00:00:07.000Very excited to be back with you here tonight on Monday.
00:00:11.000We have a lot to talk about tonight, lots to get into.
00:00:15.000We're going to be doing a big debate recap.
00:00:19.000As you know, last Friday I debated Steve Bonnell, otherwise known as Destiny, on the Russia Ukraine war, it was an easy victory, which I predicted last Monday.
00:00:35.000We had 20,000 live viewers across all platforms on Friday, which makes it, I think, one of the biggest streaming events we've ever done on Cozy.
00:00:46.000We had, I believe, 10,000 watching on Cozy between my channel and Ethan Ralph's channel.
00:00:54.000I think there was about 8,000 watching on Destiny's YouTube channel and then 1,500 to 2,000 on the Ethan Ralph Odyssey channel.
00:01:04.000So, Between everything, about 20,000 live viewers at its peak.
00:01:08.000I think now hundreds of thousands of people have watched it with all the replays that have been posted on my channel, Ethan's channel, and Destiny's channel.
00:01:17.000So huge viewership, and I think a decisive victory for the Russians.
00:01:39.000And right now, all eyes are on, and I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right, it's Mariupol.
00:01:45.000Again, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right, but it's a coastal city on the coast of the Sea of Azov.
00:01:53.000And so everybody's paying attention to this siege, which is going on on that city.
00:01:59.000The Russians are trying to take it over and connect their forces, which originated in Crimea, and its forces from Donbass, after which they'll move north.
00:02:10.000Towards the capital or west towards Odessa, which is the other major city on the Black Sea.
00:02:17.000Specifically, we'll be talking tonight about the negotiations.
00:02:21.000The Russians and the Ukrainians have relaunched negotiations.
00:04:12.000I'm going to try and get the merch store back online, and I'd like to sell a hat or a shirt, something before the war is over to just express our solidarity with Moscow.
00:04:24.000Because everywhere I go, I see ribbons tied around the trees, I see Ukrainian flags in people's windows.
00:04:35.000I was driving around my town and I saw on the street corner there's this house and it's all decorated and they've got these little signs in their lawn and it says, Stop the war, stop Putin, and all this stuff.
00:04:50.000And I just flipped it off as I drove by.
00:04:55.000I want to put a big Russian flag on my car, but I don't want my car to get vandalized, you know?
00:05:01.000I will put like a Russian bumper sticker on my car or something, but I don't want someone to vandalize my car.
00:05:06.000You know, I would tie like a white, blue, and red ribbon around my tree outside my house, but I don't want my house to get vandalized either.
00:05:15.000It's so hard, you know, it's so difficult these days.
00:06:45.000And there's something about that because, you know, there's a sense of powerlessness that the opponents of the American regime have had to endure for decades, you know, almost a century.
00:06:59.000And you're beginning to see a real global resistance.
00:07:04.000It's magnificent, it's very gratifying to witness.
00:07:06.000You know, it's the same feeling when I saw UX going on Twitch and rating those live streams and they couldn't do anything about it.
00:07:13.000And they're like, There's this off platform activity.
00:07:18.000Protect yourselves from the UX love raids.
00:07:21.000And it's the same feeling I got watching Trump win all the primaries and then win the general.
00:07:27.000And it's the same feeling I get watching Putin reach out and take Ukraine and bombing buildings and hypersonic missiles and just absolutely crushing the opposition.
00:08:21.000The initial invasion, I was just hooting and hollering when I heard this.
00:08:26.000You know, I was driving to Florida for a half pack and then I hear this.
00:08:30.000On YouTube, I'm watching the live stream, and we're like, woohoo, you know, this is yippee, this is great.
00:08:38.000And it's just been a real pleasure, been a real joy to watch the ongoing conflict and, you know, to hear the increasingly degraded Ukrainian forces.
00:08:48.000You know, I especially like these videos of the Foreign Legion, you know, because you'll have these American volunteers, all these liberal Americans, they're volunteering to go fight in Ukraine.
00:09:00.000And you read their posts on Reddit, they're posting videos on Twitter, and they're saying, We're running out of supplies.
00:09:18.000They told us they'd shoot us in the back if we don't go to the front lines, but we're just getting cut down on the front lines.
00:09:25.000And the Russians say, You know, it doesn't matter where you're from, we'll kill you.
00:09:31.000So the conflict has been a real joy, you know, because these myths about the Ukrainian resistance just getting dashed, you know, on the rocks of reality.
00:09:42.000They're saying, oh, you know, the ghost of Kiev and all this.
00:09:46.000And then they come back from Ukraine and they say, it's over.
00:10:19.000He's been writing about this for years, talking about the psychological impact that will be inflicted on the American people when, like, China wins the race to Mars.
00:10:32.000China takes Taiwan and Russia takes Ukraine.
00:10:35.000And there's going to be a real psychological impact on the world when Putin dictates the terms of surrender and Ukraine accepts them and he just wins the war.
00:14:34.000It's awesome to see, particularly, because I watch Cozy every day, and I'll be watching Cozy at like 3 a.m., and we'll have 1,000 people across the site watching streams any time of the day, at least 1,000 people.
00:14:50.000So I'll tune in at 3, 4, 5 a.m. sometimes, you know, on a Monday or on a Sunday, and there'll be 1,000 people watching content, you know?
00:14:59.000There'll be multiple people live, and there'll be 1,000, 2,000 people watching, even at the weakest hours, you know?
00:15:08.000And it's just awesome to see that, to see the growth potential.
00:15:11.000We hit, I think, five or six million page views in the past 30 days.
00:15:16.000The engagement was crazy after the debate.
00:15:19.000I think we had like 100,000 page views in 24 hours after the debate on Friday.
00:15:46.000We're between five and six million page views over the past 30 days, which is incredible because I think AmericaFirst.live was getting like four million per month.
00:15:56.000And we went from zero on Cozy TV in October to we're approaching six million, which is just unbelievable.
00:16:06.000Which is, like I said, that's 50% more than what I had on AmericaFirst.live at its peak.
00:16:12.000So this thing is just exploding in the best way.
00:17:28.000And I said last week, you know, I remember when I was in high school when the crisis began.
00:17:35.000You know, I was on the speech team, I was on Model UN, I was a sophomore in high school.
00:17:41.000When this whole crisis started in 2014, when the Maidan revolution happened and Russia annexed Crimea and started backing the separatists in Donbass.
00:17:52.000So I've been following this for fully eight years, you know, and I've been following it ever since.
00:18:35.000He was at Wall Street Journal when I was in high school.
00:18:37.000He wrote this book called America in Retreat.
00:18:40.000And it was basically about how the Obama doctrine of abdicating American global hegemony would lead to this global crisis.
