07:23.000 Have me running at you with the chainsaw.

00:07:27.000 That's good.

00:07:28.000 No knives.

00:07:32.000 On your Twitter comment, I think that you come at it with a very particular definition of neocon, which is fine.

00:07:42.000 I mean, I'm not about labels.

00:07:43.000 I don't care about labeling this attack neocon or not.

00:07:47.000 The 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.

00:08:01.000 And the strike of Syria has a lot of the characteristics of the previous justifications for strikes or war.

00:08:12.000 One, it is based on factual claims that are unverified and potentially that I think you agree.

00:08:20.000 Could potentially be a false flag operation.

00:08:23.000 I 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?

00:08:33.000 Right. 0.72

00:08:35.000 Yeah, 100%.

00:08:37.000 So you have a first characteristic, which is deception.

00:08:41.000 We 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.

00:08:52.000 That's another aspect of previous wars.

00:08:55.000 You 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.

00:09:02.000 I grant you that it's less, but it's still something. 0.92

00:09:06.000 And another characteristic of all previous wars which we have ended up regretting is this involvement, the involvement of Israel's interests. 0.84

00:09:18.000 We are aligning ourselves with Israel's interests 100% in the strikes. 0.82

00:09:24.000 Is this something you deny?

00:09:26.000 No, absolutely not.

00:09:27.000 Absolutely not.

00:09:29.000 All right.

00:09:31.000 And 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.

00:09:40.000 And 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.

00:09:53.000 That 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.

00:10:08.000 And 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.

00:10:21.000 And the youth of Syria right now, they will grow up to be adults.

00:10:26.000 And what they will remember in their head is these missiles coming from the sky, and they will know.

00:10:33.000 That America is willing to strike on them for apparently no reason at all and to impede on their scientific and military development.

00:10:42.000 It's not a good position to be in.

00:10:45.000 Sure, yeah.

00:10:46.000 And I think those are all fair criticisms.

00:10:48.000 And they're all criticisms which I've acknowledged on the show. 0.97

00:10:52.000 And 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. 0.79

00:11:01.000 I 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. 0.57

00:11:10.000 You could go back to the Spanish American War, where they do false flag attacks in order to bring us into war. 0.78

00:11:16.000 So, believe me, I understand that. 0.88

00:11:18.000 I understand that in regard to the chemical attack, there's a strong circumstantial case to be made that no chemical weapons were used.

00:11:27.000 It would make no sense for the Assad government to use chemical weapons in this circumstance.

00:11:32.000 You know, people say you just look at the a priori kind of method of thinking that would be required.

00:11:38.000 The 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.

00:11:45.000 It makes no sense. 0.99

00:11:46.000 So, I get that too.

00:11:47.000 And 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.

00:12:01.000 You 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.

00:12:17.000 Killing civilians, if they're doing, you know, allegedly they have weapons of mass destruction, then none of that matters.

00:12:22.000 We can do whatever we want.

00:12:23.000 And I think that's wrong.

00:12:25.000 But I will contend I mean, would you acknowledge that given the consequences of the strike, that it was probably symbolic?

00:12:37.000 I think it is more than symbolic, ultimately.

00:12:40.000 But I would be willing to discuss that within this being a purely symbolic strike, I would still disagree with it.

00:12:46.000 So I guess we can move there at some point.

00:12:49.000 However, I will question that it is purely symbolic.

00:12:52.000 What I see there is an attack on the development of a country.

00:12:56.000 It's an attack on a country that could have developed a scientific and military progression. 0.52

00:13:03.000 And it's an attack that Israel wanted to see. 0.83

00:13:05.000 We know that from the fact that Israel actually attempted to strike many of these targets before America did it, and France and the UK.

00:13:17.000 So I would question that it's purely symbolic.

00:13:19.000 I think that what we have here is a desire by Israel and by the country who later joined it. 0.85

00:13:25.000 In 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. 0.66

00:13:40.000 It's absolutely unjust.

00:13:42.000 And the problem is, it causes legitimate frustration on the side of Muslim countries in this area. 0.90

00:13:49.000 At some point, they're going to be pissed off. 1.00

00:13:51.000 And I want you to understand, Nick, I think of things in the hundreds of years time scale.

00:13:56.000 I don't really care about what you could accomplish with this strike within five years, although I will argue you couldn't accomplish much.

00:14:04.000 But within 100 years, developing a nuclear bomb will not be a problem for any country on this earth.

00:14:13.000 A 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.

00:14:24.000 It's as easy as that.

00:14:25.000 There's your recipe for a nuclear bomb.

00:14:28.000 It's not going to be hard for anyone to do that within a hundred years.

00:14:32.000 And 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. 0.97

00:14:52.000 And 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. 1.00

00:15:09.000 Yeah, well, that's actually a great point. 1.00

00:15:12.000 And 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.

00:15:28.000 I think you follow it all the way through. 0.88

00:15:29.000 And in the first place, I would say, You're right that this coincides with Israeli interests.

00:15:33.000 And this is something that people think is lost on me or something.

00:15:38.000 I fully recognize that Israel wants to see Bashar al Assad removed.

00:15:42.000 They 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?

00:15:51.000 A mosaic of tribal fiefdoms so they couldn't present a threat to Israel. 0.84

00:15:55.000 They talk about how they want to destroy Iraq so they could destroy Israel, so they could dominate Lebanon. 0.99

00:16:00.000 So I understand it fully. 0.51

00:16:02.000 And 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.

00:16:19.000 And you heard this even on Tucker Carlson, where he asked that one senator, Why is this in our interest?

00:16:24.000 And he says, Oh, well, if we care about Israel. 0.89

00:16:26.000 So I fully understand. 0.99

00:16:27.000 I think.

00:16:28.000 And by the way, credits to Tucker Carlson for a mainstream news analyst.

00:16:32.000 He's one of the last true journalists alive.

00:16:36.000 Absolutely.

00:16:36.000 Yeah, we have a lot of respect for Tuck on this show.

00:16:40.000 He's one of the best.

00:16:41.000 He's one of the only ones, him, Ann Coulter, a few others that are still, I think, pushing the boundaries there. 0.97

00:16:47.000 But yeah, I mean, that's, I fully acknowledge it's in Israel's interest.

00:16:50.000 I happen to think that Trump is just different. 0.52

00:16:53.000 I think that's, people might call that naive.

00:16:55.000 People might say it's because I'm young.

00:16:56.000 I think Trump is separate from the people he surrounds himself with.

00:17:00.000 At the end of the day, I think the buck stops with him.

00:17:02.000 And I think he's committed to keeping us out of the Middle East.

00:17:04.000 So I see the missile strike and I understand all those concerns.

00:17:08.000 But I look at Trump's entire life.

00:17:10.000 I look at his presidency.

00:17:11.000 I look at the things he says, his deal making and all that.

00:17:15.000 And I say, this isn't entirely consistent with the narrative about him.

00:17:19.000 That he just changed his mind, or he's been compromised, or he's been blackmailed, or whatever it is like that.

00:17:25.000 So I think that the strike will remain limited.

00:17:27.000 But 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.

00:17:42.000 Because 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.

00:17:53.000 Denuclearization there, to get denuclearization in Iran, and to prevent the spread of chemical weapons. 0.66

00:17:58.000 I guess that's a tertiary concern with Bashar Assad because inevitably nuclear chemical weapons will spread. 0.75

00:18:04.000 I would just say I think that, I mean, I still support going against proliferation.

00:18:10.000 I don't think it's entirely inevitable that every country in the world will get nuclear weapons.

00:18:15.000 I think that it is in our national security interest to prevent the spread of these weapons.

00:18:20.000 I 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?

00:18:42.000 I mean, would that be possible in 50, 100 years?

00:18:46.000 I mean, it all depends on the economic developments, but what you need essentially is a mine.

00:18:51.000 So you need capacities to undertake a cooperative type mining operation.

00:18:58.000 A mine, a right place to get fissile material, and you need a bunch of scientists, which don't need to be.

00:19:06.000 I mean, the recipe is not that hard.

00:19:10.000 An engineer could get there easily.

00:19:14.000 And people who have, people who, even in the Assad government, there are people who have experience producing nuclear materials.

00:19:21.000 So, in theory, the knowledge is not the limit there.

00:19:24.000 Now, you ask about a group like ISIS in 100 years?

00:19:28.000 Maybe not.

00:19:28.000 But with the cooperation of a state, certainly.

00:19:32.000 I do think that any state who has some access to fissile material and to its own mining capabilities, it wouldn't be a problem. 0.66

00:19:40.000 Okay, 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. 0.86

00:19:59.000 And I think that's a fair point. 1.00

00:20:00.000 I 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. 0.99

00:20:11.000 Allies, or people like Syria, people like Iran, that's one of the only things holding us back. 1.00

00:20:15.000 So I would agree with that much. 0.99

00:20:17.000 But I would just say I mean, I think we would really have to think long and hard before we give up nuclear proliferation. 0.78

00:20:23.000 Because 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.

00:20:33.000 But 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.

00:20:42.000 Sorry.

00:20:44.000 No problem.

00:20:45.000 Where 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. 0.97

00:20:51.000 I mean, could you imagine a scenario where Iran gets a nuclear weapon because Israel does? 0.91

00:20:56.000 And then to balance that, Saudi Arabia gets a nuclear weapon, and then Qatar does, and then Turkey does, and then Egypt does. 0.77

00:21:01.000 I mean, that's the problem with proliferation you get one country who gets one, and then they all want one to balance against it.

00:21:08.000 And there is an argument to be made, and it has been made by neorealist foreign policy thinkers that.

00:21:13.000 More nuclear weapons creates balance because then people are just not going to go to war with each other because it would be too costly.

00:21:19.000 But 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.

00:21:29.000 And if that happens and there's a higher probability that everybody uses their nuclear weapons, I mean, what would be your contention against that?

00:21:37.000 That that's just inevitable and we have to live with that?

00:21:39.000 Yeah, I mean, the game theoretical scenarios, there are multiple.

00:21:43.000 The two stable systems that you propose are.

00:21:46.000 Possible avenues.

00:21:48.000 You can have bigger weapons becoming deterrent, and we see that in the animal kingdom.

00:21:54.000 We see monkeys are able to kill each other.

00:21:56.000 They have big teeth, they're capable of killing each other.

00:22:00.000 Yet, this ability to kill each other leads to systems of aggression that do not involve killing.

00:22:07.000 So, tread displays, for example.