00:18:49.000And it would see Iran invading its neighbors at the same time that China is invading Taiwan, at the same time that Russia invades Ukraine from Belarus and from Crimea.
00:19:03.000And I remember reading that and thinking, oh my gosh, we need American leadership in the world.
00:19:08.000And I watched or listened to the Max Boot podcast.
00:19:11.000Max Boot, he's another Jewish Zionist neocon.
00:19:14.000I remember I read Garry Kasparov's book.
00:19:17.000Garry Kasparov was a chess grandmaster from Russia.
00:19:21.000And now he's a polemicist and a political pundit and he writes books.
00:19:26.000And he wrote a book eight years ago called Winter is Coming.
00:19:30.000And it was about how Putin's a dictator and.
00:19:34.000And he's going to turn Russia into this totalitarian state.
00:19:37.000And I actually saw him speak live at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
00:19:43.000I got him to sign the book, I read it.
00:19:46.000So, you know, you guys probably aren't interested in this, but so I was all in on this issue.
00:19:51.000But on the other side, I was on the neocon side.
00:19:55.000And I would go to Speech Team and I would go to Model UN and I would make the case.
00:20:00.000Everything that Destiny said, I would make those arguments.
00:20:03.000And I would say, you know, Obama needs to do more to support Ukraine.
00:20:08.000He's sending them non lethal aid, hamburgers and blankets.
00:20:12.000They need guns, they need fighter jets, you know, they need all this.
00:20:16.000And I said, you know, we need to create a tripwire in Ukraine because if Putin invades, that's going to signal to the rest of the world and the rogue states that, you know, America doesn't defend democracy and all this crap.
00:21:21.000He just doesn't know, and you don't know what you don't know.
00:21:25.000So, we do the debate on Friday, and it went exactly as I expected.
00:21:31.000It's funny, he does his opening statement, and he doesn't even really make an argument.
00:21:36.000And if you go back and watch a debate, he does his.
00:21:38.000And, you know, I may at some point, I think I may actually tomorrow or at some point this week, I may go back and watch a debate and do a commentary stream on the debate itself and go over everything because I really want to go over it precisely and in a very surgical way.
00:21:55.000Because when you're in a debate, you kind of miss certain things and you have to be strategic and stuff.
00:22:01.000But he does this opening statement and he really doesn't even put forward an argument.
00:22:05.000The topic is it's about Russia's incursion into Ukraine.
00:22:29.000And he almost tries to preempt a lot of the pro Russian arguments, like that Russia is trying to denazify Ukraine, or that Russia is this bulwark of Western values, or, you know, a lot of different arguments.
00:22:47.000He tries to preempt like every argument, takes a sort of superficial survey of every pro Russian argument that maybe he's seen on the internet.
00:22:57.000And it was funny because I'm listening to the opening statement.
00:23:00.000I'm thinking, like, that's not covering anything that I prepared.
00:23:04.000I mean, nothing in his opening statement even addresses my core argument, which is about NATO enlargement, about theater support missiles, about all this kind of stuff.
00:23:15.000And so he does his whole opening statement.
00:23:17.000And then at the very end, he says, you know, the issue is that Russia has invaded Ukraine and violated their sovereignty.
00:23:27.000And, you know, Ukraine wants to join NATO.
00:23:32.000So, you know, 95% of his opening statement is trying to preempt arguments that I wasn't even going to make.
00:23:39.000And then the final 5 or 10%, the core of his argument, there's two parts to it.
00:23:46.000It's something like this Russia violated Ukraine's sovereignty, and nothing can justify that.
00:23:57.000And then the other part is, you know, if you're going to argue that NATO expansion is a threat to Russia, well, The reason that that's not the case is because Ukraine chose NATO expansion, and if Ukraine was in Russia's sphere of influence, well, that's not consensual.
00:24:18.000So to put those two together would be something like this it would be like, well, you know, you have to consider the plight of the Ukrainians.
00:24:26.000They want NATO membership, and you can't put Russia's security interest ahead of Ukraine's security interest, and Ukraine's security interest is they want NATO membership.
00:24:35.000So I guess it's actually a three parter.
00:24:37.000And then it says on top of that, You know, therefore, nothing justifies the Russian invasion.
00:24:42.000So there's kind of like three, I guess there's really three pieces.
00:24:47.000You know, even though you may argue that NATO expansion could threaten Russia, you can't prioritize Russia's security over Ukraine's security.
00:24:58.000And lastly, nothing justifies the Russian invasion.
00:25:01.000And so that's really the thesis, but he doesn't really back this up.
00:25:05.000He also says, and this is also kind of ancillary, he says the real thing that Russia desires is revanchism.
00:25:12.000And what revanchism means is a desire to restore a country's lost lands or territory or people or something like that.
00:25:22.000So, you know, and this is sort of the background of that three part argument is, well, Russia's not really concerned about security.
00:25:31.000The things that Russia says it's concerned about are not its real concerns.
00:25:36.000What's really going on here is that Putin is a dictator and he is power hungry and he's hungry for territory and he's trying to rebuild a dead empire.
00:26:14.000You know, nobody can argue about what ought to be or what should be or what is right and what is wrong.
00:26:20.000But what is real is that people are dying and buildings are being destroyed and there's a war going on and we are on the brink of a great power nuclear conflict, which has never happened before.
00:26:31.000We've been on the brink before, but it's never actually happened.
00:26:34.000But it seems like we're closer now, maybe, than ever.
00:26:43.000What is the responsibility of the United States?
00:26:45.000And I make the case that there is a pattern of behavior over 30 years since the end of the Cold War where the United States has.
00:26:54.000Expanded its power and expanded its dominion at the expense of the security interests of other nations, in particular Russia.
00:27:01.000That the United States is not a benign hegemon.
00:27:05.000It is a global hegemon with lots of power, more power than any other country in the world by far, and maybe more power than every country in the world put together.
00:27:16.000And if we want to have a stable world order, we have to have balance.
00:27:21.000And in order to have balance, we have to allow other great powers and other countries to exert a reasonable sphere of influence and pursue a reasonable security policy.
00:27:32.000I said, and part of that would be we have to stop expanding NATO.
00:28:19.000This isn't a technical debate where everybody hears every argument and everybody is doing a technical analysis of every argument and every warrant and every claim.
00:28:29.000I kept repeating, look, NATO spends $1.2 trillion, Russia spends $65 billion.
00:28:37.000Now, the Destiny sub community kept hitting me for this.
00:28:39.000They're saying, oh, he kept looping that.
00:28:42.000He kept saying, you know, NATO spends all this and Russia only spends this.