00:22:09.000 You 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.

00:22:18.000 And so, yes, you can have a signaling system of Cooperation that occurs in systems that are highly armed.

00:22:25.000 The other scenario that you raise is also possible, which is everyone having a nuclear weapon.

00:22:31.000 Then it becomes, there's also the question of first strike and who becomes the first user of the nuclear weapon.

00:22:38.000 And we end up in scenarios of kind of psychotic theory of mind planning, just like Sam Harris even has been speculating about.

00:22:47.000 Sam Harris has been asking, is one of his books, could we be morally justified to do a nuclear first strike against a country like?

00:22:55.000 Well, this is what happens when you allow people to have nuclear weapons.

00:22:55.000 Iron.

00:23:03.000 They're starting to think, well, what if they eat first?

00:23:06.000 Should I eat first?

00:23:07.000 And you end up having an escalation of psychotic kind of theory of mind extrapolations of what the others think.

00:23:14.000 And then it becomes a very chaotic system that can explode at any time.

00:23:19.000 I think that it's inevitable that at some point it will explode.

00:23:23.000 What will probably cause this is the. 1.00

00:23:29.000 The increasing world population, and particularly the increasing Muslim population. 1.00

00:23:36.000 You look at the Middle East, you look at Israel on Google Maps, it is ridiculous. 1.00

00:23:40.000 It's a point in a notion of Muslim countries. 1.00

00:23:45.000 I would get that why they're paranoid. 1.00

00:23:47.000 They're at the wrong place.

00:23:49.000 And 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? 0.90

00:24:00.000 Well, it's difficult to say.

00:24:03.000 I think it all depends on how successful they are in implementing their current plan.

00:24:08.000 What 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. 0.93

00:24:29.000 Make it so that Iraq, Syria doesn't exist. 0.79

00:24:32.000 You just have these little tiny tribes that can be easily sparred against each other, manipulated, defeated, and so they pose no threat. 0.97

00:24:40.000 If that were the case in the next 50 to 100 years, I would say it's probably viable.

00:24:44.000 I 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.

00:25:02.000 If that's not the case, then it's very difficult.

00:25:04.000 Then we're looking at comprehensive peace.

00:25:06.000 Then we're looking at they have to make a peace agreement with Iran.

00:25:09.000 Is that tenable? 0.69

00:25:10.000 I think it'll be increasingly not tenable as China and Russia. 0.93

00:25:14.000 Present an alternative financial system to the United States's.

00:25:17.000 And so then it becomes a lot more complicated.

00:25:19.000 So I think it's too uncertain.

00:25:22.000 100, 200 years.

00:25:23.000 I mean, Israel's only 70 years old today, so it's tough to say.

00:25:27.000 Yeah, and what's happening right now is that the countries around Israel are getting more and more populated.

00:25:34.000 The world population is increasing, but Muslim countries are at the top of the increase rate.

00:25:40.000 And so at some point, there will be space missing. 0.50

00:25:43.000 And enemies like Israel, who Almost every young Muslim child in the world is getting brought up with the idea that Jews are a problem.

00:25:55.000 And this is something we need to consider. 0.69

00:25:57.000 Not all of them will be anti Semite, but most of them will be brought into some sort of environment that could favor anti Semitism. 0.81

00:26:06.000 And we have a global solidarity network based on religion, which can form a global alliance very quick. 0.80

00:26:13.000 Although you can have tribal conflicts, these tribal conflicts will be won by one or the other side.

00:26:19.000 And eventually, the entire Muslim population of this globe will be unified if they have to fight against a common enemy. 0.99

00:26:27.000 And I don't see Israel surviving that. 0.96

00:26:30.000 My fear is that I'm not even sure if I see America surviving that.

00:26:34.000 America 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.

00:26:49.000 At this point, everyone will reach us.

00:26:52.000 They will remember the atoms that we've done at slowing them down so they couldn't get there, but they will get there.

00:27:00.000 But 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.

00:27:09.000 I just think that's in our best interest to prevent that from happening.

00:27:13.000 And I think we can do that reasonably. 0.55

00:27:15.000 I think Russia would be a great partner in that eventually.

00:27:19.000 I think that's why ultimately it's a great idea to partner with Russia because.

00:27:23.000 You know, you read, for example, Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilization, and he talks about this. 0.95

00:27:27.000 He talks about what you're referring to as the Islamic resurgence, which is this population explosion, which started around the 70s and 80s. 0.76

00:27:35.000 And so you have a very young population, and it's still growing, a very fundamentalist population.

00:27:41.000 They are adhering to this very right wing, or not right wing, but a very extreme fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

00:27:48.000 And so they are rising very rapidly.

00:27:50.000 And gradually, the fault lines in the world on how the world order is divided are not ideological.

00:27:56.000 Now it's in terms of these civilizational groupings, like you said, which would be.

00:28:00.000 The Muslim world directed towards a single goal, all united.

00:28:04.000 The Christian world or the Western world, maybe all united.

00:28:07.000 And 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.

00:28:19.000 And I think even to an extent, I think we could cooperate with China on that, with Sino civilization. 0.85

00:28:23.000 I think it's in the interest of all the greater civilizations, the advanced ones, the development ones, to stop the proliferation of WMDs. 1.00

00:28:32.000 In Muslim countries. 1.00

00:28:33.000 I think it's doable at the end of the day that the pressure is there to denuclearize these kinds of countries. 0.90

00:28:40.000 And 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.

00:28:55.000 I think now is the time to say this is the standard, these are the rules.

00:29:00.000 If you have these weapons, there's going to be a consequence.

00:29:03.000 And people might be able to easily develop then, but there still will be consequences.

00:29:06.000 I think.

00:29:07.000 I 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.

00:29:15.000 I don't think that's a guarantee.

00:29:17.000 And 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. 0.57

00:29:25.000 Then Syria's going to get one, Iran will get one, Saudi Arabia, Qatar.

00:29:29.000 And that's a terrible scenario where, because of the security dilemma, they'll all be building up their arsenals.

00:29:35.000 It's a very volatile and unstable region.

00:29:37.000 One day you're going to have doomsday.

00:29:39.000 I think it's far more.

00:29:41.000 Practical to try for some degree of non proliferation than it is to say, let's just see what proliferation entails.

00:29:50.000 It's just everybody gets their WMDs, right?

00:29:52.000 I mean, can you acknowledge or maybe assuage our concerns about mass proliferation?

00:29:59.000 I mean, I cannot, I don't entertain this scenario seriously because I think that we are bound with time.

00:30:06.000 It's a matter of time before creating a nuclear weapon is just too easy.

00:30:12.000 And so I tend to think of everything you suggest there as very short term thinking.

00:30:18.000 We're talking about decades at best.

00:30:22.000 I'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.

00:30:33.000 I would follow that logic. 0.60

00:30:35.000 However, the problem in this case, and the Western media is Already discovering the bullshit of this story that Syria has been using gas attacks. 0.84

00:30:49.000 If the Western media could convince guys like me and you, imagine the Arab media. 0.74

00:30:56.000 I mean, it's going to be conspiracy theory all over us. 0.98

00:31:00.000 They don't even need the conspiracy theory to be true, to be globally adhered within the Muslim population. 0.98

00:31:07.000 And 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. 0.70

00:31:15.000 May 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. 0.77

00:31:38.000 And 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. 0.98

00:31:48.000 And they will have Nick Fruentes admitting on YouTube as an America first show, showing this is the typical American.

00:31:56.000 He actually believes that the chemical attacks have not been caused by Assad, but he still advocates for repression of Assad.

00:32:04.000 This violates principles which, at the individual level, we would say it violates the presumption of innocence.

00:32:10.000 But a similar principle must be applied to countries.

00:32:13.000 We cannot say, oh, a certain event that's negative has occurred, therefore I'm going to punish a random act.

00:32:19.000 In that.

00:32:20.000 Assad, 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.

00:32:30.000 I just don't see where that becomes a threat to the United States.

00:32:34.000 I 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.

00:32:47.000 Admittedly, it's not, I mean, it is a problematic situation.

00:32:50.000 And I hate using that word, but it is, you know, it does present problems that we do strike without establishing all the evidence.

00:32:57.000 But I think it could go either way.

00:32:58.000 I mean, you see that the inspectors that arrived in Syria were blocked by the Russians.

00:33:02.000 They said that first you had to get permission from the United Nations to go in.

00:33:07.000 Russia vetoed a resolution by the United States and the other P5 nations to send in independent investigators to look into it.

00:33:15.000 So I think it could go either way.

00:33:17.000 I think all the nations of the world recognize that there is this great power politics going on.

00:33:22.000 I just don't see how that is.

00:33:24.000 More of a national security concern than the nuclear arsenal in North Korea.

00:33:28.000 I 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.

00:33:40.000 But I look at the situation with North Korea and I see very limited options. 0.64

00:33:45.000 It's a very constrained situation for how do we disarm this country without going to war.

00:33:50.000 There's very few options, and one of them is diplomacy.

00:33:53.000 The only way that we can make diplomacy work is to convince them that the alternative will be far worse.

00:33:58.000 And I think the only way to do that is to demonstrate that you have the willingness to use your military capability.

00:34:03.000 Now, does that mean that it's fair?

00:34:05.000 Does that mean it's moral?

00:34:07.000 Is that even a good option?

00:34:09.000 Probably not. 0.91

00:34:10.000 But 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. 0.65

00:34:27.000 And we look at even the situation in Yemen. 0.56

00:34:29.000 We look at many of the situations in the Middle East where we're.

00:34:32.000 And horrible things going on.

00:34:33.000 But I think that at the end of the day, those short term tactical goals outweigh this kind of, well, there's mistrust, there's bad blood.

00:34:43.000 I think there's already mistrust.

00:34:44.000 I think there's already bad blood. 0.99

00:34:46.000 I think the marginal, you make that marginally worse, but for like a great improvement with Korea. 1.00

00:34:52.000 And so I think it's, at the end of the day, it's about trade offs. 0.69

00:34:56.000 What if I ask you, what is the elements of North Korea that are concerning to you? 0.60

00:35:02.000 Well, I got to be honest.

00:35:03.000 I 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.

00:35:22.000 My concern is that what happens when the North Korean regime, which is incredibly fragile, collapses?

00:35:27.000 Who do those arms fall into the hands of?

00:35:30.000 What happens when Kim Jong un dies?

00:35:32.000 Who comes into his place?

00:35:33.000 Is that person?

00:35:34.000 More pragmatic?

00:35:35.000 Is he more rational or is he less rational?

00:35:37.000 Is he a zealot?

00:35:38.000 And 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.

00:35:49.000 If they get a nuke, it's all over.

00:35:50.000 I don't believe that.

00:35:51.000 I'm just concerned with a nuclear arsenal in the hands of North Korea in 50 to 100 years is a very unstable situation.

00:35:58.000 I just think it's unacceptable for the United States.

00:36:01.000 And is that based on the current leader of North Korea?

00:36:04.000 Because it's It seems that the situation you suggest could happen to any country in the Middle East.

00:36:10.000 Unstability is there.

00:36:11.000 Potential for nuclear armament is there.

00:36:14.000 I don't see what's special about the concern for North Korea right now. 0.81

00:36:19.000 Well, North Korea has a nuclear arsenal.

00:36:21.000 I mean, Iran has a nuclear capability.

00:36:24.000 They could probably develop one if they wanted to, it would be tremendously costly to them.

00:36:29.000 It would take time.

00:36:30.000 They have a capability, they don't have an arsenal. 0.96

00:36:32.000 Korea does have an arsenal, they already have the weapons. 0.81

00:36:35.000 You know, Syria, and it's notable because after the Iraq war, And I was against the Iraq war. 0.91

00:36:40.000 I think we served Israeli interests completely.

00:36:43.000 And we were sold into that by Israeli neocons, essentially, double agents in our own government.

00:36:48.000 Nevertheless, one of the positive externalities of the Iraq war was that Syria, Libya, and Iran all suspended their nuclear programs.

00:36:56.000 Iran 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. 0.86

00:37:08.000 So at the end of the day, it's that they have an arsenal. 0.70

00:37:11.000 I guess that our difference boils down to how long we look at this over.

00:37:17.000 I mean, you're alarmed by North Korea being the closest worrying country to be acquiring nuclear weapons. 0.74

00:37:25.000 Okay, they have developed the technology to get there.

00:37:28.000 Now, 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?

00:37:38.000 We're still going to have the same problem.

00:37:40.000 And to me, the long term problem is determined by demographics. 0.83

00:37:45.000 North Korea is not expanding. 0.95

00:37:47.000 Muslim populations of this world are expanding.

00:37:50.000 They are expanding both in their own country in tribal conflict, they are also expanding through immigration.

00:37:57.000 So, at some point, there are countries like Canada, France, Sweden, who are subject to potentially be majority Muslim countries. 0.98

00:38:05.000 And 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. 0.99

00:38:15.000 I 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. 0.83

00:38:26.000 I think you believe that nonproliferation is not tenable.

00:38:30.000 It's just not practical to say that we can limit the development of nuclear weapons in other countries.

00:38:35.000 I think it's impractical to say that every country should have nuclear weapons, or rather that that would be a more tenable situation.

00:38:45.000 I just think that, or even, not even that.

00:38:47.000 I mean, maybe.

00:38:48.000 Maybe that'll happen, and maybe we'd have to see what that would happen.

00:38:51.000 Maybe that's inevitable. 1.00

00:38:53.000 But 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. 1.00

00:39:02.000 It's kind of foolhardy to try to limit the use of these weapons. 1.00

00:39:05.000 We do more harm than good.

00:39:07.000 And 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. 0.53

00:39:16.000 I think that's a lot less practical than saying limit their use of weapons of mass destruction. 0.95

00:39:22.000 I think it's basically a foregone conclusion the Muslim world, they fought us for millennia. 1.00

00:39:27.000 They fought us before Israel, after Israel, and I think there will always be that troubled mentality over there. 1.00

00:39:34.000 I don't think that's in the cards for us.

00:39:36.000 I mean, let's say there is proliferation, we don't do anything to stop it, and the rapprochement doesn't work. 0.66

00:39:42.000 They still don't like us because it's Christian or because Israel still has influence. 0.79

00:39:47.000 I mean, then what do we do? 0.98

00:39:49.000 Well, first, to be clear about my position, I'm not arguing that we will have harmony and life with Muslims around. 1.00

00:39:58.000 I'm not saying.

00:39:59.000 We will have a cooperative development between the Muslim world and the West. 1.00

00:40:04.000 I think everything will degrade within the next few, at least maybe 200 years or maybe a few decades. 0.97

00:40:12.000 So 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.

00:40:17.000 I say we are in an escalation of violence.

00:40:20.000 This escalation of violence, we should not be the ones doing the first strike.

00:40:25.000 What we should be doing is develop air defense systems that are. 0.99

00:40:31.000 More and more advanced so that we can defend ourselves when shit goes down.

00:40:36.000 I 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. 0.98

00:40:47.000 And this place, we never get in. 0.89

00:40:49.000 And any missiles that come from there, you need to be prepared to shoot it while it's in the sky.

00:40:55.000 I 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.

00:41:05.000 They have something that was, to me, not expected in terms of capability to strike down missiles.

00:41:13.000 Yeah, well, I mean, they said that they struck down 71.

00:41:17.000 I don't know if that's confirmed by both sides, but either way, I mean, they did do a pretty good job.

00:41:22.000 They 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. 0.64

00:41:28.000 So it is, Assad is, he's not going quietly, and I'm rooting for him, you know? 0.90

00:41:34.000 So it is impressive, yeah. 0.70

00:41:37.000 So it's amazing the contradiction that I hear in your discourse.

00:41:43.000 You're saying you're rooting for Assad, but you're also rooting for the strike on Assad?

00:41:48.000 Yeah.

00:41:49.000 Well, because I don't see the strike as intended to implement regime change.

00:41:53.000 I think the strike had nothing to do with Syria at all.

00:41:56.000 I know it directly affected Syria, but I don't see that as impeding his ability to wage war or stopping him.

00:42:03.000 I see that as something that was necessary for us in our diplomacy with Korea.

00:42:08.000 That is extremely dangerous discourse. 0.57

00:42:10.000 I 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. 0.98

00:42:31.000 They don't care about hurting our civilization, keeping our civilization down, neutralizing our own ability to develop just for their own interests. 0.95

00:42:41.000 And I'm very worried about this kind of discourse, to be honest.

00:42:44.000 Well, I think they know that.

00:42:45.000 I think that we're kind of past that point with them.

00:42:48.000 I 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. 0.96

00:43:00.000 But I think we're already entrenched in there. 0.96

00:43:04.000 We've already done so much damage to Syria, so much to Iraq.

00:43:08.000 We've meddled in there in countless ways.

00:43:10.000 We're still in like five or six different countries on the ground.

00:43:14.000 And 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.

00:43:22.000 And now that's a tool at our disposal.

00:43:24.000 I just think that, and this is something that I agree with you in principle.

00:43:28.000 I think that's where it's difficult because I totally agree with you in principle that it's probably wrong.

00:43:34.000 It's probably going to make these people very upset and it's not ideal. 0.80

00:43:38.000 But 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. 0.79

00:43:51.000 And I would be willing to do just about anything to stop that from happening. 0.80

00:43:55.000 Unfortunately, that's how it works in foreign policy.

00:43:57.000 Like, for example, in the Reagan administration, we supported Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because we wanted to take out Russia.

00:44:05.000 And people say, oh, well, that led to the creation of Al Qaeda and to the current situation in Afghanistan and all that.

00:44:12.000 And I say, you just simply, in terms of foreign policy, you don't have that hindsight.

00:44:17.000 You don't have that future looking.

00:44:19.000 When Reagan was looking at the Soviet Union, which is a massive empire that he had to topple, that was our number one security threat. 0.53

00:44:27.000 And the Taliban was there, the Mujahideen. 0.55

00:44:29.000 I mean, they were these little guys.

00:44:30.000 In the same way, we're already in Syria. 0.90

00:44:33.000 The predominant concern is proliferation. 0.77

00:44:35.000 We did a symbolic strike.

00:44:36.000 It wasn't ideal, but I think at the end of the day, we have to be practical about it.

00:44:42.000 Well, ultimately, that's why people say to you, you're taking the neocon position.

00:44:47.000 Because 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.

00:44:57.000 You're doing it in a tactical fashion, you're doing it in a kind of contoured way.

00:45:01.000 You're not replacing a region, but you are trying to change the world with missiles.

00:45:08.000 And what you're describing is a mentality that is of someone within the escalation of violence.

00:45:15.000 And there is no place for peace in that plan.

00:45:18.000 In that plan, you're describing a guy who's willing to strike for pragmatic reasons, even if it's against the wrong target.

00:45:27.000 And there is no other response that you will get from these people than violence and intergenerational hatred.

00:45:34.000 Now, it's maybe we're there.

00:45:37.000 It'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. 0.81

00:45:46.000 I'm going to punch him first.

00:45:47.000 And the other guy says, Oh, I feel that he's about to punch me. 0.99

00:45:50.000 So I'm going to punch him before.

00:45:52.000 The escalation of violence that you describe, we may be committed to going down that path.

00:45:58.000 But 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.

00:46:12.000 And 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.

00:46:24.000 In 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.

00:46:37.000 The people of Syria will not forget this.

00:46:40.000 It will be imprinted in their mind and in the mind of their children.

00:46:44.000 And what you're describing is nothing else than the escalation of violence, which inevitably will lead to an answer when they can.

00:46:53.000 I just don't believe in peace.

00:46:55.000 I think at the end of the day, maybe it boils down to that.

00:46:59.000 I simply don't believe that we'll ever achieve world peace.

00:47:02.000 I 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.

00:47:11.000 And, you know, I don't think that makes me a neocon.

00:47:13.000 I think that makes me a realist.

00:47:15.000 A neocon says.

00:47:16.000 Let's rewrite maps and we'll change ideology, we'll change and win over hearts and minds, and we'll remake governments.

00:47:24.000 A realist says the world is a pretty dangerous place.

00:47:28.000 It's a Hobbesian place.

00:47:30.000 We can never guarantee our security, but we have to be pragmatic about it and we have to make trade offs ultimately.

00:47:36.000 And so I'll admit it's not something that we should be proud of.

00:47:40.000 I don't think it's a principled stand to take that we're in favor of strikes.

00:47:44.000 But 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.

00:47:55.000 If your principle is self defense and the pursuit of self interest, I think just about anything can be justified.

00:48:02.000 And additionally, this was a strike that had no casualties.

00:48:05.000 I think it's worth mentioning that nobody even died in the strike.

00:48:08.000 They blew up, my battery's dying here, so we might have to switch over to a different headset.