00:28:46.000He kept saying that NATO is a counter Russian alliance.
00:28:50.000And I wanted to impress those two points because when you consider those two facts in particular, it really changes your whole understanding of the conflict.
00:29:00.000Because, how could you contend that Russia is this aggressive empire?
00:29:07.000You know, they're the belligerent, they're the problem, when they are so small and so powerless compared to the entire NATO alliance.
00:29:16.000I mean, how could any serious person portray Russia as this?
00:30:22.000Anyway, so I, you know, I impressed those two facts in particular, but I also talked a lot about missiles.
00:30:29.000And this is something that I hadn't really talked about on the show last week, but this is another important thing.
00:30:35.000Missile systems are a huge part, you know, maybe the central part of military doctrine in the nuclear age, specifically in the ICBM age, because it's really, I guess you could separate it.
00:30:50.000You have the introduction of the A bomb in World War II, and then you have the H bomb in the 1950s, and then you have the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which means you've got these missiles that are extremely long range with a miniaturized warhead, and they could be launched from the sea, the air, or from land.
00:31:10.000And they could hit a country on another continent and inflict devastating damage.
00:31:15.000So now the military doctrine and the balance of power is not so much about tanks, obviously, and guns and planes and bullets and conventional means.
00:31:27.000And the point that I made, and this is really crucial to understanding how America is provoking Russia, how they're undermining Russia's security.
00:31:36.000Look at the big picture, look at the pattern of behavior over 20 years.
00:31:40.000And I made the case that in 2001, the United States pulls out of the anti ballistic missile treaty.
00:31:48.000So in 1973, I believe, Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev formed the ABM Treaty and they put a moratorium on the development of anti ballistic missile systems.
00:32:03.000What is an anti ballistic missile system?
00:32:07.000The United States and the Soviet Union at the time, you know, they had amassed these giant stockpiles of nuclear warheads and ICBMs and they were engaged in an arms race.
00:32:18.000You know, there's really, there's actually a lot to unpack here.
00:32:21.000It's a really complicated subject, and I actually regret this a little bit.
00:32:24.000I maybe should have laid this out more in the debate or maybe before the debate.
00:32:31.000It was almost tough to have a real conversation because you could tell that the audience and Destiny don't actually understand the theory behind nuclear doctrine and, you know, balance of power in the nuclear age.
00:32:45.000Because there's a lot to it that isn't, Very intuitive and maybe isn't obvious at first glance.
00:32:52.000You know, because people would say something like, well, why would the United States have a thousand nuclear warheads?
00:32:59.000That's more than enough to destroy the entire world.
00:33:02.000So, why would you need like three or four times as many missiles as would be required to end the world?
00:33:09.000And that's because, you know, the missiles aren't always accurate and maybe some of them fail.
00:33:13.000And of course, you know, the idea is that if the Soviet Union triggered a first strike against the United States, Where would the Soviet Union launch their missiles at?
00:33:25.000Well, the Soviet Union would launch their missiles at our missiles so that we couldn't use our missiles to retaliate.
00:33:32.000So, the United States, in order to hedge, you know, and this is a concept in international relations that is sort of central, it's called the security dilemma.
00:33:43.000Insofar as the Soviet Union has nuclear weapons, they have the capability to strike America first, they have the capability to hit America with nuclear bombs.
00:34:03.000Well, the United States has to develop enough nuclear missiles that if the Soviet Union hits our nuclear missiles, we'll have enough that we can hit them back and retaliate.
00:34:13.000And so, nuclear retaliation is kind of at the heart of defending against nuclear weapons.
00:34:21.000Insofar as two countries have nuclear weapons, each country knows that the other can launch nuclear weapons at the other.
00:34:29.000You know, if the Soviet Union has nuclear weapons, they can drop nuclear bombs on our population and destroy our country.
00:34:36.000That's an unacceptable security posture.
00:34:41.000Well, if we both have nukes, then we both know that we could hit each other with nukes.
00:34:46.000And if we both have nukes, where would we drop those nukes?
00:34:48.000We drop them on the other country's nukes so that they couldn't hit us.
00:34:55.000So both countries are developing lots of nukes so that if the other side hits the other, well, then they'll always have more.
00:35:01.000Then you get the nuclear triad where they have various means of launching them.
00:35:05.000They've got nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads that could be dropped from planes, nuclear tipped missiles, so that in the event that, let's say, the Soviet Union destroys all our airfields and all our missile silos, we could still launch them from our submarines, which are always moving and the locations are unknowable, right?
00:35:26.000So that's a very important concept in understanding how do you have a stable world order?
00:35:31.000How do you have peace in the nuclear age?
00:35:34.000How is it that many countries can have peace?
00:35:36.000Large nuclear arsenals without war breaking out?
00:35:39.000Because understand, the very existence of nuclear weapons creates instability.
00:35:45.000The very fact that any country has a nuclear bomb, that any country has a nuclear capability, threatens all the other countries and creates an unacceptable security risk.
00:35:58.000So it's actually a very tenuous and a very delicate thing that we even have peace, that we even have confidence between the nuclear powers.
00:36:08.000And that confidence and that peace, it's built on this understanding, it's built on this psychological concept, this theory of mutually assured destruction.
00:36:20.000And mutually assured destruction, what that means is that every nuclear power has to be confident that the world would end if nuclear weapons are used.
00:36:30.000That if we launch them against another nuclear power, they would retaliate and it would be a losing prospect.
00:36:37.000For any country to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, that's how you have peace.
00:36:43.000Because otherwise, countries could not accept.
00:36:46.000And that's another thing in international relations the idea, you know, Destiny kept repeating, he kept saying, well, NATO's a defensive alliance.
00:36:53.000They've never invaded Russia and they never probably will.
00:36:59.000You know, you may believe that NATO, it is unlikely that they will invade Russia, but that's all that you could really say.
00:37:07.000And that's kind of another concept is that.
00:37:09.000You know, and I said this on the show today and I said this on Friday the existence of an offensive capability in itself presents a theoretical threat.
00:37:21.000That the United States possesses the nuclear weapons, that NATO possesses a $1.3 trillion per year military, the capability that they have that kind of firepower presents a threat.
00:37:37.000Because all it would take is a Discretionary choice by the leadership in DC for them to win a war against Russia.
00:37:47.000And so understand if you're Russia, if you're any country for that matter, the existence of an offensive capability in another country without an equal or, you know, without defensive parity, that presents a risk to the security of your country.
00:38:06.000The only thing that's stopping NATO from invading Russia.
00:38:11.000If we say that, well, NATO will probably not invade them, is this very sort of flimsy, like, you know, this very flimsy assumption.