00:48:13.000 But they blew up a few facilities.

00:48:15.000 They were all empty.

00:48:16.000 There was nobody even in there.

00:48:18.000 And at the end of the day, Israel, Syria, Russia, I mean, all kinds of nations came out and said, It didn't even have a consequence.

00:48:25.000 It had no effect.

00:48:26.000 It was basically a failure, the strike was. 0.89

00:48:28.000 And 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. 0.86

00:48:36.000 I 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? 0.95

00:48:51.000 Is Syria going to ever not have bad blood with us? 0.65

00:48:54.000 At 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. 0.95

00:49:02.000 So we've got to get rid of our relationship with Israel. 0.96

00:49:05.000 We've got to completely get out of Syria. 1.00

00:49:06.000 Are they going to forgive us? 0.72

00:49:08.000 Are they going to say, we no longer have bad blood against you?

00:49:12.000 So 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.

00:49:25.000 On 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.

00:49:36.000 Now, on the question of justice, I want to clarify I'm not looking at this from a fundamental principle point of view.

00:49:43.000 My argument is not justice is good, therefore let's follow something that is just.

00:49:48.000 My argument is that justice is something that your opponent will perceive.

00:49:53.000 And I'm saying it is sometimes pragmatic.

00:49:57.000 To be following ideals of justice.

00:50:00.000 Because 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.

00:50:22.000 Because 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?

00:50:35.000 It's certainly not by continuing the current behavior that you're going to create a sense that America is just.

00:50:42.000 And as long as there are victims of the unjust actions of America, America is living on the credit card of international credibility.

00:50:51.000 I just think that that kind of credibility is a very dubious thing.

00:50:56.000 I mean, Barack Obama's strategy was let's try and create goodwill.

00:50:59.000 And it's admittedly, this is something boomers say, this is something neocons say, but Barack Obama showed goodwill towards all these countries.

00:51:07.000 Barack Obama.

00:51:08.000 He backed down from a strike in Syria.

00:51:10.000 Barack Obama gave the Iran deal in 2015.

00:51:14.000 Barack Obama said, let's reset relations with Russia, with Hillary Clinton.

00:51:18.000 She presented the big button to Sergei Lavrov, and they had a laugh.

00:51:22.000 He had a pivot to Asia.

00:51:23.000 His whole approach was, let's withdraw from the world. 1.00

00:51:26.000 We'll draw from Iraq. 1.00

00:51:28.000 We'll draw from Afghanistan. 0.99

00:51:30.000 We'll give Iran our deal. 0.99

00:51:31.000 He was even, and to his credit, he was even very and harshly critical of Israel. 0.97

00:51:37.000 We had a very cold and frosty relationship with them, still gave them all kinds of money because they control the Congress.

00:51:42.000 But We had a very cold relationship with them.

00:51:44.000 A lot of resolutions went through the UN condemning them and all the rest.

00:51:49.000 And it still didn't work.

00:51:51.000 I mean, you saw that Russia still didn't care for us.

00:51:53.000 You saw that Iran still didn't care for us, didn't respect us.

00:51:57.000 North Korea didn't respect us.

00:51:59.000 Our approach with the world was Iran, you're another civilized nation.

00:52:04.000 Let's sit down and make a deal.

00:52:05.000 Let's sit down and actually discuss, and we'll make a deal.

00:52:08.000 Did North Korea say, look at that goodwill?

00:52:11.000 Let's sit down and we'll give up our nuclear weapons.

00:52:13.000 We don't need them anymore.

00:52:14.000 You're a reasonable nation.

00:52:15.000 And 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.

00:52:23.000 And sure, he did drone bombings, he did other things.

00:52:26.000 I'm not saying he was perfect, but I am saying that he, alternatively, relatively speaking, was more engaging with these rival powers.

00:52:34.000 And we saw no reciprocation.

00:52:36.000 We saw no proportional decrease in animosity.

00:52:40.000 Nobody was like, oh, maybe America's okay.

00:52:42.000 Maybe we like America. 0.93

00:52:43.000 It was the same.

00:52:44.000 Maybe they even disrespected us more.

00:52:46.000 So I just think that the kind of strong, Over the top, dropping missiles.

00:52:51.000 I think it makes us more unpopular sometimes, but I think at the end of the day, we get a better result.

00:52:56.000 I think it's more pragmatic for our interests.

00:53:00.000 I think you trust words too much, and my morality is based around actions and their consequences.

00:53:06.000 I don't care if Iran doesn't say that.

00:53:09.000 Oh, hang on.

00:53:10.000 Just one second.

00:53:11.000 I got to switch headsets here.

00:53:13.000 My wireless just came out.

00:53:15.000 It'll take one sec here.

00:53:17.000 Let me just plug this guy in.

00:53:20.000 And do that.

00:53:21.000 Sorry about that.

00:53:22.000 We're interrupting a good flow here.

00:53:26.000 Do and let me just change this one.

00:53:35.000 Okay, can you say something real quick?

00:53:39.000 Hello.

00:53:39.000 Yep.

00:53:40.000 Okay.

00:53:41.000 And wait, just one more time so I can see if it's on.

00:53:43.000 Hello.

00:53:44.000 This is Jeff.

00:53:45.000 We're great.

00:53:46.000 Okay.

00:53:46.000 All right.

00:53:47.000 So, 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.

00:53:54.000 First, you are not entitled to countries reciprocating.

00:53:58.000 You should just be satisfied that they're not attacking you.

00:54:01.000 If you start saying a country doesn't have the legitimate right to arm itself, then you are already invading on their freedom.

00:54:09.000 You're already telling them that they cannot do something that you do on your side.

00:54:14.000 And that's the root of the injustice, which also motivates people to be pissed off at America in this world.

00:54:21.000 That's why people don't like America.

00:54:23.000 It's that America doesn't let other countries do.

00:54:26.000 What it does itself. 0.59

00:54:28.000 And that's a legitimate critique of America. 1.00

00:54:32.000 And 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. 0.98

00:54:43.000 I'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. 0.94

00:55:02.000 And I don't think that maintaining injustice in this world is a viable option in the long term. 0.54

00:55:10.000 But I mean, don't you think that's the idea that Iran has like a right to arm themselves? 0.83

00:55:17.000 In my opinion, that kind of thing is just simply not in the world that we live in. 0.63

00:55:24.000 That's not in our lived reality that, well, Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, so I guess they just get nuclear weapons.

00:55:30.000 I mean, I think that we should be pursuing our security and national interests. 0.86

00:55:35.000 Even when they contradict the interests of other nations or the rights of other nations.

00:55:39.000 I 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. 0.68

00:55:48.000 If 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. 0.90

00:55:58.000 I don't care that they have a right to defend themselves. 0.85

00:56:02.000 That they have that stockpile, even by virtue of it existing, is a latent threat to our security and our interests. 0.74

00:56:08.000 And I would rather have our country be succeeding and be secure than Russia have its right to arm itself. 0.87

00:56:15.000 I think that that's our right as the country with the most guns, the most successful country. 0.91

00:56:20.000 I think there's no equality.

00:56:21.000 There's no moral equality between these different countries in the first place. 0.77

00:56:25.000 And 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? 0.76

00:56:36.000 If 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. 0.67

00:56:44.000 I just think it's a naive interpretation of the world.

00:56:46.000 China's doing the same thing.

00:56:47.000 I 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.

00:56:59.000 And they say, okay, we're going to build these for you and we're going to build it on debt.

00:57:03.000 The countries can't pay back the debt, so China says, well, you'll just lease it to us for 100 years.

00:57:08.000 And we could station our ships there, we could put our troops there, we could do all kinds of things.

00:57:12.000 And they're taking advantage.

00:57:13.000 They're taking advantage and abusing all the nations surrounding them. 0.68

00:57:16.000 Just ask people in Vietnam and Japan and South Korea and Malaysia. 0.83

00:57:20.000 They understand China's a menace. 0.92

00:57:22.000 They're a threat. 0.99

00:57:23.000 And that's not to say that China's bad and we're good or that, you know, well, they have a right to or they don't. 0.57

00:57:28.000 It's just simply the reality that countries are going to compete.

00:57:33.000 It's not about justice.

00:57:34.000 It's not about right to arm.

00:57:35.000 It's not about bad blood.

00:57:37.000 It's about all countries are pursuing their own security, their own interest, which is their own security.

00:57:43.000 And they'll step on the rights of other countries.

00:57:45.000 We just want to win.

00:57:46.000 We just want to be the best at it.

00:57:48.000 And we want to be the best at it for the longest time.

00:57:50.000 And 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.

00:58:00.000 And there might have to be some kind of a consolation or reconciliation. 0.84

00:58:04.000 But for the time being, I think it's the most practical way.

00:58:08.000 Well, it is clearly what I would characterize as a neocon and interventionist approach where you believe that.

00:58:16.000 The US is entitled to stuff that you would not grant to others.

00:58:20.000 And this system, it is internally consistent.

00:58:23.000 I'm not saying you're completely beside the track here.

00:58:26.000 Okay, 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.

00:58:38.000 But this argument holds as long as the US is the hegemon.

00:58:42.000 And if I were you, I would start thinking about a world in which the US is just another country, a pretty average country indeed.

00:58:52.000 Well, I mean, that's the thing though, is and that gets back to the point about the tweet.

00:58:58.000 It's not neoconservative.

00:58:59.000 Neoconservatism says we care that Iraq is a democracy.

00:59:04.000 We care that Iran is. 0.94

00:59:06.000 It's not just sufficient that Iran is contained.

00:59:08.000 Iran has to be a democracy, and that's the safest way to make the world secure for America.

00:59:14.000 And I don't believe that. 0.99

00:59:15.000 You just gave the key there.

00:59:17.000 That was the justification.

00:59:18.000 I don't think that.

00:59:19.000 Well, some liberals on the left may have been charmed by the idea of democracy itself.

00:59:24.000 However, most of the arguments for military interventions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere were always grounded in the security.

00:59:32.000 Of America.

00:59:33.000 So they were just like you, an American supremacist who believed that intervening in others' liberties is needed to protect America's interests.

00:59:42.000 And we see what this seeded in the world.

00:59:45.000 But that's realism.

00:59:46.000 Anti Americanism and an ongoing war which builds up and which we will be facing within the next few hundred years.

00:59:56.000 It's not neoconservatism, it's realism.

00:59:59.000 I mean, this is what Great Britain did before America even existed and well into America's existence.

01:00:05.000 This is what. 0.86

01:00:06.000 Germany did on the continent.

01:00:08.000 This is what all kinds of great powers have done in history.

01:00:11.000 It's not neoconservatism to say a nation will put its interests before the interests of other nations.

01:00:17.000 I mean, that's just realism.

01:00:19.000 That's what America first means. 0.63

01:00:20.000 I think that America's security interests come before Iran's or North Korea's right to defend themselves.

01:00:27.000 I mean, do they have a right to defend themselves? 0.75

01:00:29.000 Maybe in this abstract world, like maybe they do. 0.57

01:00:33.000 But I just think I don't really care that North Korea has a right to arm themselves.

01:00:37.000 If that presents a threat to our nation and our communities and our families and all the rest, it's just not a concern to me.

01:00:43.000 And that's realism.

01:00:44.000 A neoconservative would say, therefore, we have to invade North Korea and we have to impose our values.

01:00:52.000 It'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.

01:01:06.000 I don't believe in that.

01:01:07.000 I think there's always going to be this state of conflict, there's always going to be this natural state of war.

01:01:12.000 And it's our prerogative.

01:01:14.000 It's our right.

01:01:15.000 It just makes sense for us to pursue our interests.

01:01:17.000 That's just realism.

01:01:18.000 I'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. 0.68

01:01:25.000 And 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.

01:01:38.000 Let'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. 0.87

01:01:46.000 Even 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?

01:02:01.000 No, I don't think it would be justified.

01:02:04.000 I 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.

01:02:14.000 I mean, you can maintain that just because America is so far ahead.

01:02:19.000 In terms of technological and economical development, but this situation cannot be maintained.

01:02:24.000 Do you recognize that within the next 100 years, America will not be the power that it is economically right now?

01:02:32.000 Absolutely.

01:02:33.000 Absolutely.

01:02:34.000 So 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. 0.94

01:02:44.000 Soon there will be Chinese people or Muslim people thinking exactly like you, but not of America. 0.93

01:02:51.000 Of whatever alliance they formed. 1.00

01:02:54.000 And I think that'll happen regardless.

01:02:56.000 I think that'll happen whether we're nice to them, whether we're not nice to them. 0.50

01:03:00.000 China will rise.

01:03:01.000 India, you know, we'll see.

01:03:03.000 They say like India superpower 2050, and they don't use toilets.

01:03:06.000 But, you know, India will be there to an extent. 0.91

01:03:09.000 Brazil, South Africa, Russia may rise up again.

01:03:12.000 We will live in a multipolar order within the century, no doubt.

01:03:15.000 I just think that it would be silly for us to say, let's not pursue our interests to their fullest extent now.

01:03:22.000 Because we may want to have goodwill later.

01:03:26.000 I think there's no such thing as goodwill.

01:03:28.000 I think that countries get a taste of power, and this is borne out by the history.

01:03:32.000 This is borne out by the record of history that countries get a taste of power.

01:03:35.000 They're able to disarm countries next to them, they're able to take out their competitors, and they do it. 0.96

01:03:40.000 You know, I mean, we've been fighting the Muslims since Islam even existed, since the first caliphate, the second caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. 0.99

01:03:49.000 What ill will did we do towards them to have them invade in the Balkans or in Spain or in France? 0.99

01:03:54.000 What ill will? 0.68

01:03:55.000 To cause the siege of Vienna or the taking of Constantinople.

01:03:58.000 I mean, this has always been going on. 0.90

01:04:01.000 And 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.

01:04:17.000 I don't think we should go and invade everybody.

01:04:19.000 I just think we should pursue our interests.

01:04:22.000 Personally, 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.

01:04:29.000 What I say is the sentences that you say right now in the public space will be used against America in a hundred years.

01:04:37.000 There will be people saying exactly the same words, but for their country.

01:04:41.000 And America will be easy to ignore in a world where it is not so technologically advanced and so economically advanced.

01:04:49.000 So, my conclusion to this would be I mean, start thinking about air defense, start thinking about That will come your way. 0.82

01:05:03.000 Personally, I'll be moving north because I want to survive the nuclear holocaust. 0.88

01:05:08.000 All right. 0.93

01:05:08.000 Well, we'll leave it at that. 0.93

01:05:09.000 I'll let you have the last word on that.

01:05:12.000 It was a great discussion.

01:05:13.000 I really appreciate that you came on because you're right.

01:05:16.000 And I think you provided a little bit of complexity to it that wasn't there in terms of that's what it's about at the end of the day.

01:05:16.000 It is.

01:05:24.000 You boil, and I keep saying at the end of the day, ultimately, that's what it's about.

01:05:27.000 Fundamentally, it's about.

01:05:31.000 Proliferation or non proliferation, real politique versus, I guess, a more, maybe not principled.

01:05:38.000 I don't think you describe it as principled, but maybe a longer term view of things.

01:05:42.000 And so I think those are, and these are conversations that have to happen.

01:05:45.000 These are discussions that have to happen because it's not going to stay this way forever.

01:05:49.000 And maybe not even for a short time.

01:05:51.000 Maybe it'll change very rapidly.

01:05:53.000 Who knows?

01:05:54.000 But thanks again so much for coming on.

01:05:55.000 Do you mind taking a few questions or do you got to get out of here?

01:05:58.000 I'm up for questions.

01:06:00.000 Nothing to do tonight.

01:06:02.000 Great.

01:06:02.000 Well, let me pull up and we'll.

01:06:04.000 See some of our questions here.

01:06:08.000 And I'll give it a sec to load up here.

01:06:11.000 Let's see.

01:06:13.000 Let me pull up my YouTube page.

01:06:15.000 I'm going to have to take off the display capture just for a moment so people aren't going to see my tabs here.

01:06:21.000 And then I'll throw it right back up and I'll throw down the questions here.

01:06:25.000 So we got some super chats.

01:06:29.000 Let's see.

01:06:31.000 People have any questions for JF?

01:06:35.000 So people are really loving it.

01:06:37.000 They say we need to have a weekly show.

01:06:39.000 People are saying, OK, so Russian colluder says Iraq, Libya, Syria all gave up their WMDs, all were attacked, anyways.

01:06:48.000 Syria was just attacked without any evidence. 0.68

01:06:50.000 How does this help nonproliferation?

01:06:52.000 Well, this is more of a question for me.

01:06:53.000 But does anybody have any questions for Mr. JF?

01:06:56.000 Maybe I'll just go into the live chat.

01:06:58.000 I'll read those that are for you, and I'll be happy to keep you on the watch and check for the responses.

01:07:06.000 Yeah, 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.

01:07:17.000 I think it's a mistake to say that.

01:07:19.000 The United States is the United States, as opposed to Bush, Obama, Trump.

01:07:25.000 And granted, there is a deep state.

01:07:26.000 I'm not denying the existence of a shadow government, that the policies basically stay the same.

01:07:31.000 But I do think it is different when you have a different guy in charge who he goes in with the Syria strike, for example.

01:07:36.000 He strikes.

01:07:38.000 And 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.

01:07:51.000 Does that encourage or discourage North Korea to denuclearize?

01:07:55.000 I think there's no other way to look at it that it encourages them to denuclearize.

01:07:58.000 Because although you could make the argument that, well, how could that build the goodwill? 0.62

01:08:03.000 We struck Syria without evidence. 0.67

01:08:05.000 I think North Korea is a real politique actor just like us. 0.67

01:08:09.000 And while people are seeing, well, was there evidence?

01:08:11.000 Was there not?

01:08:12.000 I think what North Korea sees is Donald Trump is willing to use force.

01:08:16.000 Donald Trump is somebody who maybe is going to go to war, maybe he's not.

01:08:19.000 But it's in my interest that he doesn't go to war.

01:08:23.000 And how do I do that?

01:08:24.000 I give him what he wants.

01:08:25.000 And so.

01:08:26.000 Is that a soft diplomacy?

01:08:27.000 Is that like, hey, friend, let's meet halfway?

01:08:30.000 Of course not.

01:08:31.000 But I think that's ultimately how the calculation plays out he's willing and able to use force.

01:08:37.000 I'm in his crosshairs.

01:08:38.000 I should probably give him what he wants.

01:08:41.000 And Syria, you know, they say they gave up their chemical weapons.

01:08:44.000 There's been chemical weapons used throughout the civil war.

01:08:47.000 I'm not saying Bashar Assad's chemical weapons use chemical weapons.

01:08:50.000 I'm saying we don't know. 0.62

01:08:52.000 And I think that's pretty much confirmed.

01:08:54.000 North Korea knows, ultimately, because they say they're complicit in the flow of chemical weapons.

01:08:59.000 Technology and material.

01:09:00.000 It's difficult for us to say because we don't have access to the information on the ground, what the Pentagon has.

01:09:06.000 But 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.

01:09:18.000 And what do you think about that?

01:09:19.000 What do you have to say about that, Mr. JF?

01:09:21.000 Yeah, 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.

01:09:32.000 It's a micro view of a violent escalation, but you're looking at just one step in it.

01:09:39.000 There will be responses, there will be legitimate responses to it, and who knows when they will happen.

01:09:46.000 Yeah, no, it's true.

01:09:47.000 That's the tragedy, I think, of these kinds of things, there are always unintended consequences.

01:09:53.000 I don't think anybody's saying there won't be bad consequences.

01:09:56.000 I think that's the takeaway that I'd like people to get out of it for people who say, and for you who say this is very reckless.

01:10:02.000 I acknowledge that there are issues with this line of thinking.

01:10:06.000 There will be negative outcomes.

01:10:08.000 I just think that the positives outweigh the negatives.

01:10:12.000 And we'll see if we have some more super chats, hopefully, some ones for our guest here.

01:10:18.000 Oops, that's not the right thing to click there.

01:10:22.000 So let me pull it up on the super chats.

01:10:26.000 Sheet 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? 0.92

01:10:36.000 Well, if the expression was clear, I guess you would be justified. 0.96

01:10:40.000 It's a threat of violence, and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is violence.

01:10:44.000 Okay, well, there you go.

01:10:46.000 I think that's reasonable.

01:10:47.000 I think maybe that's where we disagree how do you interpret that kind of violence?

01:10:53.000 How do you interpret a just aggression, maybe, that's committed by one country against the United States?

01:11:01.000 I 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.

01:11:11.000 I see that.

01:11:12.000 And even that, I would say, is bluster.

01:11:15.000 Even that, I would say, is rhetoric.