00:38:20.000And I said this in the debate it's not sufficient, it's not adequate to say NATO probably won't invade Russia today.
00:38:28.000Because, of course, NATO could invade Russia tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now.
00:38:34.000And that's the thing, they always can.
00:38:38.000It's the capability to do that that creates a security risk.
00:38:41.000So, what countries have to do is create a balance.
00:38:45.000So, if NATO has certain offensive capability, Russia needs some way to match that.
00:38:53.000Well, weaker countries can develop a nuclear arsenal, right?
00:38:58.000If we're talking about conventional capabilities, non nuclear capabilities, countries can develop cheaper defensive capabilities that can match the more expensive offensive capabilities of the other country.
00:39:12.000And this is where we get into missiles.
00:39:15.000So, as an example, in 1973, and we'll get into the ABM thing, and I guess we'll sort of circle back to this concept.
00:39:22.000So, in 1973, back to the ABM thing, Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, They sign a treaty on anti ballistic missile systems.
00:39:33.000And what's happening in the 60s and 70s is that the Soviet Union and America are building up their stockpiles of warheads and of missiles in an arms race.
00:39:43.000And that's why I explained the concept of mutually assured destruction and the sort of nuclear thinking.
00:39:51.000They're building up because both sides are distrustful of one another and they need to know, again, that they can retaliate.
00:39:59.000Well, in the 60s and 70s, both countries start to look into.
00:40:03.000Anti ballistic missiles, which are missiles that shoot down missiles.
00:40:07.000And they're looking into the capability to create basically an umbrella of protection where, you know, hypothetically the Soviet Union launches an ICBM at the United States and then an anti ballistic missile system will shoot down those ballistic missiles.
00:40:25.000And then the United States can launch missiles at the Soviet Union and retaliate.
00:40:30.000Or theoretically, you know, if the United States builds an ABM shield around itself, it can launch.
00:40:36.000Strikes at Russia without Russia being able to retaliate.
00:40:41.000And understand the ABM shield, it's counterintuitive.
00:40:43.000Most people would think, oh, you know, there's technology where we could shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky.
00:40:49.000Wouldn't we want to pursue something like that?
00:40:51.000Wouldn't we want to protect ourselves from nuclear weapons?
00:40:54.000The answer, counterintuitively, is no.
00:40:57.000We do not want to protect ourselves from nuclear weapons.
00:41:00.000And that has a lot to do with the balance and the concept of mutually assured destruction.
00:41:07.000Because if the United States is protected from ICBMs, if it's protected from a first strike or a retaliatory strike, then there is no deterrent from the United States initiating the use of nuclear weapons.
00:41:22.000It actually makes the world less safe.
00:41:25.000Because if the United States develops an ABM shield, and if the Soviet Union develops an ABM shield, and if China develops an ABM shield, well, then there's really, you know, now nuclear weapons are sort of back on the table.
00:41:38.000Because then, if we say hypothetically, hmm, you know, let's say in a theoretical scenario, the United States says, you know, well, hostilities between us and the Soviet Union have reached a boiling point.
00:41:52.000We think that we could destroy their ABM shield, we could destroy their anti ballistic missile system, and then the Soviet Union will be vulnerable to a nuclear attack.
00:42:04.000We can nuke the Soviet Union, we can nuke their ABM sites, we can nuke.
00:42:08.000Their nuclear weapons, we can nuke their population centers and their industry, and even if they have nuclear submarines that could launch nukes at us, our ABM shield will knock all of that out of the sky.
00:42:20.000Now, nuclear weapons are back on the table as a sort of functional tool of war.
00:42:29.000It's not something any longer that we could say confidently would result in our own destruction, like we could if we didn't have an ABM shield.
00:42:38.000So, the military doctrine of the United States, ever since that.
00:42:42.000Treaty passed was not to protect ourselves, was to say we will not develop a capability to shoot down nuclear weapons.
00:42:51.000What underlies U.S. security is the retaliatory capability.
00:42:56.000We're not going to shoot nukes out of the sky, but if you nuke us, we will destroy your country.
00:43:02.000And if every country has that policy, then nobody will be using nuclear weapons.
00:43:33.000So, in 1991, the Soviet Union dissolves and it is weakened dramatically.
00:43:39.000Its conventional military capability is destroyed, its economy is destroyed, the territory shrinks, the population shrinks, it's a disaster.
00:43:47.000In 2001, Russia is still a very weak country, and all the Soviet satellites are amputated from Russia.
00:43:56.000And in 2001, the United States pulls out of the ABM Treaty and the United States begins to research and develop.
00:44:19.000And Destiny countered and he said, well, you know, the United States pulled out of that treaty because China was not a signatory on the treaty.
00:44:33.000He said, also, North Korea has a nuclear arsenal and Iran is developing a nuclear arsenal.
00:44:38.000And at the time, we thought Iraq was developing a nuclear arsenal.
00:44:42.000So the argument goes from the foreign policy establishment in Washington that, you know, Russia shouldn't be too concerned about this because, well, we're only building an ABM system to counter Iranian missiles.
00:44:55.000And we're only pulling out of the treaty because it's insufficient because China hasn't signed on to it.
00:45:01.000So therefore, China could develop an ABM shield.
00:45:04.000So we're investing into an ABM shield to counter Iran and maybe China.
00:45:11.000The problem with that logic, though, and this is what I said in the debate, is that the ABM system that's being deployed to Europe does not discriminate against Iranian or Russian missiles.
00:45:24.000So you're building an ABM system in Alaska, you're building an ABM system in Eastern Europe, you've got an ABM system in the Arctic Ocean, and you're building an ABM circle around Russia.
00:45:39.000And you could say, well, it's for Iran, it doesn't matter what you say it's for.
00:45:44.000The systems aren't programmed to only shoot down Iranian missiles.
00:45:54.000So, once again, the capability would theoretically then exist for them to shoot down Russian missiles.
00:46:00.000And again, now the nuclear doctrine has fundamentally changed.
00:46:06.000And it's no longer based on retaliation and mutually assured destruction, now it's based on this umbrella of protection concept.
00:46:15.000And again, they could say it's for one thing, they could say it's for another thing, it doesn't matter.
00:46:20.000And it does destabilize the ABM treaty peace and the confidence that other nuclear powers have that other nuclear powers will not initiate a first strike.
00:46:33.000I mean, that's really the foundations of the thinking on nuclear strategy the ability to initiate a first strike and survive.
00:46:43.000Theoretically, if the United States is successful and develops an ABM shield and they deploy it around Russia, they could say it's for Iran, they would have the capability to strike Russia and Russia would not be able to retaliate, theoretically.
00:46:58.000Because, of course, now Russia, they go from, you know, before 2001, they know that if America hits them, Russia could hit them back and it's game over for everybody.
00:47:10.000So, America, we can have confidence based on what we know about people.
00:48:01.000This destabilizes and upsets the entire nuclear order.
00:48:06.000And so the next day, Putin goes out and says, We will be forced to develop hypersonic capabilities.
00:48:13.000So, Russia then begins to develop a hypersonic missile system.
00:48:17.000What's the significance of hypersonic?
00:48:19.000You know, maybe you've read about this or heard about this.
00:48:21.000The idea behind a hypersonic missile, hypersonic meaning faster than the speed of sound, is that these missiles are unstoppable.
00:48:31.000So if America is going to develop a system that shoots down missiles, Russia says, okay, we'll develop a missile that is so fast you can't stop it.
00:48:43.000And what has been initiated thus is an arms race.
00:48:46.000Now America is racing to develop an ABM shield, and now Russia is racing to develop these offensive capabilities that can pierce.
00:48:57.000So now Russia is investing in hypersonic missiles, hypersonic gliders, and these other more sophisticated kinds of missiles, and I'll add that are far cheaper.
00:49:09.000It just so happens that the ABM shield doesn't work.
00:49:13.000There is no anti ballistic missile system that works in any reliable way.
00:49:19.000These ABM shields shoot down about half of the missiles that are launched, and when they conduct tests on the systems, and When they conduct the tests, the ABM system knows where the missiles are going to be, when they're fired, where they're fired from.
00:49:39.000The missiles are launched in the daytime so they can see them.
00:49:43.000And even then, they only shoot down half of them.
00:49:45.000There was only one test conducted at night, and the ABM didn't shoot down any of the missiles.
00:49:51.000So the ABM shield is extremely expensive and it doesn't work.
00:49:55.000Nevertheless, that we're even investing into it, Russia doesn't know what our capability is.
00:49:59.000That we're investing into it is enough.
00:50:05.000On the other hand, the hypersonic missiles are very cheap and they work.
00:50:11.000They're precise, they work, and they're cheap.
00:50:15.000And Russia and China are further along on those technologies than even the United States is.
00:50:21.000And so this is just an example of, you know, trying to understand the things that the United States is doing that are provoking Russia.
00:50:30.000And again, and this gets to the heart of the conversation, you know, throughout the debate, I'm saying, look, The United States is doing these things which are very provocative.
00:50:38.000To pull out of the ABM treaty is extremely provocative.
00:50:52.000And this is just sort of hand waved away.
00:50:54.000And, you know, the NATO side and the pro America side and the neocons, they sort of hand wave that away and they say, well, the ABM doesn't work.
00:52:19.000If you're a Russian citizen and you look up at the sky and you know that an American nuclear missile can fall out of the sky and land on you and kill everybody in a 10 mile radius, is it good enough for you to just say, like, well, you know, that probably won't happen?
00:52:34.000Well, they said that they, you know, wouldn't shoot down our missiles.
00:52:59.000And these kinds of assumptions about the West's goodwill and assumptions about the West's real capabilities, it's just not sufficient for a country to be confident in their security posture.
00:53:14.000You would be far more confident as Russia to say, well, America won't strike us because our hypersonic missiles.
00:53:26.000If you're the Russian president and your job is to keep your people safe, would you prefer to say, well, the United States ABM shield doesn't work and they probably won't strike us and it's for Iranian missiles anyway?
00:53:39.000Or would you prefer to say, it doesn't matter if the Americans have an ABM shield?
00:53:44.000We have a missile that will pierce anything.
00:53:47.000We have an unstoppable missile and no matter what happens, if the U.S. initiates a first strike, they will be destroyed.
00:53:57.000And honestly, one of those, the latter, is an obligation.
00:54:03.000If you're the president of Russia, you have an obligation to do the second thing.
00:54:07.000That's the only, frankly, that's the only responsible thing to do.
00:54:11.000That's the only responsible security policy.
00:54:15.000If you're not doing anything and everything to ensure that you have parity, defensive parity, or offensive parity with the other side's capabilities, if you're not doing that, you're not doing your job as president.
00:57:01.000Over the past 20 years, NATO has expanded into 13 different countries since the enlargement process was initiated in 1997.
00:57:10.000There were three major waves of NATO expansion in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
00:57:17.000And with the NATO expansion into all these Eastern European countries, they're expanding into formerly neutral countries, into formerly Warsaw Pact countries, into countries that are.
00:57:47.000And people can dispute that, but there's evidence that suggests that the Western intelligence agencies were involved.
00:57:55.000And the Ukrainian government is overthrown.
00:57:57.000And a new government is installed that wants Ukraine to join NATO.
00:58:02.000So, Russia moves in and they invade Crimea to secure their naval base on the Black Sea, and they back the separatists in Donbass because it's a stipulation that in order to join NATO, you can't have any kind of civil disorder.
00:58:14.000So, by fueling the civil war in Donbass, this is preventing Ukraine from advancing towards NATO membership.
00:58:21.000And in a sense, in 2014, NATO pushes across the red line.
00:58:28.000Putin lays down the red line in 2008 and says Ukraine is not joining NATO.
00:58:32.000And in 2014, that red line is crossed, and they say, well, we don't care.
00:58:37.000We're going to overthrow the government and put Ukraine in NATO anyway.
00:58:40.000And Putin pushes them right back and says, No, you're not, because I'm going to invade Crimea and I'm going to fuel a civil war, and that will preclude Ukraine from joining NATO.
00:58:49.000You thought you were going to get away with this.
00:58:51.000You thought you were going to push past my red line and make Ukraine part of NATO.
01:00:10.000And this is something that really is not even important to the NATO security posture, or, you know, that's not even to say the American security posture, but it is for Russia.
01:00:21.000So they crossed this red line in a way that is so belligerent and in a way that is so offensive, and really for no good reason.
01:00:30.000It's not like they invaded Ukraine because this mattered so much.
01:00:35.000They pushed into Ukraine just because they thought they could do anything.
01:00:41.000We saw that Putin drew a red line, and we said, you know what, we don't care.
01:02:29.000And so, they start giving money now to the Poroshenko government.
01:02:33.000You know, they install the Western backed leader Poroshenko.
01:02:38.000And they bring in these Galician neo Nazis who now head up the security forces and the military, and they occupy important positions in the government.
01:03:31.000I'll use drones against Donbass and I'll talk about, and this is the precipitating factor.
01:03:38.000Zelensky, who was recently elected in Ukraine, another Western backed leader, he signs an agreement with the United States bolstering their diplomatic relationship.