01:11:16.000 But I think longer term, the threat is still there.

01:11:19.000 And that's why it's in our interest to dismantle it in whatever way we can.

01:11:23.000 War would probably be very costly, but I think it's just unacceptable. 0.90

01:11:28.000 What would you say in that specific instance about North Korea?

01:11:32.000 Well, 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.

01:11:45.000 Because sometimes they claim that in the newspaper.

01:11:48.000 Then I read the original statement and it's more like.

01:11:51.000 We hate Americans.

01:11:52.000 And 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. 0.60

01:12:05.000 Although I wouldn't say we should intervene at all times.

01:12:08.000 We 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.

01:12:17.000 Well, yeah, I think I'm fine with that.

01:12:17.000 Sure, sure.

01:12:19.000 Like Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.

01:12:23.000 I don't, that's not a priority for me. 1.00

01:12:24.000 I don't think we should go in there. 0.79

01:12:26.000 But 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. 0.79

01:12:46.000 And so I will acknowledge for anybody who thinks it's in doubt or it's in question that Israel is the number one. 0.89

01:12:53.000 Rogue actor in the Middle East. 0.93

01:12:55.000 And 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. 0.86

01:13:09.000 Because, 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.

01:13:27.000 20 years before that, about how we should invade Iraq and Syria for the national security interests of Israel.

01:13:32.000 So, I 100%, I'm not coming at this from like Iran and the Muslims are the problem. 1.00

01:13:38.000 Totally not coming at it from that. 0.97

01:13:40.000 And actually, we should seek some kind of rapprochement with them. 0.95

01:13:43.000 And it starts with disengaging for Israel. 0.99

01:13:45.000 So, I will concede that much.

01:13:47.000 Not even a concession.

01:13:48.000 That's why I'm stunned is that you are so red pilled on the Israel question. 0.61

01:13:53.000 I cannot believe that you are siding with what you just called the greatest rogue nation in the Middle East. 0.97

01:14:01.000 I mean, you're teaming up with them. 0.83

01:14:03.000 You are playing to their interests.

01:14:05.000 It's stunning to hear you say that. 0.93

01:14:07.000 Well, I think it's telling that Israel struck Syria before and after we struck, right? 0.85

01:14:13.000 I 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. 0.81

01:14:21.000 They struck the Sunday after the strike. 0.68

01:14:23.000 So Saturday was the chemical attack. 0.51

01:14:25.000 They struck on Sunday.

01:14:27.000 We struck on Friday.

01:14:28.000 They struck again the following Monday, which was two days ago.

01:14:31.000 And then they went out and said, the strike was a failure.

01:14:34.000 We're not happy with it. 0.57

01:14:35.000 And so I think that just goes to show that Israel is not.

01:14:39.000 Too 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.

01:14:48.000 I know, I believe me, I know what's going on. 0.61

01:14:50.000 The reason they strike Syria is to try and get Syria or Iran to hit back, and then that'll draw us into the war. 0.98

01:14:57.000 They 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. 0.97

01:15:12.000 So I acknowledge it. 0.96

01:15:15.000 And we got another question for you.

01:15:17.000 Mr. 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.

01:15:27.000 Do you think that's legit?

01:15:28.000 What is your take on climate change?

01:15:31.000 I don't have a strong position on climate change.

01:15:33.000 Climate change, in terms of knowing that the world gets hotter, is unquestionable.

01:15:39.000 It's a scientific fact.

01:15:43.000 Is a very.

01:15:45.000 I don't think that that's correct.

01:15:49.000 I think it would be essentially most lands on Earth being immersed.

01:15:53.000 I don't think that is the true prediction.

01:15:56.000 Now, do I consider climate change in my predictions?

01:16:00.000 No, 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.

01:16:10.000 So it can only make the matters I describe worse.

01:16:14.000 Well, I think it's a good point, though, that.

01:16:18.000 The fundamental point there is that there are so many variables.

01:16:22.000 When you're talking about a 100 to 200 year time span, there are so many variables.

01:16:28.000 That's why I take very little stock in this idea of long term because 200 years ago, the year was 1818.

01:16:37.000 Very different world, obviously.

01:16:39.000 We still had Great Britain controlling literally a quarter of the world's landmass. 0.93

01:16:45.000 Africa still hadn't even been penetrated into the. 0.77

01:16:48.000 Into the core of Africa.

01:16:49.000 We had just gotten done with the Napoleonic Wars. 0.95

01:16:52.000 France had just tried to take over Europe and they're doing so the world. 0.91

01:16:55.000 I mean, 200 years is such a long time that to say we should not totally address immediate threats because of threats in 100 years.

01:17:06.000 I 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.

01:17:16.000 I mean, we thought Japan was going to overtake us in the 1980s.

01:17:20.000 And they've stagnated for so many reasons.

01:17:22.000 Who knows?

01:17:23.000 Could the same happen with China?

01:17:24.000 People said that the BRICS nations by now would be superpowers.

01:17:27.000 And Brazil and South Africa, they're doing really terrific, you know?

01:17:31.000 So I think that's where we diverge.

01:17:34.000 We can look at the colonial past and see some patterns.

01:17:37.000 One pattern that systematically emerged, or almost systematically, is there is some form of revolt from the colonized lands to the main nation.

01:17:46.000 It can take many forms it can be a war against the nation, or it can be a separation or seceding.

01:17:53.000 Or it can be like the Native Americans where they deal with the government that has been installed over them without their consent.

01:18:01.000 But 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.

01:18:15.000 It changes the dynamic completely.

01:18:17.000 We're not faced with tribes who are distant from the mainland and who can really only claim their land back.

01:18:24.000 We will be faced with an availability of highly destructive weapons in the future.

01:18:29.000 I wouldn't want to see it.

01:18:32.000 I wouldn't want to be the colonial power that pissed off the invaded land.

01:18:37.000 I just think that's inevitable.

01:18:39.000 But I'll give you the last word on that one just for the sake of jumping to the next question.

01:18:45.000 A classic.

01:18:45.000 I'm not going to make you answer.

01:18:47.000 I'm not even going to answer this one.

01:18:49.000 You're getting old, Nick.

01:18:50.000 I'm telling you.

01:18:51.000 What's that?

01:18:52.000 You're getting old.

01:18:53.000 You're not taking the advantage.

01:18:55.000 You're not claiming the last words on questions.

01:18:58.000 You just let me go at it.

01:19:00.000 It's true.

01:19:01.000 I'm not being a good realist.

01:19:02.000 It's not true with a knife.

01:19:04.000 That's right. 0.99

01:19:05.000 I got to do missile strikes against you. 0.95

01:19:07.000 I got to have some kind of a reprisal here.

01:19:11.000 Here'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?

01:19:23.000 Attack worth the risk?

01:19:27.000 I think that's addressed to me because I supported the strike.

01:19:30.000 I think that would depend entirely on the scope and the scale of the response.

01:19:35.000 And you'd also have to look at.

01:19:36.000 The buildup to it.

01:19:37.000 I mean, you can't just look at the middle of the story.

01:19:40.000 You have to look at the buildup. 0.62

01:19:41.000 I think we were more than considerate of Russia in the sense that we warned them for five days on Twitter hey, we're going to bomb you. 0.98

01:19:49.000 We're going to bomb you. 0.98

01:19:50.000 We're going to bomb you for five days. 0.98

01:19:52.000 And 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.

01:19:59.000 And Russia actually ended up informing the Syrian government hey, they're going to strike in these three facilities.

01:20:04.000 You should evacuate them.

01:20:05.000 So I think we took just about every step necessary to make sure that wouldn't happen.

01:20:10.000 And additionally, you look at Russia's capabilities, and people think that Russia is very strong.

01:20:15.000 They're actually not very strong at all.

01:20:17.000 And people say, Nick, you don't understand.

01:20:19.000 Nick, you're wrong about that. 0.62

01:20:20.000 You 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.

01:20:32.000 Russia has no ports that lead to the open ocean that we could not straddle, that we could not stop. 0.60

01:20:38.000 In St. Petersburg, they're reliant on the Denmark Strait.

01:20:42.000 In the Black Sea, they're dependent on the Bosporus Strait, which is controlled by Turkey, a NATO member.

01:20:47.000 In Vladivostok, they're in the Sea of Japan, which is controlled by Japan, which we happen to be an ally of theirs. 0.98

01:20:54.000 We could crush them economically. 0.90

01:20:55.000 Russia does not have the power projection capabilities that we have.

01:20:59.000 I mean, sure, they're able to shore up the Assad regime against tribes, against a couple of militias.

01:21:05.000 But the idea that they could compete with us on a battlefield, like anywhere in the world, is just simply not true.

01:21:12.000 And I think. 0.96

01:21:12.000 That's why Russia, they talk up this big game. 0.96

01:21:15.000 There's a lot of bluster. 0.81

01:21:16.000 There was no doubt in my mind that Russia would back down eventually.

01:21:21.000 So I think that's what made it worth it.

01:21:25.000 If there was even a thought in my head that Russia would respond, I would seriously reconsider the strike.

01:21:31.000 But I don't think that was ever realistic that they would have done that.

01:21:35.000 And Krillin876 says Nick, with South Africa and Brazil, it's a demographic problem. 1.00

01:21:40.000 Yeah, true.

01:21:42.000 Well, yeah, me and JF, we talked about that last week.

01:21:45.000 What's going on there?

01:21:46.000 Big border enforcement is the solution to demographic problems, so every country deals with their demographic problems.

01:21:54.000 Well, yeah, and that's.

01:21:55.000 I won't.

01:21:57.000 I will not doubt here. 1.00

01:21:58.000 I will not counter signal the fact that the number one priority for our national security is to stop immigration. 1.00

01:22:06.000 I mean, that's no doubt. 1.00

01:22:08.000 It 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? 0.59

01:22:17.000 I 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. 0.82

01:22:25.000 So I won't dispute that America has no business having boots on the ground in Syria. 0.85

01:22:32.000 Has no business having boots on the ground in Yemen to do anything but fight Al Qaeda, and even that's a stretch. 0.94

01:22:37.000 Those troops should be on the southern border. 0.90

01:22:40.000 They 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. 0.86

01:22:52.000 And 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. 0.56

01:23:00.000 And it looks like these are all of our questions here. 0.85

01:23:02.000 Let me jump into the Streamlabs.

01:23:04.000 It looks like that's everything.

01:23:05.000 I know we've been doing it for about a half hour, so maybe we'll call it at that.