01:03:49.000Zelensky threatens to rearm Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
01:03:54.000The United States and the British are sailing destroyers and flying planes right up against the disputed territory in Crimea and Donbass.
01:04:02.000So, you know, Russia intervenes and says, you know, not so fast, you're not crossing my red line.
01:04:07.000And the United States and NATO walk right up to the red line and say, oh, yeah.
01:04:11.000Well, we'll see who can draw red lines in the world.
01:05:34.000And understand that with the NATO membership comes a lot of consequences.
01:05:39.000If Ukraine joins NATO, you know, why is this a red line for Putin?
01:05:43.000Why is this a legitimate security problem for Putin?
01:05:47.000If Ukraine joins NATO, NATO puts a military base in the Black Sea, a naval base.
01:05:53.000If Ukraine joins NATO, NATO can deploy an ABM shield in Ukraine.
01:05:59.000If Ukraine joins NATO, NATO can deploy short range and intermediate range nuclear missiles in Ukraine.
01:06:06.000They can deploy hypersonic missiles in Ukraine that can reach Moscow in five minutes that are unstoppable.
01:06:12.000So, in short, you know, once again, going back to this idea of balance and security.
01:06:19.000If Ukraine joins NATO, NATO has a dagger at the throat of Moscow with ABM, with short range missiles, theater support missiles, and with the naval base in Sevastopol.
01:06:35.000This puts Russia in a completely indefensible situation because if you look at a map of Eastern Europe, the Baltic states are a part of NATO, Poland is a part of NATO.
01:06:47.000If Ukraine is a part of NATO, You've got Belarus sticking out.
01:06:55.000And you've got the Kaliningrad ex post.
01:07:01.000In a hypothetical war, you would, and also then you have Turkey in the south as well.
01:07:06.000In a hypothetical war, you have got an indefensible border from St. Petersburg in the north all the way down through to the Caucasus for Russia.
01:07:16.000You've got a NATO attack, which, I mean, they would quickly take over Belarus.
01:07:20.000And so you've got the entire northern European plain, all the way from St. Petersburg down to the Caucasus to defend.
01:07:28.000You've got a NATO assault coming from the Black Sea.
01:07:31.000You've got missiles, theater support missiles coming from Ukraine.
01:07:36.000I mean, you've got troops basically right there on the border of St. Petersburg, Moscow, of Volgograd.
01:07:45.000I mean, it's over before it even begins.
01:07:48.000And so Russia is put in a completely indefensible position.
01:07:52.000Posture in both conventional and nuclear means if all of this is completed.
01:07:57.000With Ukraine under the control of NATO, they could not win a conventional war, they could not win a nuclear war.
01:08:03.000They put up an ABM shield to shoot down the nuclear missiles, and they can launch missiles just as easily, a full on naval assault, a land assault, and an aerial assault, and it's over.
01:08:17.000And the only argument that comes from the other side is like, oh, well, but NATO wouldn't do that.
01:08:27.000And the reason that people compare it to Mexico, like what if Russia had an alliance with Mexico, is because the thought of Mexico having Russian nuclear missiles and having a Russian naval base in the Gulf of Mexico and having the entire southern border have to be defended against a potential peer competitor would just be unthinkable.
01:08:50.000And then imagine if Russia was 13 times more powerful than the United States.
01:08:56.000Right, or 20 times more powerful than the United States.
01:09:00.000What if Russia were 20 times more powerful and Mexico was in a defensive alliance with Russia and Russia had their ICBMs, or I should say short and intermediate range missiles, and an anti ballistic missile shield, and they had a naval base in Mexico?
01:09:36.000Because between what the United States has done with the missile treaties, this new arms race, what we've done in the Middle East, the expansion of NATO, we are putting Russia in a position where it cannot defend itself.
01:09:51.000And we have demonstrated no good faith, we have demonstrated no restraint either.
01:09:57.000You know, when we didn't like Gaddafi, we just took him out.
01:10:00.000When we didn't like Assad, we just tried to take him out.
01:10:02.000And it didn't matter who we had to back.
01:10:36.000And on the three major points, destiny says, well, He says, what is it?
01:10:45.000That Ukraine's sovereignty is inviolable.
01:10:48.000Well, he also said that sovereignty was conditional.
01:10:51.000When NATO invaded Libya, or I should say, when NATO conducted airstrikes and deposed Gaddafi in Libya and threw the country into anarchy for 10 years, Destiny said, oh, well, that was justified, even though it was a violation of a country's sovereignty because of certain conditions.
01:11:09.000I said, oh, well, so sovereignty is conditional then?
01:11:53.000That's why they had to oust the president.
01:11:56.000That's why they'd overthrow the government and install a new one.
01:12:00.000And then, anyway, that fails in the latter argument because the final argument is no country's security can be enhanced at the expense of another's.
01:12:07.000Well, we can surely demonstrate that Ukraine joining NATO, while it may enhance Ukraine's security, clearly comes at a detriment to Russia's security.
01:12:15.000So it actually doesn't matter what Ukraine wants.
01:12:18.000It cannot enhance its own security at the expense of Russia, which is what joining NATO does.
01:12:24.000So, the argument fails on every front.
01:12:28.000And it also fails on the front of if you're going to defend NATO and the United States, well, NATO and the United States have done things that are far less defensible than what Russia is doing in Ukraine now.
01:12:38.000And we could get into a lot of counterexamples.
01:12:39.000We could get into the Saudis' war in Yemen.
01:12:42.000We could get into Israel's war in Palestine and Syria.
01:12:46.000We could get into the Monroe Doctrine and everything that that has entailed for 200 years.
01:12:52.000You know, I mean, there are so many counterexamples with how.
01:12:55.000The United States and NATO was acted in recent years that there just wasn't time to cover that in the debate.
01:13:01.000You know, like for example, the situation in Yemen.
01:13:05.000So, at about the same time that the Ukraine crisis started, the government in Yemen was overthrown by Shiite rebels backed by Iran.
01:13:15.000Yemen is a country on the Arabian Peninsula, south of Saudi Arabia, west of Oman.
01:13:22.000And this was a vassal state of Saudi Arabia.
01:15:54.000And it's not to pass judgment on Israel.
01:15:56.000I'm not trying to, you know, that's not, I'm not making a value statement about Israel's occupation of those territories.
01:16:04.000But it is to say, you know, if in principle you're opposed to these kinds of military operations, well, then where's the outrage over Israel?
01:16:12.000Where's the outrage over Saudi Arabia?
01:18:54.000They're seriously going to say, well, I'm really mad about Russia invading Ukraine because they violated the sovereignty of Ukraine and Ukraine.
01:19:03.000Has a right to determine if it wants to join NATO.
01:19:08.000And you know, TV is covering it and social media is amplifying it because this is the right position.
01:19:15.000Because, you know, they're good people that support democracy, not because it's what the State Department and the intelligence agencies and the National Endowment for Democracy and the NGOs want.
01:19:41.000Okay, so if sovereignty is inviolable and if self determination is sacrosanct, then where's the outrage over the Saudi war in Yemen that the United States is funding and providing material support for?
01:19:57.000Except there is no pretense about, I mean, there's no, nobody is arguing that Yemen has an inviolable, no one's even talking about it.
01:20:06.000And no one's talking about the war in Yemen because.
01:20:10.000The Council on Foreign Relations supports that war.
01:20:12.000The State Department supports that war.
01:20:15.000The CIA and the Pentagon support that war.
01:20:18.000And you will not see it on CNN because CNN obeys those institutions.
01:20:23.000And you won't see it on social media because big tech obeys those institutions.
01:20:28.000And as a consequence, nobody's talking about it.
01:20:32.000And nobody's talking about it because they weren't fucking told to talk about it because people are ignorant and stupid and they will just go with whatever is on TV.
01:20:40.000But, you know, like Destiny is making this case of like, oh, you know, People are, you know, people are just mad.
01:21:17.000No, the institutions do not respond to what the people want.
01:21:20.000The people want what the institutions tell them to want.
01:21:26.000The institutions set the agenda, and the media launders the agenda through public opinion, and public opinion feeds it back to the institutions.
01:21:34.000And that is why people cry bloody murder over Russia's invasion in Ukraine, but the American government funds the Saudis' war in Yemen.
01:21:43.000And it's got nothing to do with democracy, it's got nothing to do with self determination or the fucking UN or the UN's laws on war or any of that.
01:22:07.000You know, and fundamentally, that's the conceit of the other side they really believe that, you know, some fucking tranny in a ballerina skirt who's drinking soy and playing Valorant, they think that person is making decisions for McDonald's boycotting Russia.
01:22:27.000I mean, that's literally what they think.
01:22:29.000They think that the Pentagon and the State Department and all of that is at the beck and call of some fucking guy with boobs, with pink hair, who is balding, who is complaining about war crimes on Twitter because he saw it on Reddit.
01:22:47.000And, like, I can assure you, that is not the direction of how these things are decided.
01:24:09.000I mean, they're creating the picture of the world and of the policy.
01:24:12.000So it's the interest groups, which are representing all the richest.
01:24:16.000It's the think tanks, which are all the elite academics, Jews, legacy people, meaning like other people that went to Harvard and Yale.
01:24:24.000So that's like the current elite just reproducing itself.
01:24:27.000And then you've got the bureaucracies.
01:24:29.000Then you've got the agencies and the departments and the executive branch, the bureaucrats that have been there forever, the proper deep state.
01:24:37.000The Pentagon, Officer Corps, Intelligence Agencies, they are the ones setting the policy.
01:24:42.000So you get this conglomeration of, like, you know, the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institute and, like, the Council on Foreign Relations in concert with Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon and the IC and the State Department.
01:24:59.000And they are setting a policy about Ukraine.
01:25:03.000And the policy that they set is well, Ukraine should be a part of NATO.
01:25:07.000And that is good for a number of reasons.
01:25:18.000The Pentagon wants it because they want to put their missiles there.
01:25:20.000The State Department wants it because they want their embassy there.
01:25:23.000And they want democracy, liberal democracy to flourish there.
01:25:28.000And maybe investors want it because if Ukraine is a part of NATO and there's a thriving liberal democracy, then that means that Western energy companies can invest in all the shale oil in Ukraine and all the natural gas deposits in the Black Sea and profit from it.
01:25:44.000And they don't have to ship expensive liquefied natural gas to Western Europe to stave them off of Russian natural gas, which is cheaper and comes from a pipeline through Ukraine.
01:25:55.000So they three, this Iron Triangle, comes up with the policy, and then they send over the CIA to kill the people in Maidan, and they send over billions to back the opposition.
01:26:07.000They have a monopoly on media, they control the media, they overthrow the government, and then Putin pushes their shit in and says, not so fast.
01:26:27.000And then they rally their troops, you know, the Iron Triangle.
01:26:30.000They rally their troops in the media, and the media sets the tone.
01:26:34.000The narrative comes from the think tanks, right?
01:26:37.000The think tanks write the papers and they do the research.
01:26:41.000You know, the foreign policy experts get interviewed on the shows, they write the policy papers and the experts.
01:26:50.000And the journalists pick it up in the Times and in the Washington Post, and then that is fed into the lowest common denominator sources like BuzzFeed and Vox and all the others.
01:27:03.000And then this is what people are guzzling 24 7 because there is no other media.
01:27:10.000So, you know, where are people getting their news about the world?
01:27:14.000CNN and NBC, they're watching the shows, and the shows go to the experts, and the experts all came from Harvard and so on.
01:27:21.000Okay, and they're going to social media, and the social media timeline and trending topics and hashtags are curated by big tech.
01:27:30.000And so they're getting a curated timeline again of legacy news sources and others, and it's all the experts feeding them the narrative.
01:27:38.000And so then everybody is saying, Wow, this have you heard about this Ukraine thing?
01:28:08.000Because the Iron Triangle couldn't announce to the people, like, hey, we're going to war with Russia because there's this illusion of a civilian elected government.
01:28:18.000But they can work through the media, they can work through the algorithmic curation on social media.
01:28:26.000And brainwash people into believing their position.
01:28:29.000And then the people will, like a feedback, regurgitate that back in elections and on social media and in protests and other astroturf displays of public support.
01:28:39.000And then the elected government will respond to the people and carry out the policy that the Iron Triangle wanted.
01:30:54.000And, you know, these are the sociopaths.
01:30:56.000These are the murderers that are going to get all of us killed, ultimately.
01:31:00.000So, and, you know, that's why the Harvey Weinstein and the Jeffrey Epstein thing were so important because Jeffrey Epstein was your bridge between Hollywood and the intelligence agencies.
01:31:14.000Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent and he had dealings with.
01:31:18.000Hollywood celebrities and financiers and the British government and other world governments.
01:31:24.000And it's like, and Harvey Weinstein too.
01:31:26.000Harvey Weinstein was protected by an outfit which was all former Mossad agents.
01:31:32.000And that demonstrates that, you know, all this pedophile, like, you know, conspiracy stuff that happens in Hollywood and the media, it's inextricably linked with the Iron Triangle.
01:32:01.000No, they're all, I mean, these are all mechanisms of control of about 1,000 people, you know, 1,000 to 3,000 people in the world that are making all the decisions.