01:23:11.000 Is that a good note to leave it on for you?

01:23:13.000 I'll give you the last word on the overall situation.

01:23:18.000 All right.

01:23:18.000 Well, 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.

01:23:28.000 And Thomas Howard ends with the last super chat $5 US.

01:23:28.000 Excellent.

01:23:28.000 It was great.

01:23:32.000 He says The moral nihilist argues for dealing in good faith, while the Catholic advocates for democracy. 0.87

01:23:38.000 Diplomacy by violent subterfuge.

01:23:41.000 Unbelievable.

01:23:43.000 Borgia caricature.

01:23:45.000 It's true. 1.00

01:23:46.000 He's got a good point.

01:23:47.000 But yeah, thanks so much for coming on.

01:23:49.000 It was a fun discussion, a great conversation, a real meeting of the minds.

01:23:54.000 And it's disappointing we couldn't do it again tomorrow with Aaron, but we look forward to future Bloodsports, right?

01:24:01.000 Something tells me it's not that dramatic.

01:24:03.000 Right, right, right.

01:24:05.000 All right.

01:24:06.000 All right.

01:24:06.000 Bye bye.

01:24:07.000 Take it easy.

01:24:09.000 All right.

01:24:10.000 And a great appearance by Mr. JF.

01:24:13.000 We love JF.

01:24:14.000 We love the JF.

01:24:16.000 He always brings great conversation, a great insight.

01:24:19.000 And 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.

01:24:29.000 I don't think you're going to hear a conversation anywhere else.

01:24:32.000 Ben Shapiro, Fox News, Crowder.

01:24:35.000 I don't think you'll hear a conversation about the viability of nonproliferation policy versus.

01:24:42.000 How do we prepare for proliferation for all countries?

01:24:45.000 So, I really am glad we're able to have those kinds of conversations.

01:24:49.000 And that was the case, you know, to bring it all back.

01:24:51.000 That was the case I was going to make tomorrow in my Bloodsports with Aaron.

01:24:55.000 Aaron was that thought they were going to hire on the Warski Show.

01:25:00.000 And I was going to bring it back tomorrow on the fact that people want to hear these conversations. 0.75

01:25:05.000 They 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.

01:25:17.000 So great to have him on. 0.66

01:25:18.000 He's always a great sport, always very good humored and funny, and I think very fair too.

01:25:23.000 That's the thing I will say about JF, which I appreciate.

01:25:26.000 What I appreciate about JF and Sticks and this roster of people we're assembling here, which is that they're fair.

01:25:33.000 You 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.

01:25:41.000 It's about gotcha, it's about I'm wrong and you're right.

01:25:44.000 And oh, you said that?

01:25:45.000 I don't care.

01:25:46.000 That's not what you meant.

01:25:46.000 X, 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.

01:25:55.000 He'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.

01:26:03.000 You couldn't ask for more in terms of content.

01:26:05.000 So, a fun show.

01:26:06.000 I'll get into your other Super Chats and Stream Labs that weren't for JF.

01:26:12.000 And we'll see what we have on our Stream Labs. 0.99

01:26:14.000 We've got, let's see, we've got Connie who says, from your female boomer constituency in Cali, thanks for the great content.

01:26:25.000 Thank you for.

01:26:26.000 The donation and appreciate you watching. 1.00

01:26:28.000 Glad to see we have a very vocal female constituency. 0.81

01:26:32.000 I checked my analytics and it's like 4% of the audience is women. 0.98

01:26:37.000 Well, they're very vocal, they're very fine people.

01:26:39.000 I don't want anybody to get the idea that we're anti women.

01:26:42.000 We love women on the show, we cherish women, and we want them to do well.

01:26:45.000 We want them to be mothers.

01:26:46.000 So appreciate the boomer women reaching out.

01:26:49.000 We love you.

01:26:50.000 Begbie says, We all know you would have respected Aaron, similar to the way a Tomahawk missile respects a chemical facility.

01:26:56.000 Well, hey.

01:26:58.000 Let's just say that Aaron was supposed to debate me. 0.99

01:27:02.000 She was supposed to fight me. 0.66

01:27:03.000 She was going to join the Warski team.

01:27:05.000 She was going to join the team of Warski and JF.

01:27:08.000 And notice that I didn't even have to strike.

01:27:12.000 All I had to do was demonstrate my credibility with symbolic knife strikes, and she backed down.

01:27:19.000 And look, I'm not going to say that makes my point about foreign policy, but it makes my point about foreign policy.

01:27:25.000 Just kidding, of course. 1.00

01:27:26.000 But it's true.

01:27:27.000 The mere threat, the mere idea, Of a confrontation with Nick the Knife, Thought Patroller in Chief.

01:27:34.000 And she quit.

01:27:36.000 Not only did she forfeit the match, she abandoned the internet altogether.

01:27:40.000 She shut down her Twitter.

01:27:41.000 She's quitting YouTube.

01:27:43.000 The mere idea of a confrontation with Nick and she closes up shop.

01:27:47.000 No, I'm fleeing town.

01:27:49.000 Think of that.

01:27:50.000 Think of that the next time anybody wants to challenge Nick the Knife.

01:27:54.000 Few are brave enough to do it, few are smart enough to do it. 1.00

01:27:57.000 I would advise all thoughts that they should probably just become mothers. 1.00

01:28:02.000 It 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. 0.97

01:28:15.000 Begbie says Are we going to keep JF around for questions this time, asking for a chainsaw wielding friend?

01:28:21.000 We did keep him around, ultimately.

01:28:23.000 Sovereign says the West is totally reactive and always has been. 0.92

01:28:27.000 We must stop looking to Israel for our long term policies. 1.00

01:28:30.000 Agreed, 100%. 1.00

01:28:31.000 I think that's a fair critique.

01:28:35.000 And we have to clean up the mess.

01:28:36.000 I think that's part of the problem of how we look at the Trump administration is that there can be a total clean break within a year.

01:28:46.000 I don't think that's doable.

01:28:48.000 I think we have a lot of cleaning up to do in the meantime, right?

01:28:52.000 Would I favor a completely non interventionist, borderline isolationist policy?

01:28:56.000 100%. 0.65

01:28:57.000 Friendship with Russia?

01:28:58.000 Yes.

01:29:00.000 A reconciliation with Iran and North Korea?

01:29:02.000 Yes. 0.63

01:29:03.000 This confrontation, but kind of like cooperation with China? 0.50

01:29:07.000 Yeah.

01:29:08.000 However, I think we have to reorient our foreign policy.

01:29:12.000 It's going to take a little bit of time.

01:29:14.000 I don't know how long that is.

01:29:15.000 I don't know what it'll take.

01:29:16.000 But 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.

01:29:26.000 I don't think it happens right away.

01:29:28.000 People's expectation is that the United States goes from Israel's closest ally.

01:29:34.000 We have this perceived world order.

01:29:35.000 We have this rhetoric.

01:29:36.000 We have this policy. 0.88

01:29:38.000 To literally a day after inauguration, friends with Russia, now we're going to war with Israel.

01:29:43.000 I mean, it's not going to happen. 0.71

01:29:44.000 So I think we have to be realistic about a timeline where there is a gradual readjustment.

01:29:49.000 But we have to agree that there's a need for readjustment, and I'm on board with that.

01:29:54.000 And we'll see our super chats here.

01:29:57.000 Let's see.

01:29:59.000 Matthew Joseph. 1.00

01:30:01.000 I didn't like her at all, but she didn't deserve to be doxxed. 0.79

01:30:04.000 One of Baked Alaska's former mods said it was his people that did it.

01:30:07.000 It wasn't, it was not Baked Alaska's people.

01:30:11.000 I know Baked personally, I've talked to him, and you'd be surprised.

01:30:14.000 There are a lot more people that are on his side than are against him.

01:30:17.000 People are starting to see what happened there.

01:30:20.000 A lot of lies about Baked Alaska being told.

01:30:24.000 And so he did not put together the docs of Aaron.

01:30:26.000 He did not put together the docs of Andy Worski.

01:30:29.000 I'm not privy to all the details.

01:30:31.000 I haven't been following it too closely, but that didn't happen.

01:30:35.000 That was set up by that fellow named Zoom, I guess.

01:30:37.000 This is what I heard on 4chan.

01:30:39.000 But nevertheless, Baked Alaska is a good guy.

01:30:44.000 He's a solid person, a solid friend.

01:30:47.000 And 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.

01:30:55.000 That's okay.

01:30:55.000 I don't have to like everything he does.

01:30:57.000 But people have to understand at the end of the day, he's a human being.

01:31:01.000 He's a human being, and I don't think he deserves what's coming to him.

01:31:04.000 This hate, this vitriol, people are all over him all of a sudden, seeing really nasty, nasty stuff.

01:31:11.000 And I don't think he deserves that.

01:31:13.000 I think he's a human being, should be nice to him.

01:31:16.000 I think he needs a little bit of guidance in terms of he's gotten into this rut with these people, that Chad guy, Aaron.

01:31:25.000 He needs an intervention.

01:31:27.000 He needs people to tell him, look, we don't like the direction you're going in.

01:31:30.000 Going this direction, but not all this hate.

01:31:32.000 People telling him to kill himself, people telling him your careers overall. 0.51

01:31:36.000 It's just really nasty. 0.53

01:31:37.000 So I'm great friends with him.

01:31:39.000 He's a great guy, and it's been a rough week for him, but I don't think he's persona non grata at all.

01:31:47.000 The new center says, You two have a weekly show talking about the influence of Israel.

01:31:52.000 That would be pretty cool.

01:31:54.000 Peter Teff says, Nick, big guy, love the show.

01:31:57.000 Thanks for having on, JF. 0.97

01:31:58.000 You guys can tie Syria into this.

01:32:01.000 But you would ask JF if he would explain the role that religion plays in this phenotypic revolution.

01:32:06.000 Thank you.

01:32:06.000 Oof.

01:32:07.000 Didn't catch that one.

01:32:08.000 Sorry, big guy.

01:32:09.000 Did not catch that one while we were on.

01:32:12.000 He says, one more thing.

01:32:12.000 Whether 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.

01:32:21.000 True.

01:32:22.000 To answer for JF, I think this is what he would say.

01:32:25.000 He has said, and he said on the stream last week, that it's not, I don't think you can ignore it.

01:32:32.000 That the birth rates for atheists are much lower than they are for Christians.