01:32:11.000And they're enforcing their decisions with blackmail, extortion, you know, and other kinds of punitive things.
01:32:25.000But anyway, so that's now I'm just totally off track.
01:32:27.000But that was a debate, and like I said, I thought it went very well because I mean, at a certain point, he just in order to justify his position, he was just making these crazy claims.
01:32:39.000Like he was saying, you know, yeah, NATO determines when sovereignty can be violated.
01:32:45.000Like if you say that, you lose the debate.
01:32:49.000If you start out by saying, you know, under no circumstances can Russia violate Ukraine's sovereignty, And then later on, you say, oh, well, NATO invaded Libya.
01:32:57.000That was okay because sovereignty is actually conditional.
01:33:00.000Who determines when it can be violated?
01:33:05.000And then also, he said something like, you know, I said, well, Russia should influence Ukraine because there's nothing wrong with great powers influencing weaker neighbors.
01:33:21.000And so, if you're asserting that, like, the American government doesn't exert influence in the Western hemisphere, Like in Mexico, I don't even know what to tell you.
01:33:29.000Like at that point, you just need to read a book or something.
01:33:32.000And then there was one other ridiculous thing.
01:33:34.000Oh, and then he said something like, you know, NATO will never invade Russia.
01:33:39.000When you say things like that, it just shows you don't understand foreign relations at all.
01:33:45.000Well, NATO probably won't invade Russia.
01:34:59.000I know that's a sort of oversimplification, but like the point stands.
01:35:04.000If somebody has a capability to utterly destroy you, it really honestly doesn't matter what their intentions are, what they say they're going to do.
01:35:19.000And you could make all kinds of convoluted, like, well, but that's not quite the same thing.
01:35:23.000The point is, you know, taking Ukraine is a strategic detriment to Russia.
01:35:31.000And you could call it defensive, but for Russia to not have Ukraine is strategically a detriment.
01:35:36.000And it doesn't matter who has it, it's just unacceptable for them to be so vulnerable.
01:35:43.000Vulnerability is not acceptable like that.
01:35:45.000I mean, that level of being vulnerable, as a president of Russia, you're not responsible if you allow that.
01:35:53.000And it'd be one thing if he'd nuked Ukraine or he invaded Poland, but we're talking about a special military operation with very limited objectives, which we'll get into tomorrow because I've already been live for an hour and 40 minutes.
01:39:15.000Because I'm getting pissed off, like I'm saying, and I'm getting into it, and I'm like gesticulating, and I'm getting angry, I'm like raising my voice.
01:39:33.000So let me just calm down and then we'll get into the super chats.
01:43:20.000So, I'll just go into the super chats and not much better, but you know, whatever.
01:43:29.000So, let's see what you guys are saying here in the super chats.
01:43:31.000We've got Unknown Soldier says, Does no one find it suspicious that pretty girl politically provoked came out of nowhere to be around highly persecuted dissidents?
01:47:31.000I'm going to take all of that and just channel it into my work.
01:47:35.000I'll take all of my, whatever is not happening socially, I'm just going to take all of it and redirect it into my sort of eccentric passions and my projects.
01:47:50.000And all of that, because that's really all that I'm deriving any kind of satisfaction and fulfillment from.
01:47:57.000The rest is just frustrating, to be quite honest.
01:48:54.000Every night he goes in, and I like the guy, he's a nice guy, but he dutifully goes in there every night to be like, Hi, Brittany, I'm here, I'm here, I'm back.
01:49:06.000Hi, Brittany, you're so cool, and be her little like minion.
01:49:11.000And like, nobody sees anything wrong with this, like, but this is, and to a lesser extent, this is like what every guy does now.
01:49:19.000And I'm like, It's like, is there something wrong with me?
01:50:09.000I'll hire like one person to be my ambassador to the world.
01:50:12.000And that's going to be, I think I've decided that's my new direction in my life because the rest of it is just too, it's almost just too infuriating to bear sometimes.
01:50:25.000This little nigga, he goes on this show.
01:50:28.000He jumps on these Zoom calls and goes, Hi, Brittany.
01:54:02.000That's, you know, when I say I'm like, you know, when I say I'm like taxi driver and American psycho and joker, you know, it's really, it's all real.
01:58:43.000I mean, it is all together, but that stuff in particular is like, I'm just wondering who is seeing that and being like, yeah, like more of that, please.
01:59:12.000The thing is, though, with a lot of these gay Republicans, because you could say like Dave Rubin, like Dave Rubin, it's sort of a tricky thing with these people.
01:59:19.000Like Dave Rubin, he's another one where he's not really flamboyant, but he is one of these gay people where he is militantly pro gay.
01:59:30.000You know, and if like you're not down with that, he's got a problem with you.
01:59:34.000Same with, you know, like Jeff Giza is kind of this way.
01:59:39.000And I used to talk to Jeff Giza years ago, and he's a nice enough guy and everything, but he's also like fiercely pro gay adoption.
01:59:47.000And if you're not in favor of gay adoption, because he's a gay dad and he adopted, I think, I forget if it was a surrogacy or adoption, but, and if you're against that, oh, he like hates you.
02:05:39.000I don't mind that they exist because, good, it's going to attract other losers and other pagans and other weirdos, and that'll keep them away from us.
02:05:47.000It's like a sort of like a mousetrap, but that only works if there's no crossover.
02:05:53.000So I, you know, I just don't want to be seen as, you know, people on their side are always talking about, you know, when is Nick going to join up with Mike Enoch?
02:09:59.000You know, it's good to see the other people, but it's also really good to see the Chads because it's like, you know what, if there's buy in from the Chads, you know, we're in good shape.
02:10:55.000Donald Trump says, had a meeting to get an internet provider for my boss, and this representative with cogent communications bragged to me about how they cut off internet to their clients in Russia.
02:16:59.000So, anyway, so as I was saying, so I was saying, you know, where this is going is I'm going to be on Exegol and I am going to blast the entire galaxy fleet out of the sky with force lightning and knock some girl into a cavern with the force push.
02:18:28.000Kyle says mutually assured destruction probably applies in the cybersecurity realm as well.
02:18:34.000We'll shut down your energy networks if you shut down ours, maybe to a lesser extent because it's harder to showcase or flex those types of capabilities.
02:20:42.000Like, there's this me that you think of in your head, and you think, like, I'm going to wear a fucking cowboy hat, or you think I'm going to go to the Alamo, or you think I'm going to move to Louisiana for the girls or something.
02:20:53.000And then there's like, you know, then there's, Nick Fuentes, the eccentric genius, misunderstood, you're screaming into the void every night.
02:21:05.000It's sort of what sucks about being famous, you know, struggle for your own identity, for me, you know, who I am.