01:32:36.000 So, JF has said that it's probably beneficial that we embrace religion, whether you agree with it or not.

01:32:43.000 I think that kind of consequentialist rhetoric is wrong from the beginning.

01:32:46.000 I understand where a secular person makes that argument.

01:32:50.000 I think you have to have authentic believers and you should believe in it because it's true.

01:32:53.000 But 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.

01:33:04.000 Atheism is not good for a population.

01:33:06.000 It's not good demographically.

01:33:08.000 So I think that's what he would say.

01:33:10.000 Begbie says Streamlabs, no money for white phosphorus support.

01:33:15.000 There you go.

01:33:16.000 Alex Riel, Nikki boy, are you sleeping?

01:33:18.000 You look terrible, my guy.

01:33:20.000 Thanks.

01:33:21.000 Thanks, man.

01:33:22.000 Appreciate it.

01:33:24.000 The answer is no.

01:33:24.000 Haven't been sleeping very much.

01:33:26.000 That's the life of a content creator. 0.99

01:33:28.000 That's the life of a madman. 0.94

01:33:31.000 It also doesn't help. 0.98

01:33:32.000 I need a haircut.

01:33:33.000 I need to shave.

01:33:34.000 I haven't shaved in a little while.

01:33:36.000 And it's not that I don't shave because, like, I'm in the woods and I'm reading books and I'm being radicalized online by Nazis.

01:33:46.000 When it comes to shaving, I'm very lazy.

01:33:47.000 It's something that it's like you have to do it every couple of days.

01:33:51.000 It's such a hassle.

01:33:52.000 It's such a process.

01:33:54.000 I don't enjoy it.

01:33:56.000 But you got to do it.

01:33:57.000 But you got to do it.

01:33:58.000 You got to do it.

01:33:59.000 It's part of the show.

01:34:00.000 It's part of the presentation.

01:34:01.000 So you're right.

01:34:02.000 I know I got to get to bed.

01:34:03.000 I got to shave.

01:34:04.000 I got to get a haircut, all that.

01:34:06.000 All right.

01:34:07.000 All right.

01:34:08.000 I'm putting out tons of content.

01:34:08.000 It's hard.

01:34:10.000 I'm doing it all by myself.

01:34:11.000 Not that that's an excuse, but got to do better.

01:34:14.000 Got to become, got to truly respect the body and the mind and the soul.

01:34:19.000 We're on the mind and the soul, but the body needs a little work.

01:34:21.000 Body admittedly needs some work put in. 0.71

01:34:25.000 And we got Totally Not a Troll says Vietnam is now cooperating with the USA. 0.83

01:34:31.000 There you go. 0.91

01:34:32.000 Very good point.

01:34:34.000 Vietnam cooperating with the United States. 1.00

01:34:36.000 We once bombed them into oblivion, and yet here we are. 0.89

01:34:40.000 Germany bombed them into oblivion. 0.89

01:34:42.000 Here we are with Germany. 0.98

01:34:44.000 Japan. 0.95

01:34:44.000 We nuked Japan. 0.95

01:34:45.000 We dropped a nuke on Japan. 0.51

01:34:47.000 They're our best friends, closest ally.

01:34:50.000 So I wish we had that.

01:34:52.000 I should have read that when JF was on.

01:34:54.000 John Shepard Smith, no questions, but great discussion, guys.

01:34:58.000 Thank you for the super chat.

01:34:58.000 Thank you.

01:34:59.000 Appreciate you.

01:35:02.000 The new center, is David Duke correct about the JQ?

01:35:05.000 No comments.

01:35:06.000 Krillin, 876.

01:35:08.000 Oh, we got that one already.

01:35:10.000 Thomas Howard, the moral nihilist.

01:35:12.000 Oh, we got that one before.

01:35:14.000 D. Warbuck says, good stuff.

01:35:16.000 C30 says, Nick, AMRAN conference attendance?

01:35:20.000 I don't know what you mean.

01:35:21.000 Like, how many people will attend?

01:35:23.000 I'll be going there to speak, but.

01:35:26.000 I don't know who will be there.

01:35:27.000 Hopefully, we'll see some fresh faces.

01:35:30.000 Hopefully, I'll get to meet some of you guys.

01:35:31.000 Hopefully, nobody kills me.

01:35:34.000 My main concern is I'll go out like George Lincoln Rockwell.

01:35:37.000 Not that I'm anything like George Lincoln Rockwell.

01:35:40.000 But 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.

01:35:51.000 I'll show up to American Renaissance and then Hunter Wallace will be tugging at my shirt.

01:35:55.000 Hey!

01:35:57.000 And this is, I'm Hunter Wallace, and this is for you.

01:36:00.000 Bam.

01:36:01.000 You know, but I don't think that'll happen.

01:36:03.000 I think I'll be all right.

01:36:05.000 So I'll be there.

01:36:06.000 I'll be there to give a speak about the boomer question.

01:36:09.000 It's going to be a very, I'll be riding in there on a wave of controversy with the Paul Nealon thing, with other things.

01:36:17.000 Thomas Howard says JF likes Nick.

01:36:19.000 He did him the favor of a cordial conversation rather than a video takedown.

01:36:23.000 Calling dissenting opinions low IQ is like chum.

01:36:27.000 To a shark.

01:36:28.000 Yeah, no, JF is a good guy.

01:36:30.000 And I think, and I appreciate it too because I am a young guy, admittedly.

01:36:36.000 I'm 19.

01:36:37.000 I don't have a college education.

01:36:39.000 But JF is a very educated guy.

01:36:41.000 He's gone to school.

01:36:42.000 He's a science guy.

01:36:43.000 You know, he's older and all the rest.

01:36:45.000 So I do appreciate him coming on.

01:36:47.000 You have to have that appreciation, that respect for your elders.

01:36:50.000 Now, 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.

01:36:58.000 But when they're nice to me, When they agree with me, then we're cool.

01:37:02.000 So we appreciate JF.

01:37:03.000 But it looks like those are all of our super chats for the evening.

01:37:08.000 We got Cactus Blah who's given us some bits.

01:37:10.000 Appreciate you.

01:37:12.000 But it looks like that's it for us tonight.

01:37:14.000 This show's gone on for an hour and 40 minutes.

01:37:19.000 It's like bringing, I'm bleeding from my soul when I give content. 0.99

01:37:23.000 It's not just, you know, people say, oh, Nick goes on and he shoots the shit for an hour. 0.83

01:37:27.000 It's like I'm putting my soul into, I'm bleeding onto the webcam, I'm bleeding into the microphone, I'm giving you. 0.99

01:37:34.000 My essence, every time I go on.

01:37:36.000 You know, when people don't see it, but when I go off the camera, I just collapse.

01:37:41.000 I collapse and I black out because I've expended all this spiritual energy.

01:37:45.000 It'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.

01:37:56.000 So, but it's tough.

01:37:58.000 It'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.

01:38:09.000 Those people are mean and I don't care for them.

01:38:13.000 But it's been a great show.

01:38:15.000 Remember to check us out on makersupport.com slash Nick J. Fuentes for that premium membership.

01:38:20.000 If 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.

01:38:37.000 It'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.

01:38:43.000 And that is available to our premium members on SoundCloud on the Maker Support.

01:38:48.000 It's about an hour long show.

01:38:49.000 It's the latest episode of World Report, and we really get into.

01:38:53.000 Why we're in Syria, why Israel wants us to be in Syria, what the concern is there, what they've done to do this, the evidence for it all.

01:39:01.000 It's really, really great stuff.

01:39:02.000 So be sure to check that out.

01:39:04.000 America First 2018 Election HQ is coming at you tomorrow for the premium members.

01:39:08.000 If you get that membership, you get those two shows weekly.

01:39:12.000 And you also get this show in podcast form on SoundCloud.

01:39:15.000 You get priority on the call in shows and a special role in the Discord server.

01:39:20.000 So it's really, it's all around as a great package deal.

01:39:22.000 So check it out.

01:39:23.000 Subscribe on YouTube, Twitch, Facebook.

01:39:26.000 Whatever it is, did I forget?

01:39:28.000 I think I did.

01:39:29.000 I forgot to go live on Facebook again.

01:39:31.000 Fun goal.

01:39:32.000 Always.

01:39:33.000 It's always, right?

01:39:36.000 It's always something.

01:39:38.000 We log on and the video's not there.

01:39:40.000 Facebook's not live.

01:39:42.000 Anywho.

01:39:42.000 But subscribe on all the different services and leave us a comment, a like.

01:39:47.000 Click the notification bell to get notified every time we go live.

01:39:50.000 People are very mad I delete the comments I don't like.

01:39:54.000 People are like, Nick is mass deleting comments on his video.

01:39:54.000 I don't hide that.

01:39:58.000 Yeah, of course. 0.97

01:39:59.000 People are going to leave a comment on the video saying, Nick is a poopy head. 1.00

01:40:03.000 Nick is a dumb head. 1.00

01:40:05.000 I don't like him. 1.00

01:40:06.000 Yeah, I'm not going to let you use my platform to slander me, to insult me.

01:40:11.000 Not a chance.

01:40:12.000 You think I'm going to hide that, too?

01:40:15.000 Nick is covering it up.

01:40:16.000 Nick is covering up the comment section.

01:40:18.000 It's not a conspiracy.

01:40:20.000 But leave a nice comment, and I'll let it stay.

01:40:24.000 We're on the air Monday through Friday, 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

01:40:29.000 I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.

01:40:30.000 This is America First.

01:40:32.000 As always, thanks for watching.

01:40:34.000 Thank you to JF for coming on, being a great sport.

01:40:37.000 Thanks to our Super Chatters, Streamlabs donors, Twitch people, and as always, our premium members.

01:40:43.000 We could not do the show without the premium people.

01:40:46.000 Couldn't afford to keep lights on.

01:40:46.000 Couldn't do it.

01:40:48.000 We would be doing the show in the dark and with no Wi Fi.

01:40:51.000 It'd be pre recorded.

01:40:53.000 I'd have to upload it at the library, if not for the premium members.

01:40:56.000 So thanks to them, and we will see you all tomorrow.

01:40:59.000 Have a great rest of your evening.

01:41:05.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

01:41:12.000 It's going to be only America first.

01:41:14.000 America first. 0.99

01:41:17.000 The American people will come first once again.

01:41:25.000 With respect.

01:41:50.000 America

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - April 18, 2018

American Realpolitik feat. JF Gariepy | America First Ep. 148

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript