America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - Is War in North Korea Justified feat. Vendetta Vidame | America First Ep. 21

00:00:00.000 Good evening, everybody.

00:00:01.000 You are watching America First.

00:00:03.000 My name is Nicholas J. Fuentes, and we have for you tonight another grand debate.

00:00:08.000 Two in one week.

00:00:10.000 So it's been a pretty exciting week.

00:00:11.000 But tonight, as you know, we've been promoting it all day.

00:00:14.000 We are talking about North Korea.

00:00:16.000 Many people have been pestering me, saying, Nick, when are you going to have the North Korea debate?

00:00:20.000 It's finally here on this casual Friday episode.

00:00:24.000 And we have with us tonight Vendetta Vitime.

00:00:27.000 Vitime?

00:00:28.000 I guess.

00:00:29.000 I don't even know how it's pronounced, honestly.

00:00:33.000 All right, and we're just going to do a sound check really quickly.

00:00:36.000 I know the audio is all jazzed up last night.

00:00:38.000 So before we ruin 50 minutes of audio like I did last night, we'll check and make sure.

00:00:45.000 So is my audio good?

00:00:46.000 That's question number one for the live chat.

00:00:48.000 And number two, is Vendetta's audio good?

00:00:51.000 And can you give us a quick one, two, three?

00:00:52.000 I'm too quiet.

00:00:53.000 What's that?

00:00:55.000 Here, let me turn this up.

00:00:55.000 I'm too quiet.

00:00:56.000 Okay.

00:00:57.000 Is this getting better?

00:00:57.000 I don't know.

00:00:59.000 Let me boost it.

00:01:01.000 It says he's low.

00:01:03.000 Okay, let me pull it up one sec.

00:01:07.000 Okay, how about now?

00:01:08.000 How about now in the live chat?

00:01:09.000 I'll turn down.

00:01:11.000 What's that?

00:01:14.000 Is it good?

00:01:18.000 Can't hear me, huh?

00:01:20.000 They said it's quiet.

00:01:20.000 I'm good.

00:01:22.000 God damn it. 0.99

00:01:25.000 Hold on. 0.99

00:01:29.000 Put it up higher.

00:01:30.000 I'm putting the gate up pretty damn high now.

00:01:32.000 Let's see.

00:01:33.000 How's this?

00:01:34.000 How about now?

00:01:35.000 Is that good?

00:01:39.000 Okay.

00:01:40.000 Some people are saying it's okay, but it's hard to hear them.

00:01:43.000 Still quiet.

00:01:44.000 Jesus Christ. 0.99

00:01:45.000 There's always something with this goddamn audio. 0.99

00:01:52.000 What's that? 0.99

00:01:55.000 Have you raised your settings yet?

00:01:59.000 Yeah, I'm maxed out, so let's see.

00:02:04.000 Let me try and do something real quick.

00:02:07.000 Let me do a deal here.

00:02:14.000 No, that's not going to work.

00:02:15.000 Okay.

00:02:15.000 Well, you know what?

00:02:16.000 I don't know.

00:02:17.000 All right.

00:02:18.000 If I talk about this loud, can people hear me pretty good?

00:02:20.000 I don't know.

00:02:21.000 Can they hear you?

00:02:22.000 Yeah.

00:02:23.000 Now it's good.

00:02:23.000 Okay.

00:02:24.000 Okay.

00:02:25.000 So they say he's better now.

00:02:25.000 Okay.

00:02:27.000 Yeah.

00:02:27.000 We'll do it live.

00:02:28.000 Okay.

00:02:28.000 We'll do it live.

00:02:29.000 All right.

00:02:31.000 Everyone's doing the all caps thing now.

00:02:33.000 So we're ready for the debate.

00:02:33.000 Okay.

00:02:34.000 We're ready to start it off.

00:02:35.000 So now I understand you have a prepared statement.

00:02:38.000 Vendetta, why don't you go ahead and read that and I'll respond with my opening statement.

00:02:42.000 Yeah, I thought it was kind of, you know, you said that you haven't seen any really like intelligent arguments for isolationism.

00:02:47.000 I felt it was kind of important to, you know, put out an intelligent argument.

00:02:51.000 So here we go.

00:02:52.000 So the position I'm arguing may be called the isolationist one, but I'm going to defend it on the basis of realism.

00:02:58.000 Same terms as those that say the U.S. should launch a first strike in North Korea.

00:03:02.000 Realist decisions made in cost benefit analysis.

00:03:06.000 In the case of first strike in North Korea, let's start with costs.

00:03:08.000 First one, would be nuclear retaliation. 0.58

00:03:11.000 If we had a window of opportunity where the U.S. could destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities with no risk of nuclear retaliation, I think that window closed sometime during the Bush and the Obama administrations. 0.62

00:03:22.000 North Korea has nuclear weapons, it has ballistic missiles.

00:03:25.000 Whatever we failed to destroy in a first strike can and will be launched against us.

00:03:28.000 Seoul is an obvious target, so is Tokyo, so are any U.S. military bases in South Korea or Japan. 0.57

00:03:34.000 Only 100% success in destroying North Korea's nuclear arsenal would stop one or more of these targets from being hit.

00:03:40.000 And in actual wars, 100% success is something that's almost never achieved.

00:03:44.000 North Korea has thousands of caves and tunnels to hide weapons in, and our ABM systems, unlike those in their Aegis destroyers, have a large chance of missing their targets. 0.74

00:03:52.000 Safe to assume, even after a first strike, North Koreans will have a good chance of landing one or more nuclear weapons somewhere in an important target. 0.82

00:03:59.000 Second cost is damage North Korea can do with conventional weapons.

00:04:03.000 Seoul is within the range of over 1,000 heavy artillery pieces, massive city, millions of people that cannot be evacuated overnight.

00:04:10.000 U.S. and South Korea can destroy these artillery pieces with their own counter battery fire with airstrikes, but only after they reveal themselves by firing first.

00:04:17.000 They're all concealed and dug in positions with decoys. 0.59

00:04:20.000 By firing only a fraction of the guns at a time, North Koreans can sustain bombardment of Seoul for several days, even up to a week. 0.55

00:04:27.000 So casualties of this would be in the tens of thousands, billions of dollars in property damage.

00:04:32.000 North Korea also has thousands of short range guns that are aimed at U.S. troops on the front lines.

00:04:36.000 Our losses wouldn't be as high as civilians because our troops are in their own fortified positions, but still in the low thousands minimum.

00:04:43.000 While this may not sound like much, especially with what the North Koreans will lose in return, that is still going to be more U.S. casualties in one week of war with North Korea than in 10 or 15 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

00:04:54.000 And that is without them landing a nuke on U.S. troops.

00:04:57.000 So this is the cost of one week of war with North Korea, but this war is not going to be over in a week. 0.83

00:05:02.000 If the goal is to limit North Korea's nuclear capability for good, It's not enough to just destroy what they have and call it a day because they will still know how to rebuild it and replace it, which means we have to go up there and conquer North Korea. 0.60

00:05:14.000 Some people say, go and just, we can just nuke North Korea off the map. 0.77

00:05:17.000 That's not a practical option in reality, even if they fired nuclear weapons first.

00:05:20.000 I mean, you could hit Pyongyang and a couple of the military targets in retaliation.

00:05:24.000 Yes, but what a lot of people forget is that South Korea views North Korea as the other half of its own country.

00:05:29.000 They're part of the same nation, they're both intensely nationalistic.

00:05:32.000 Wiping out the North Koreans is going to be seen by South Koreans as a genocide against their own people. 0.70

00:05:37.000 Let's think two steps ahead.

00:05:39.000 What purpose is South Korea going to have to keep the U.S. as an ally once there's no longer North Korea to defend against?

00:05:45.000 Who do they need a protection from?

00:05:46.000 China?

00:05:47.000 And China's actually South Korea's largest trading partner.

00:05:50.000 Quite possibly, if South Korea gets angry enough, they could end up realigning with China against us, especially if the U.S. is also doing things like reforming trade policy to be in our favor instead of theirs. 0.79

00:06:00.000 So nuking North Korea off the map may, in fact, be getting rid of one enemy and end up replacing it with a stronger one. 0.86

00:06:06.000 So that means we have to do a ground invasion of North Korea. 0.76

00:06:10.000 So, clearly, we're going to end up winning the conventional war there, but the costs of doing that are a bit hard to predict.

00:06:16.000 We don't really know how hard the North Korean soldiers will fight because, you know, on the one hand, they've been under budget for decades.

00:06:23.000 And on the other hand, they've been kind of ideologically indoctrinated from, you know, almost the time they were born.

00:06:29.000 So, they could be something like, you know, the Russian ex Soviet army of the 90s, where Total just collapses and exposed to real combat.

00:06:36.000 So, it could be like a bigger version of the Gulf War in Iraq.

00:06:39.000 Or it could be something like, you know, the World War II Japanese. 0.86

00:06:41.000 Where they're not going to fight to the death until they're utterly broken, in which case we get losses more like the first Korean War, but in a few months or less. 0.78

00:06:49.000 Could be anything between the two, and we don't really know until we've actually faced some combat. 0.68

00:06:54.000 Either way, winning the conventional war is the easy part. 0.52

00:06:57.000 People think mission accomplished once we've taken out the nukes, once we've gotten to Kim Jong Un, or once we've reached Pyongyang are making the same mistakes as the Iraq War did. 0.80

00:07:06.000 The North Koreans have been indoctrinated from the time they were born to believe the Kim family is the rightful rulers, the United States is their enemy, South Koreans are a puppet regime. 0.62

00:07:14.000 Thinking they're going to welcome us as their liberators and be grateful for overthrowing the government is a very naive assumption.

00:07:18.000 This rarely ever happens.

00:07:20.000 What's more likely is that once the major North Korean armies are defeated, the hundreds of thousands of surviving troops, out of the original million or more, will break up into small groups, go home to their families with whatever weapons they have, and start leading an insurgency against the U.S. and South Korean occupation.

00:07:35.000 Now, if we think that the U.S. is not going to be part of this occupation, I'd say think again.

00:07:39.000 Trump is not taking military advice from America First nationalists.

00:07:42.000 He's taking from Mattis, Kelly, McMaster.

00:07:44.000 Other conventional minded Pentagon generals who will probably do the same thing there they do everywhere else stay in North Korea indefinitely, trying to do counterinsurgency.

00:07:52.000 An insurgency we face in North Korea could be a lot more difficult than in Iraq or Afghanistan.

00:07:57.000 North Korea is not a flat desert country like Iraq.

00:07:59.000 It's more than 80% mountains, more than 70% forest. 0.83

00:08:02.000 What's not covered in mountains or forests is rice paddies, and they're a great place for guerrillas to operate. 0.89

00:08:06.000 North Koreans are not like Iraqis who cannot shoot straight to save their own lives. 0.99

00:08:11.000 They're not like Afghans who actually do know how to fight, but they're a bunch of technologically primitive tribal goat herders. 1.00

00:08:15.000 North Koreans will be just as smart as we are, more or less. 1.00

00:08:18.000 They'll be hardened, used to suffering, and they'll have a lot more military equipment available than the Iraqis or the Taliban. 0.95

00:08:23.000 They will also look the same and speak the same language that our South Korean allies, with all the chances that gives to disguise and launch green on blue attacks. 0.76

00:08:31.000 If this isn't difficult enough already, we've already been assuming to this point that China will stay neutral and uninvolved.

00:08:36.000 Of course, the odds of China intervening like they did in 1950 with a full-scale attack on U.S. forces, it's very slim.

00:08:43.000 But that doesn't rule out the possibility of the Chinese taking a role in North Korea like Iran did with the war in Iraq by sending advisors and weapons to the North Korean forces.

00:08:51.000 Iran used the war in Iraq as a chance to learn how to fight a U.S. invasion, testing ground to try out different tactics and weapons by giving them to the Iraqi insurgents, seeing what would work and what didn't.

00:09:00.000 China will see the U.S. war in North Korea as a chance to do the same thing.

00:09:03.000 The last time they got to fight us was in 1953.

00:09:06.000 China will have zero incentive to see the U.S. doing well in North Korea.

00:09:08.000 In fact, just the opposite. 0.78

00:09:09.000 They'll benefit the most if we get bogged down and waste years of time and resources in another prolonged war, where they sit in the sidelines and watch, and then probably get 90% of the contracts to rebuild South Korea as well.

00:09:20.000 This will lead us to the final cost, the financial one.

00:09:21.000 The U.S. is already $20 trillion in debt.

00:09:24.000 We have a large budget deficit.

00:09:26.000 Trump is all going to cut taxes, invest in infrastructure, as well as the wall.

00:09:30.000 How are we going to pay for this war?

00:09:31.000 The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost us trillions.

00:09:34.000 So will this one. 1.00

00:09:35.000 South Koreans. 1.00

00:09:36.000 Are not going to pay for it.

00:09:37.000 They're going to be in enough debt just paying for their own half of it, plus their own rebuilding.

00:09:41.000 So we're looking at another five, maybe 10 trillion.

00:09:43.000 It's, I don't know, could spiral completely out of control, which makes it all the more difficult to end up funding the wall, the infrastructure, and the other things will actually benefit us.

00:09:51.000 So those are the costs.

00:09:53.000 What's on the benefits?

00:09:54.000 Okay, can we?

00:09:56.000 Almost done.

00:09:57.000 Okay, just making sure.

00:09:59.000 I tried, I chopped down a lot from the original.

00:09:59.000 Sorry.

00:10:02.000 All right.

00:10:03.000 Okay, so what do we get in return? 0.66

00:10:06.000 As I said, eliminating North Korea gets rid of the main threat to South Korea. 0.72

00:10:10.000 Thus, the main incentive they have to run a U.S. ally. 0.85

00:10:12.000 One thing we haven't considered is the fact that if we begin the war by attacking first, we're going to be held responsible afterward by the South Koreans for starting it and for whatever damage North Korea does them. 0.74

00:10:21.000 And so far from being grateful, I can see North Korea quite likely coming out of the war with a lot of resentment toward the U.S., no matter how much we did for them. 0.84

00:10:30.000 There's nothing of value to take in North Korea.

00:10:32.000 They don't have oil.

00:10:33.000 Their GDP is under $50 billion.

00:10:34.000 Their industries are coal mining, 1960s low manufacturing, barely enough rice farming to feed their own people.

00:10:40.000 There's nothing for us to take there. 0.69

00:10:41.000 So, the only benefit we get is eliminating the threat of North Korea launching its own first strike.

00:10:45.000 So, the question we have to answer is how likely is North Korea to launch that strike in the first place?

00:10:52.000 And yeah, that's the end of prepared state. 0.75

00:10:54.000 We can go from there.

00:10:54.000 Okay.

00:10:55.000 Thank you.

00:10:55.000 Okay.

00:10:56.000 People in the live chat saying it's a little long, but you know, I think it's necessary for you to lay out your whole case.

00:11:02.000 I think I appreciate that we got that solidified because my biggest problem with the isolationist camp or even extreme non interventionist camp is.

00:11:13.000 Like you said before you started, that there isn't really the intellectual case there.

00:11:17.000 It's a lot of war in Iraq, Israel, and that's supposed to end the debate.

00:11:21.000 But so I'm glad that you laid out your case.

00:11:24.000 My response to your opening statement, and I'll try and keep it relatively short here, but my response to that opening statement is that you've basically laid out all of the costs of a war in North Korea.

00:11:36.000 And I think it's a pretty sober analysis of our options, a pretty sober analysis of the costs.

00:11:43.000 Of those options and what contingencies might arise given if we take a limited strike or a total ground war, and on and on.

00:11:51.000 I think you've laid out pretty fairly and pretty soberly what we're looking at if we're talking about either a preemptive strike or any kind of military action against North Korea.

00:12:01.000 And I will concede that.

00:12:02.000 I will concede it will be costly.

00:12:03.000 It will be tough to calculate casualties.

00:12:06.000 It will be tough to calculate the cost monetarily, fiscally.

00:12:10.000 It will be tough to predict what will happen.

00:12:12.000 And I talk a lot on this show about what war is, and that's rolling the iron dice.

00:12:17.000 You're opening yourself up to unpredictable forces that you could never predict beforehand.

00:12:23.000 And there's a wide variety of those forces, whether it's Strategic, military, casualties, fiscal, everything else.

00:12:31.000 Here is where I diverge.

00:12:32.000 Here is where I disagree.

00:12:34.000 The alternative to a heavy cost military action in North Korea, which should not be the first option, but the last option. 0.75

00:12:44.000 If diplomacy fails, it would be justified for an invasion because the cost of not acting would be so much worse. 0.83

00:12:52.000 And I will concede another point to you.

00:12:56.000 That is not enough people in your camp make, which is that I don't believe that if North Korea acquired an ICBM capability and a miniaturization of a nuclear warhead, I don't think they would strike the U.S. mainland initially or even in the short term.

00:13:13.000 I don't think that would happen.

00:13:14.000 I think that the Kim regime, like any other regime, rogue or not, is full of rational decision makers who want to see their regime and their country survive and prosper.

00:13:24.000 So, like, or rather, unlike many of the hawks on North Korea, I will concede that it's not.

00:13:30.000 This alarmist, if we don't do military action, we'll get nuked tomorrow.

00:13:34.000 However, the contingencies that we have to be concerned about is not the first five years of a nuclear armed, ICBM capable North Korea, but 20 or 30 or 50 years of a nuclear armed North Korea, which is to say that right now their country is starving.

00:13:51.000 It's on the brink of collapse.

00:13:52.000 If China stopped sending them crude oil in a matter of three months, the North Korean country would completely implode.

00:13:58.000 There would be a revolution.

00:14:00.000 The Kim regime would be strung up by lampposts. 0.72

00:14:03.000 And I don't know, maybe Gaddafi level things would happen to them. 0.86

00:14:06.000 So, number one is the.

00:14:07.000 I'm not necessarily sure that's going to happen.

00:14:10.000 Well, wait, wait.

00:14:11.000 Whoa, wait, wait, wait.

00:14:12.000 I let you lay out your case.

00:14:13.000 Please allow me to lay out mine.

00:14:14.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:14:17.000 So, contingency number one is instability. 0.83

00:14:19.000 Contingency number one is we don't know that the Kim regime, whether it's full of rational decision makers or not, is in complete control of the arsenal for the foreseeable future, 25, 50 years. 0.85

00:14:29.000 So, that's number one. 0.91

00:14:31.000 Contingency number two is proliferation. 0.93

00:14:33.000 We know that North Korea has a vast network with.

00:14:36.000 Pakistan, Iran, and other rogue regimes which have been sharing infrastructure, blueprints, nuclear technology, nuclear infrastructure.

00:14:46.000 And so we can't be assured that North Korea won't share this technology with other rogue states or non state actors, whether that's terrorists, whether that's sleeper cells, third or rather fifth columns, and on and on.

00:14:58.000 So that's number two we don't know that the nuclear capability of North Korea will be confined to North Korea.

00:15:04.000 And then number three is the contingency that it should be unacceptable, I think, to the Pentagon. 0.74

00:15:10.000 To the White House, and frankly, to the country, that our safety rests on the whim of the North Korean regime. 0.96

00:15:18.000 Now, I already conceded I don't believe they would strike us, but we don't know that they wouldn't strike us. 0.86

00:15:24.000 We're not completely sure that on an off day or something, whatever the cause, there might not be a time that may come pretty soon when the North Korean regime in Pyongyang decides to strike the mainland United States or strike a U.S. military base in the Philippines or in Japan or in South Korea. 0.82

00:15:42.000 And so I would say that the cost of a nuclear armed, ICBM capable North Korea vastly exceeds, in terms of American casualties, the costs of a preemptive strike now. 0.97

00:15:54.000 Should be the last option, but I think that it would be justified if it were employed sometime this year. 0.84

00:16:00.000 But I allow you to respond now.

00:16:03.000 I'd like to bring up a historical example.

00:16:06.000 If we, you know, we remember Mao Zedong, Mao Zedong back in when he was the ruler of China in the 50s, 60s, before China had nuclear weapons.

00:16:17.000 Was incredibly gung ho about the idea of starting a nuclear war.

00:16:21.000 In fact, he would, you know, that's the US was so surprised that China intervened in the first Korean War because, like, why would they come fight us when we have the nuclear weapons? 0.90

00:16:30.000 The Soviets didn't do it, but the Chinese did. 0.78

00:16:33.000 And Mao would say, you know, China can lose half a billion people and still keep, you have enough to keep on going, just like he did before. 0.94

00:16:42.000 He would say that.

00:16:43.000 And he would go to the Soviets and he would go to Khrushchev and tell Khrushchev, let's launch the nuclear war.

00:16:48.000 Because world communism will rise from the ashes.

00:16:51.000 He said all this, and incredibly belligerent, provocative statements, frankly, that make the North Korean stuff kind of look tame right now.

00:17:01.000 But the minute he actually got these weapons, suddenly he became very cautious and very restrained.

00:17:10.000 And with that, within a few years, he had already made a deal with the United States and had Nixon in the country. 0.75

00:17:18.000 I think that there's, you know, North Korea is still in the new stages of just acquiring. 0.65

00:17:23.000 These weapons. 0.91

00:17:24.000 But these weapons tend to produce a sobering effect on these countries.

00:17:27.000 Like if you look at India and Pakistan, once they got them, they haven't fought a full scale conventional war yet.

00:17:35.000 Okay, sure. 0.84

00:17:37.000 Sure.

00:17:38.000 Yeah, and I know that example very well, and I often use that one to illustrate why Iran wouldn't use a nuclear weapon.

00:17:45.000 But I think in North Korea, you actually have an exceptional circumstance, an outstanding circumstance.

00:17:51.000 Because if you look at China, As China was developing their nuclear arsenal, it was neither as aggressive, nor as militaristic, nor as desperate as the North Koreans' attempt to get a nuclear weapon.

00:18:06.000 I mean, sure, China eventually achieved a nuclear capability, but by the time that they did, you saw, you know, like you said, they were more restrained.

00:18:14.000 There was a sobering effect there, but they were not on the brink of destruction as North Korea is today, surrounded, isolated, insulated from the world.

00:18:23.000 They still had the second world behind them. 0.72

00:18:25.000 The Soviet Union had.

00:18:27.000 Excuse me, in the Eastern Bloc countries that could assist them economically, that could assist them with food aid, that could assist them geopolitically, strategically, etc.

00:18:36.000 North Korea achieves a nuclear capability and they achieve the condemnation of China, Russia, the United States, all the P5 countries, all of the G20 countries, and they remain economically isolated and incredibly fragile in terms of the fact that they have no foreign currency inputs, they have no way to feed their people. 0.61

00:18:57.000 And you look at their rise to becoming a nuclear power, and it has been incredibly aggressive to the point where their entire grand strategy rests on the fact that escalation, in their mind, will bring about de escalation. 0.67

00:19:11.000 And so I'd say that it's not necessarily comparable when you look at Pyongyang and Beijing.

00:19:15.000 I think it's a fundamentally different circumstance.

00:19:18.000 I'm looking at a chart right now for North Korean food production, and it's still higher currently than it was.

00:19:25.000 We know the crisis years were about 1999.

00:19:28.000 Through about 2005, when Kim Il sung was, wait, no, the middle one, Kim Jong il was still in charge. 0.58

00:19:34.000 Those were the worst years where they were actually starving to death.

00:19:38.000 And they had a new leader.

00:19:39.000 I mean, that was kind of the same circumstance.

00:19:41.000 Kim Il sung lasted the entire Cold War.

00:19:44.000 And then all of a sudden, not only was the Soviet Union gone, all their free subsidies were gone, then their original leader that they all believed in was gone.

00:19:52.000 So, this was kind of a similar circumstance where they had a new guy in charge who was untested and unproven and kind of didn't really have that kind of charisma or popular appeal with people.

00:20:01.000 And they had starvation.

00:20:03.000 And we saw that it didn't end up making them take a sudden suicidal turn of action.

00:20:12.000 And I'm not arguing that they would take a suicidal action.

00:20:15.000 What I'm arguing is that when they achieve a nuclear capability, I don't think that in and of itself will bring stability necessarily.

00:20:25.000 Because you look at North Korea before they achieve a nuclear arsenal, or rather before they achieve miniaturization and fit it on an intercontinental ballistic missile that's reliable, before and after that occurs, there is no corresponding increase in engagement with the world.

00:20:43.000 They're still economically isolated. 0.70

00:20:46.000 And you look at China, where they do 90% of their trade with North Korea, you would bet that in the event that they achieve miniaturization, they achieve a reliable ICBM capability, they can put a hydrogen bomb on there. 0.72

00:20:59.000 You can imagine that the United States is looking at preemptive strikes seriously.

00:21:04.000 Now, the Foreign Ministry of China said this week that they want to avoid a war on the Korean Peninsula at all costs.

00:21:11.000 You can bet that as North Korea has grown more aggressive, as they've tested increasingly dangerous.

00:21:17.000 Capabilities towards the United States, China has tightened the screws on North Korea's economy. 0.63

00:21:23.000 The UN Security Council resolution, which just passed last week, China is now coming under compliance with, and they're shoring up their textile trade with North Korea.

00:21:32.000 They're stopping their export of energy to North Korea.

00:21:35.000 And as I said earlier, if they stop the export of crude oil into North Korea, North Korea collapses in three months.

00:21:42.000 That is a guarantee.

00:21:43.000 Maybe they are not at starvation levels like they were in 1999 or in 2007.

00:21:49.000 But without Chinese energy, you don't have a country.

00:21:52.000 You don't have fuel.

00:21:53.000 You don't have electricity.

00:21:55.000 They can't make it happen.

00:21:56.000 So I would say that it's not a suicidal decision by Pyongyang, it's collapse, which would make it a lot more unstable with nuclear weapons.

00:22:08.000 I'm curious because this is the case where we have Pakistan as a country that has a full nuclear capability, has ballistic missile capabilities fully developed.

00:22:17.000 And Pakistan is a country that, if you want to guess which one of the nuclear powers, Seems most vulnerable to unpredictable change or collapse, I'd be worried most about them.

00:22:28.000 But they are not like an issue that anybody debates or brings up or feels concerned over.

00:22:36.000 I mean, I think the question.

00:22:36.000 Aren't they, though?

00:22:38.000 I think the question.

00:22:39.000 If you could go back 20 years and strangle the guys who let them get that, but once these things have already progressed far enough, you kind of have to accept what.

00:22:52.000 What cards you've been dealt almost.

00:22:54.000 I don't think so. 1.00

00:22:55.000 I think if the option before us is if we want more Pakistans or less Pakistans, more rogue, unstable regimes with nuclear arsenals or less, shouldn't we opt towards the latter? 0.97

00:23:07.000 I mean, I don't think saying, well, Pakistan's incredibly unstable and they have nuclear weapons, doesn't that kind of speak to my point? 0.93

00:23:14.000 Shouldn't we try to prevent that outbreak, that proliferation in the future? 0.99

00:23:20.000 The years in the 90s, this would have been a more. 0.54

00:23:23.000 When we were just starting out, North Korea was just getting a nuclear infrastructure off the ground. 0.85

00:23:26.000 That's the stage at which it can be stopped or cut off without putting you in the situation where, pretty much either way, the problem is if you attack it, you get a guaranteed nuclear response with whatever's left. 0.88

00:23:38.000 And if you don't, then you gamble and you might get the nuclear, you know, whatever percent chance that is. 0.78

00:23:45.000 So, really, you know, you can go back to the Clinton, especially, you know, the Bush years, even, because the Bush years pretty much devoted 100% of their attention to Iraq. 0.53

00:23:45.000 Sure. 0.53

00:23:54.000 And then that was the years that North Korea actually, you know, developed its first nuclear tests. 0.97

00:24:01.000 And I agree. 0.99

00:24:01.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:24:02.000 It would have been ideal. 0.68

00:24:03.000 It would have been preferable to take care of that nuclear question in the Clinton years. 0.78

00:24:08.000 But unfortunately, we can't turn back time and we're left with two.

00:24:13.000 Not good options.

00:24:14.000 And I see our two options right now as a horrible, bloody war in the Korean Peninsula that is unpredictable, which is dangerous.

00:24:23.000 There might be risk of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons being unleashed on our closest allies, even on our own military bases, where there will be horrible atrocities that we haven't seen in 50 years. 0.56

00:24:35.000 A really horrible and ugly conflict. 0.91

00:24:38.000 But the other option, option number two, is that we allow North Korea to achieve miniaturization. 0.88

00:24:45.000 They slap it on a reliable ICBM. 0.86

00:24:47.000 And in 50 to 100 years, we are held hostage by Pyongyang, a rogue regime.

00:24:53.000 And essentially, we count on our safety every day, the goodwill of Kim Jong un and his military commanders. 0.56

00:25:00.000 And I don't know if, I think there's a 99% chance they wouldn't strike the U.S. mainland.

00:25:05.000 I really believe that. 0.94

00:25:07.000 But the 1% chance that they do, the 50% chance that the Korean regime collapses in the next 100 years, and maybe that's too much, but maybe it's a 20% chance that they collapse. 0.78

00:25:18.000 Maybe there's an 80% chance. 0.76

00:25:20.000 That they allow that technology to spread to other rogue states, whether those are Islamic countries, whether those are emerging rogue states in South Asia or in Africa.

00:25:30.000 We don't know where the technology goes.

00:25:32.000 We don't know where it starts.

00:25:33.000 We don't know where it ends.

00:25:34.000 And so I would say that if we are going to put our foot down now, I think it would cost, or rather would save us a lot of headache for our own people, our own mainland in the future.

00:25:47.000 I think that, you know, I try to, when I'm planning for the future, I'm trying to predict the future, really, I stick to the next.

00:25:53.000 10, maybe 20 years at most, because beyond that, it's so unpredictable.

00:25:57.000 Anything could happen.

00:25:58.000 If you go 50 years ahead, 80 years ahead, we already live under this kind of existentialism if Russia's regime collapses.

00:26:05.000 Let's say when Putin goes and if he doesn't have a strong successor chosen and ready to take over when he's gone, then there's a Russian nuclear arsenal that is actually strong to just annihilate pretty much everything worthwhile in this country.

00:26:25.000 We've been living under that for 50 years, and we will face that possibility for the next 100 that something strange could happen in Russia, something strange could happen in China, something strange could happen in Pakistan. 0.97

00:26:37.000 And it's pretty much just adding another of those indefinite, I see it as more of a 1% chance of something goes horrifically wrong or somebody stupid makes the decision here. 0.80

00:26:52.000 And you're basically either getting a horrible war or a horrible war plus. 0.98

00:26:57.000 What's it getting through?

00:26:58.000 Like 10 nukes instead of two?

00:27:01.000 I mean, the cost is going to be so high, and like it's going to be really the problem is with the Trump agenda specifically.

00:27:09.000 I've mentioned, I brought up in the statement many times how this is going to be a major diversion of Trump's attention and focus from things that actually matter.

00:27:16.000 Like, you know, if we don't get a wall, we don't get immigration control, if we don't get this kind of stuff within the next, you know, 10, 20 years, the South, the country in Texas and other states could turn blue, and that's going to kind of undo any.

00:27:31.000 Future we have. 0.59

00:27:33.000 Yeah, and I understand that.

00:27:36.000 But there are two arguments to that.

00:27:38.000 Number one is the stability of the great powers that have nuclear arsenals, which would be Russia, China.

00:27:45.000 We can count on some effect of nuclear, or rather mutually assured destruction.

00:27:50.000 And you know this, I think everyone knows this.

00:27:52.000 I don't think that same logic applies with North Korea.

00:27:55.000 Certainly there is mutually assured destruction, but you don't have the same stability in the North Korean regime that you have pretty intrinsically in the Russian state, in the Russian state apparatus, in the Chinese state apparatus, where there is infrastructure.

00:28:10.000 There is money, there is commerce, there is legitimacy in the government.

00:28:14.000 In North Korea, it's just vastly different.

00:28:16.000 And I wouldn't even say that about Iran. 0.87

00:28:19.000 I would say I'd be more comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon than North Korea to even concede. 0.91

00:28:25.000 And I know I'm making a lot of concessions, but it is to demonstrate that this is really a unique, exceptional, outstanding circumstance where if Iran were this far along with the nuclear weapon, you would still have proliferation, you would still have instability and everything else, but you wouldn't have it to the same extent as North Korea because even Iran. 0.72

00:28:43.000 Has trading partners.

00:28:44.000 Even Iran is not a totalitarian government.

00:28:48.000 Their people do invest some legitimacy, or rather, vest some legitimacy in the government in Tehran.

00:28:54.000 And so I would be more predisposed to having that in Iran than I would with North Korea.

00:28:59.000 But North Korea is so isolated, so fragile, so insulated, where they're doing trade essentially with one country that is rapidly losing patience with them, that they don't have energy independently.

00:29:12.000 That's a big contingency that we have to look at.

00:29:15.000 And As they march towards miniaturization, as they march towards an ICBM capability, again, it's not so much are they going to become suicidal, but what happens in 25 years when the North Korean state collapses. 0.68

00:29:29.000 And, you know, definitely, I agree with you that this will divert Trump's attention. 0.71

00:29:34.000 It will divert resources, but so would a nuclear strike on California.

00:29:39.000 So would a nuclear strike on New York City.

00:29:41.000 And that's not to fearmonger, but it is to say that when, if or when the North Korean regime collapses, you'll be talking about.

00:29:48.000 That is the costly, insane contingency rather than a million casualties on the Korean Peninsula.

00:29:55.000 Not like that's anything to sneeze at, but it's over there.

00:30:00.000 I think we need to discuss the logic that the kind of North Korean regime operates under a bit.

00:30:07.000 If we think about North Korea, they've, for the last kind of 50 years, we've had a standoff in the Korean Peninsula, where, you know, if we guess, why has North Korea not attacked South Korea again in full force?

00:30:19.000 Because.

00:30:20.000 They know they would lose if the United States went in and if they didn't get built up by China and Russia, pretty much.

00:30:28.000 So that's why they have, for 50 years, they've agitated, they've done different little provocations, but they have not launched a major attack because they know they'll lose and they don't want to die.

00:30:41.000 They don't want to be wiped out.

00:30:44.000 And if we think about pretty much the minute they did a nuclear test, there are ways of getting a nuclear weapon.

00:30:52.000 To the United States without using an ICBM.

00:30:54.000 That is, if you want to launch a suicide attack, pretty much, you could put it in a cargo ship, sail into Los Angeles Harbor or something, and blow it up. 0.76

00:31:03.000 This is something that they've had the ability to do for years, and they've been able to launch a nuclear strike in South Korea. 0.80

00:31:11.000 They could use the tunnel bomb. 0.71

00:31:13.000 They've had the means to start using nukes for years now, but we've seen them kind of do the same thing they've always done, which is just be agitating and provocative at times and bluff, but never.

00:31:26.000 Actually, launched because at the same time they know maybe we can set off one nuke, maybe we can get two nukes out of there, but then we're going to lose and we're going to die and we'll be wiped out.

00:31:35.000 And it seems that they do not want to be wiped out.

00:31:39.000 If we look at, I lost a train of thought there, but the point being is that they essentially have demonstrated a rational behavior for the last 60 years where they've chosen not to launch a suicide attack.

00:31:56.000 And like this latest thing with Guam, when they were threatening Guam, like, do we really think that they had this?

00:32:01.000 This was their great plan to get nukes, then we'll wipe out one tiny island that nobody in the United States believes or cares about on a daily basis, and then we'll die and get wiped out.

00:32:12.000 That was clearly a bluff, and yeah, it turned out to be. 0.53

00:32:16.000 And that's kind of the situation I see.

00:32:20.000 And if you look at.

00:32:22.000 I mean, yeah, let's respond to that first.

00:32:24.000 Yeah, I don't think you're really arguing with my argument.

00:32:28.000 I think you're kind of straw manning me, maybe not intentionally, but I'm not arguing that.

00:32:33.000 They will launch a suicidal strike on the United States.

00:32:36.000 I've repeatedly conceded that if they miniaturize, they get the reliable ICBM, which is different than a cargo or a satellite sort of thing that people talk about.

00:32:46.000 And an ICBM is parity with the United States.

00:32:49.000 They can take out major cities without the United States being able to do anything about it.

00:32:54.000 I mean, you understand the ICBM changes the game, and that's the people that manufactured ICBMs for the United States understood this.

00:33:03.000 I'm not arguing that they would take us out.

00:33:05.000 There would be a strike.

00:33:07.000 They have been bluffing.

00:33:08.000 It wouldn't be in their interest to strike us.

00:33:10.000 They are rational decision makers.

00:33:11.000 I'm not saying they're not.

00:33:13.000 I'm saying that you can only count on rational decision makers operating in Pyongyang, I don't think for very long.

00:33:20.000 I don't think you have a very long window where that can be the case.

00:33:24.000 I don't think you can count on that for more than 10 years at a time.

00:33:28.000 And so I'm not so much concerned with Kim Jong un acquiring an ICBM capability tomorrow.

00:33:34.000 Because, like you said, they bluff and they bluff, and they're not going to risk their whole nation doing a suicide mission or striking one island.

00:33:41.000 I agree with that.

00:33:42.000 And maybe not in a year, maybe not in two years or three or four or five.

00:33:46.000 But what happens in 10 years?

00:33:47.000 What happens in 25 years when you see that as these totalitarian regimes inevitably break up in a very chaotic, sudden, and unpredictable way? 0.56

00:33:57.000 What happens on day one of the new Korean regime?

00:34:00.000 What happens on day one of the revolution?

00:34:02.000 And additionally, not only do you have this instability factor, which is a time bomb.

00:34:07.000 Waiting to explode.

00:34:08.000 I mean, this will happen probably in the next 25 years, but then you also have proliferation.

00:34:14.000 Maybe you're okay with another nuclear power in the world.

00:34:17.000 Okay, you know, another one got by the goalie. 0.90

00:34:19.000 Pakistan, North Korea, okay, but no more.

00:34:22.000 Well, you really can't prevent North Korea from sharing their blueprints with other countries. 0.50

00:34:27.000 Additionally, if South Korea sees a nuclear armed North Korea that has ICBMs and the United States isn't even working to prevent nuclearization, maybe South Korea gets a nuclear arsenal. 0.54

00:34:38.000 Maybe Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. 0.62

00:34:41.000 See that the United States wouldn't stop Iran from getting a nuclear capability, and maybe they nuclearize. 0.62

00:34:46.000 And then you're talking about not just North Korea, but you're talking about many more, both on your side and on the other side, that are nuclearizing to achieve balance.

00:34:55.000 And this is really, it comes down to international relations, it comes down to balance of power.

00:35:00.000 Do we want to balance against the world of rogue states and have this obligation be the policeman of the world?

00:35:08.000 I know that.

00:35:09.000 I don't want us to be that.

00:35:10.000 But do we want to ensure.

00:35:12.000 The deterrent against proliferation, or do we want to live in a world where every country freelances and decides to take it into their own hands and nuclearize?

00:35:22.000 That's not far off.

00:35:23.000 Certainly, we've seen that in many regions before.

00:35:25.000 So, those are the two things I'm arguing about.

00:35:29.000 If we're going to talk about international order, kind of the international system thing, I think we need to take into account what are the other major powers of the world doing?

00:35:36.000 What are China and Russia doing about this?

00:35:39.000 They're not ignoring it.

00:35:40.000 They are using sanctions, they're using diplomacy.

00:35:44.000 Russia just announced they're going to be trying to work with the North Koreans.

00:35:47.000 But none of these other countries, China and Russia, are not doing a super aggressive, you know, you've got to disarm or we're going to strike kind of.

00:35:55.000 That's not the.

00:35:57.000 Stance they're taking with this.

00:35:59.000 And there's kind of, there's more, we need to hear more about really what the rest of the world does not view it as the same sort of like snap crisis.

00:36:09.000 And it's not treating it that way.

00:36:11.000 And the United States is kind of the only one making this sort of international order sort of thing.

00:36:18.000 Other nations don't seem to view it as a concern. 0.90

00:36:20.000 And I'm wondering if that's, you know, is it because, you know, Putin and Xi Jinping are stupid and don't see this, or is it because, you know, there's a lobby in the United States for, Aggression and for basically crushing rogue countries or whatever that doesn't exist in China and Russia. 0.89

00:36:40.000 Well, because if the North Korean regime collapses, the missiles go at the United States or they go towards the enemies or geopolitical rivals of China and Russia. 0.96

00:36:50.000 I mean, that's number one. 0.64

00:36:51.000 And number two, if North Korea proliferates, who do they proliferate to? 0.65

00:36:55.000 Who do they share that with?

00:36:56.000 Proxies of Russia and China. 0.96

00:36:57.000 They share it with Iran. 0.85

00:36:59.000 They share it with other countries. 0.81

00:37:01.000 They're not sharing it with Saudi Arabia, who's a puppet of Israel, which.

00:37:05.000 North Korea doesn't like.

00:37:06.000 They're not sharing it with Argentina or Brazil.

00:37:08.000 They would be sharing it with Chinese and Russian allies.

00:37:11.000 Argentina and Brazil had nuclear programs once.

00:37:13.000 It's funny.

00:37:14.000 I'm not going to go up to get sidetracked. 0.99

00:37:16.000 But look, shit, lost the point again. 0.99

00:37:26.000 I mean, if you're okay with this North Korean predicament where they can strike your home with a nuclear weapon, If they have one bad day or if they share it with another country, I mean, argue that. 0.99

00:37:41.000 But my problem with the isolationists is I don't think they give a proper hearing to these contingencies, which are, you know, it's not like lobbyist talk to say that North Korea is incredibly unstable and maybe nuclear weapons would be bad if they entered into that equation. 0.85

00:38:00.000 And maybe North Korea doesn't have our best friends in mind and they might share this technology with others.

00:38:07.000 You can, I think you can acknowledge, you have to acknowledge those contingencies, but you know, you have to argue in favor of them, unfortunately.

00:38:14.000 If your position is no action, you have to tell me why that's not a huge concern, why that's an acceptable contingency.

00:38:21.000 I don't think it is.

00:38:23.000 This is why I see it, because we have not had a country that acquired nuclear weapons the last 50 years throughout the world that actually launched them once there were other countries capable of launching back.

00:38:33.000 And I don't think North Korea is such an exception. 0.52

00:38:35.000 I think if you look at Kim Jong un, he's pretty much, he was a, you know, A spoiled, you know, boarding school kid who went to boarding school in Switzerland. 0.58

00:38:44.000 And pretty much, if you look at him, he wants to keep on getting fat and watching basketball for the rest of his life until he's 70 and dies.

00:38:51.000 And I don't think that he's going to be the one who, you know, does what Mao did.

00:39:00.000 Mao being, you know, somebody who's a lot more hardcore and a lot more, you know, unpredictable.

00:39:06.000 Okay, we had Stalin with nuclear weapons.

00:39:08.000 And if you look at even in the case of, You know, the most extreme circumstances, let's go back to World War II. 0.62

00:39:14.000 Germany did not have a nuclear program that was anywhere near completion, but Germany was the first country to develop Nervegas, to develop Tabun, which was the earlier version of sarin, which was used in Syria.

00:39:25.000 This was a unique capability that Germany had that no one else did.

00:39:29.000 But Germany, to the day that the bunker was falling in Berlin, never fired off the chemical weapons because Hitler thought the other side had chemical weapons of their own and he didn't want the retaliation from that.

00:39:43.000 I mean, these are.

00:39:45.000 You know, you keep on going searching for the most extreme cases and you just don't find it.

00:39:51.000 And I don't think, you know, I think if we pretty much dis, you know, pretty much engage with the North Korea situation the same way that China and Russia are at this moment, we are going to, we're going to have a 98, 99% chance that life goes on and nothing happens. 0.69

00:40:12.000 North Korea becomes the same thing. 0.87

00:40:13.000 It's just like a yearly, you know, occasional annoyance to us. 0.88

00:40:17.000 And, Then we avoid all the costs of going in and fighting this huge war.

00:40:24.000 Okay, but, you know, again, I'm not arguing.

00:40:26.000 I'm not arguing that, like, I'm not arguing they would actively, willfully use them.

00:40:32.000 I'm not arguing that.

00:40:33.000 I'm not arguing that they would launch it.

00:40:35.000 I'm not arguing that Kim Jong Un would acquire it and he pressed the big red button and we'd all die.

00:40:40.000 I'm not arguing that at all.

00:40:42.000 You know, you bring up Germany and, well, they didn't use their sarin gas or China didn't use their nukes.

00:40:47.000 I'm not saying they would use them. 0.60

00:40:48.000 I'm saying that.

00:40:50.000 You cannot be sure that they would never be launched, either if there is civil unrest in the country, which certainly you have to wonder that a country like North Korea, which has been starved, which has been isolated, insulated, you push the regime to the brink of desperation where they know that their time is up, essentially.

00:41:13.000 Who's pushing them?

00:41:14.000 Who's doing the pushing?

00:41:15.000 China, Russia, the United States, South Korea, Japan.

00:41:21.000 Yes, yes, and that sanctions regime wouldn't give up once they got an ICBM capability.

00:41:27.000 I mean, do you think North Korea makes a rapid recovery after they get miniaturization? 0.83

00:41:33.000 I mean, what in the next 25 years is going to make North Korea less fragile and make it acceptable that they have a nuclear arsenal? 0.54

00:41:41.000 When we talk about North Korea being fragile, that regime has outlasted the Soviet Union at this point, it's outlasted Maoism in China, it's outlasted these other sort of.

00:41:51.000 You know, unstable or seemingly more stable, you know, enduring regimes.

00:41:58.000 It's been around.

00:41:59.000 It's the oldest, pretty much communist regime left in the world.

00:42:02.000 And it's, I don't know, I guess Cuba, no, it's even before Cuba.

00:42:06.000 It's well before Cuba.

00:42:09.000 It's still there.

00:42:10.000 People have been saying it's fragile from the beginning.

00:42:13.000 And really, I don't know.

00:42:15.000 There's a certain level of risk you have to accept with life. 0.98

00:42:17.000 We could all be, you know, the fucking volcano when somebody can blow up or whatever. 0.98

00:42:22.000 We have this stuff. 0.99

00:42:23.000 We have existential risks.

00:42:24.000 We could all be killed by an illegal democracy.

00:42:27.000 You know, or individually, you know what I mean?

00:42:29.000 You have to kind of, you know, actually, we do.

00:42:32.000 That's more of honestly, my point being, we have more pressing concerns to our country's future.

00:42:37.000 This is really doing it for somebody else.

00:42:40.000 This is making South Korea safe.

00:42:43.000 If you go, ultimately, if you want to talk about the next 50 years or the next, you know, plan out for the next 50 years, what ought to happen really is a U.S. disengagement from the region of East Asia because I don't see a particular reason we need a.

00:42:59.000 Military base, you know, the purpose of having a military base in South Korea really is for China, is to have that. 0.92

00:43:05.000 But we're at the point now, China's modernized enough, it's, you know, we cannot fight a land war with China and win. 0.96

00:43:12.000 Nobody plans for that. 0.98

00:43:13.000 This is obsolete.

00:43:14.000 This is something that, with a capability we wanted 50 years ago, we're just kind of through inertia just maintaining because we have it.

00:43:24.000 We had it before.

00:43:25.000 Okay.

00:43:27.000 But I think you're pivoting here a little bit where you're saying, well, I guess we just have to accept risk in our lives.

00:43:33.000 But if we can, because maybe we could have a discussion about disengagement from the world and should America be the unipolar power?

00:43:41.000 How do we. 0.83

00:43:43.000 Allow China to peacefully rise in the world order.

00:43:45.000 I mean, I think that's fundamentally a different conversation. 0.75

00:43:48.000 And North Korea certainly plays an important part in that discussion about how we can allow China to peacefully rise and maybe there can be disengagement. 0.62

00:43:55.000 I think that in many ways, this is a litmus test. 0.91

00:43:58.000 This is a good rapport building moment for how we can handle our disengagement.

00:44:03.000 So I would agree with you on that in some regard.

00:44:06.000 But with this instance in particular of North Korea, I don't think you can so easily write it off and say, well, North Korea.

00:44:14.000 Possibly launching an ICBM against us because their regime collapses because it's incredibly fragile, more fragile than ever.

00:44:22.000 They have no energy.

00:44:24.000 The food is limited.

00:44:27.000 Let's think about what China would do if North Korea's base in this regime collapse.

00:44:31.000 Okay.

00:44:32.000 You know, that China wants absolutely no wars in the Korean Peninsula. 0.94

00:44:36.000 If China sees that the Kim regime is literally collapsing and falling apart tomorrow, and they know that, oh shit, we don't know what's going to happen now to their whole nuclear arsenal, to the rest of their arsenal.

00:44:49.000 I think China's going to rush in with a bailout because they want to prevent what's going to happen, the scenario you're describing, where it turns into chaos and you lose control of nuclear weapons. 0.54

00:44:59.000 I don't think China is going to let them get to that point.

00:45:04.000 I don't think we can count on that.

00:45:06.000 If you saw the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 80s and early 90s, I was reading a biography about Vladimir Putin.

00:45:14.000 He was stationed in East Germany when the Soviet government there started to collapse.

00:45:20.000 And there was no immediate Russian bailout.

00:45:22.000 There was no Russian response.

00:45:24.000 They didn't even know that collapse was coming.

00:45:26.000 When a country collapses, it collapses suddenly.

00:45:29.000 It collapses in a very short amount of time, in a matter of months, and without advance notice.

00:45:35.000 I mean, we don't know the extent of how quickly this situation could get out of control.

00:45:41.000 And certainly, I don't think Beijing would be able to rush into Pyongyang and prevent some kind of launch. 0.67

00:45:46.000 But again, you know, maybe it all works out. 0.67

00:45:49.000 Maybe you're right.

00:45:50.000 Maybe China goes in.

00:45:51.000 And even though it's an incredibly mountainous region that divides.

00:45:54.000 I'm not saying military operation.

00:45:55.000 I'm saying they go in and bail them out with a free oil delivery.

00:45:58.000 Well, oh, and okay.

00:45:58.000 Okay.

00:45:59.000 Maybe there's a free oil delivery.

00:46:01.000 Maybe it's okay.

00:46:02.000 Talk about energy, you know.

00:46:05.000 Sure. 0.72

00:46:05.000 But again, you're talking about contingencies on top of contingencies, basically avoiding the fundamental point that we are opening ourselves to the risk of a nuclear strike on the U.S. mainland if we don't have a bloody war in the Korean Peninsula. 0.72

00:46:21.000 I would rather fight the war in Korea now than have. 0.56

00:46:25.000 That's a big risk that we would get struck either by North Korea or a terrorist that they've sold the weapons to or a rogue regime that they've given the weapons to. 0.69

00:46:34.000 It's just this element of uncertainty and risk that I would much rather be on the safe side. 0.61

00:46:40.000 And, you know, again, war should be the last.

00:46:43.000 I'm not advocating for it. 0.83

00:46:45.000 I'm saying war would be justified. 0.85

00:46:47.000 There is certainly a window now where China's tightening the screws, Russia's putting diplomatic pressure, and on and on. 1.00

00:46:54.000 And we're working towards.

00:46:55.000 Maybe a diplomatic resolution.

00:46:57.000 I don't see it happening.

00:46:59.000 And so a war would be justified because we don't know what awaits us on the other side.

00:47:04.000 I mean, that's just it. 0.98

00:47:05.000 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, we can't count on a peaceful, rational decision making apparatus in Pyongyang. 0.83

00:47:12.000 And you can argue against that, but then tell me you believe that's an acceptable amount of risk that one day we will have to count on the good graces of Beijing and the swiftness of their action to prevent an apocalypse. 0.71

00:47:26.000 We already do.

00:47:28.000 We already count on them not to escalate pretty much and use it. 1.00

00:47:32.000 We count on them not to, when we go on stage these stupid. 1.00

00:47:37.000 Ship sailings off their artificial islands. 0.99

00:47:39.000 We counted them not to go and start World War III over it, essentially. 0.96

00:47:43.000 We're already kind of in China's, you know, depending on them to be sane and to kind of trust that they will, you know, not destroy the world. 0.95

00:47:53.000 And so far it's worked. 0.97

00:47:54.000 So far it's worked pretty well.

00:47:56.000 But that's quite a different thing, isn't it?

00:47:58.000 To trust the decision makers in Beijing as opposed to trusting the competence and swiftness of the decision makers in Beijing to bail out the decision makers in Pyongyang.

00:48:08.000 You're arguing a fundamentally different premise.

00:48:10.000 Than our decision makers generally are.

00:48:13.000 No, no, but the point is.

00:48:14.000 They seem to.

00:48:16.000 The United States seems to be flailing around kind of randomly almost.

00:48:22.000 In the last 15 years, just the whole neocon driven foreign policy.

00:48:27.000 You almost count on Russia and China to be more of the same decision makers at this point when the neocons are in charge of the White House and when we had the Obama years, the Bush years.

00:48:40.000 No, but I'm saying it's a different proposition to suggest that we can trust.

00:48:44.000 China not to strike us than it is that we can trust that China will be able to act swiftly enough to prevent the collapse.

00:48:52.000 That's a different proposition.

00:48:54.000 One is a question of faith in their rationality, and the other is a question of our faith in their competence, their foresight, and their swiftness in preventing something like that in North Korea or even their willingness.

00:49:08.000 So that's a different proposition entirely.

00:49:10.000 We may trust that they won't be suicidal and nuke us.

00:49:13.000 It's a different proposition to say that we trust.

00:49:16.000 That if North Korea were in crisis mode, they would be able and willing to prevent something that would create an externality for the United States or our allies in the region?

00:49:26.000 Different question.

00:49:27.000 Well, it creates an enormous inconvenience for them as well.

00:49:29.000 That's the reason they're pissed off about North Korea having nukes in the first place, they don't like it.

00:49:36.000 If North Korea is a client state, they don't like a client state having the ability to kind of act independently like that.

00:49:43.000 That's why China has a vested interest in not seeing a U.S. North Korean War.

00:49:48.000 Of course, if the United States does start the war, China has a vested interest in seeing the U.S. do pretty badly in it.

00:49:55.000 But before that happens, they are interested in preventing.

00:49:59.000 Not necessarily.

00:50:01.000 And China actually worked to water down the U.N. Security Council sanctions that were just passed last week.

00:50:08.000 I would almost suggest that their behavior shows us that, in a way, they're kind of stalling.

00:50:13.000 I think, in a way, they wouldn't mind a nuclear North Korea because it would deter. 0.55

00:50:18.000 Action on the Korean Peninsula, just like Kim Jong un understands. 0.86

00:50:21.000 And the reason that they can accept that risk, the reason that they can allow that deterrent to exist is because if it falls apart, if there's proliferation, it hurts us, you know, either way. 0.89

00:50:32.000 So North Korea and their offensive realist strategy is actually a boon to China. 0.73

00:50:38.000 It's a very similar strategy that the advantage is on the side of the weaker power to create instability, to create chaos. 0.85

00:50:45.000 They want that so the United States' dominion and global hegemony.

00:50:50.000 Breaks up. 0.80

00:50:51.000 That's no skin off their nose.

00:50:52.000 It's actually a boon to them if proliferation spreads, if they collapse, and maybe it puts the United States in jeopardy. 0.65

00:51:00.000 I mean, what would China want more than North Korea collapsing and nuking the number one geopolitical threat and rival of China? 0.83

00:51:06.000 Nothing more.

00:51:08.000 Here's what they don't want.

00:51:09.000 Here's what they don't want. 1.00

00:51:10.000 They don't want to deal with the 5 million or 10 million North Korean refugees that come over their border after North Korea loses a war with the United States. 0.99

00:51:17.000 They have no other place to go than to China. 0.80

00:51:20.000 That is a major concern that China does not want to deal with.

00:51:27.000 Yeah, and I don't think they believe that the United States would intervene.

00:51:30.000 I think that.

00:51:32.000 That's sort of the point.

00:51:34.000 And they put out a statement earlier in the summer where they said that if the United States provokes the war in a preemptive strike, they would side with the North Koreans.

00:51:42.000 If North Korea launched the aggression, they would stay neutral.

00:51:45.000 So they. 0.59

00:51:46.000 That was pretty much their policy the last 50 or, you know, whatever, how many years?

00:51:50.000 Right. 0.66

00:51:51.000 So they don't want the war, but I think they tacitly have supported and stalled for North Korea to achieve a nuclear capability or miniaturization, right?

00:52:01.000 I mean, they're not really working that hard to stop it.

00:52:04.000 They've been.

00:52:05.000 Dragging their feet, they water down the resolutions.

00:52:08.000 I don't think you can support the claim very much that they are as aggressive in making North Korea denuclearized as the United States, only in so much as denuclearization will stop the United States from intervening militarily.

00:52:24.000 Well, let's bring up the scenario you said earlier.

00:52:25.000 You said basically if China cuts off everything to North Korea, North Korea collapses.

00:52:31.000 The United States is pretty much asking at this point, cut them off completely.

00:52:37.000 And China's watering it down because.

00:52:39.000 Are they thinking two steps ahead and thinking if we do that, then North Korea, you know, either we get North Korea collapsing or we get, you know, the war? 0.56

00:52:49.000 I think China, you know, one way you could say, you know, maybe they're stalling to, you know, enable North Korea. 0.59

00:52:55.000 But on the other hand, maybe they are trying to, you know, de escalate the situation and try to keep it from coming down to the, you know, only one of two disastrous options.

00:53:06.000 Yeah.

00:53:07.000 I think it's more the fact that.

00:53:10.000 President Trump is playing a game of chicken, which is that, you know, what comes first, Kim Jong un collapsing or Kim Jong un gives up his nuclear weapons?

00:53:19.000 And obviously, China is less willing to play that game because if Kim Jong un decides to let the people starve and in pursuit of the nuclear weapon, they know it'll be bad for China.

00:53:29.000 But I think we've basically reached an impasse here and we're coming up on the hour mark.

00:53:34.000 So I'll let you, you can do a closing statement.

00:53:36.000 I'll let you have the last word and then we'll call it a debate and then I'll take questions from the live chat and Twitter.

00:53:45.000 Oh, let's see.

00:53:47.000 Looking over my notes, one thing I didn't bring up is that, you know, one more thing we don't really tend to think about. 0.97

00:53:53.000 When most people picture a war between North Korea and the United States, we kind of picture North Korea doing this stupid thing and charging with a bunch of tanks and just getting wiped out like the Iraqis or the. 0.97

00:54:05.000 That it's going to be easy because of that. 0.91

00:54:08.000 And the one last thing to consider about this is going to be that, you know, North Korea's had two different wars to watch and learn from. 0.59

00:54:17.000 It's had, you know, The Gulf War, where we saw an army kind of like theirs, the Iraqi army, basically just get destroyed by the U.S. almost effortlessly.

00:54:26.000 They saw it.

00:54:27.000 That's the chance to say, okay, that's what doesn't work. 0.95

00:54:30.000 They've also had the chance to see the Israel Hezbollah War of 2006 and to see what does work, where Hezbollah held off an Israeli armored invasion and weathered their airstrikes and came out of it in a draw, which is a win for them. 0.56

00:54:49.000 They have the chance to learn from these wars.

00:54:52.000 And they, you know, my point being, if you go back to those things I said at the beginning, this war is not going to be what people are selling you in the media.

00:55:02.000 And, you know, I'm not calling you a Nia Kuntu right now. 0.51

00:55:05.000 I'm calling more of the more hardcore hawks who are like, we have to do it, like Bolton kind of people. 0.92

00:55:09.000 Right, right.

00:55:10.000 Those people are selling you an idea that this is going to be an easy, we just go in, we wipe out their nukes, and there's nothing they can really do about it.

00:55:17.000 No, this is going to be.

00:55:18.000 You know, the biggest war we fought since Vietnam. 0.82

00:55:21.000 It's going to be bigger than anything we fought in the Middle East recently if it goes in and escalates to full scale. 0.72

00:55:28.000 And, you know, that is something to be avoided at all possible.

00:55:33.000 You know, if there's any possible way to avoid that, I would take the way to avoid it.

00:55:37.000 And if that means, you know, why not send Dennis Rodman over there?

00:55:40.000 Why not see what, you know, what do we have to lose? 0.99

00:55:43.000 Okay, people laugh at this, but if, you know, if Kim Jong un happens to like his, you know, stupid basketball player, maybe, you know, that'll buy us, you know, What we need. 0.98

00:55:54.000 We need to disengage and we need the situation to calm down a bit. 0.99

00:55:58.000 Maybe that works.

00:55:59.000 And if it doesn't, we get to nuke Dennis Rodman too.

00:56:01.000 So win win.

00:56:03.000 Well, is that the closing statement?

00:56:03.000 All right.

00:56:07.000 Yeah. 1.00

00:56:07.000 And Vedeta Vidame, follow me. 1.00

00:56:10.000 I think I'm at Ron Vicky on Twitter.

00:56:12.000 I had to come back as something else.

00:56:14.000 I came back as that and never bothered changing it.

00:56:19.000 And Salting the Earth is a podcast featured on TRS, The Stormer, ArcMedia, et cetera, when these sites are up and not being.

00:56:27.000 You know, blockaded.

00:56:29.000 All right, man.

00:56:29.000 Right.

00:56:30.000 Well, good having you on.

00:56:32.000 Thanks for being a good sport.

00:56:33.000 Thanks for coming and sharing your views on this Friday night with us.

00:56:38.000 It was a pleasure.

00:56:39.000 It was civil, informative, and have a good one.

00:56:42.000 See you around on Twitter, man.

00:56:43.000 Thanks for having me.

00:56:43.000 Yeah.

00:56:44.000 Thanks.

00:56:44.000 All right.

00:56:45.000 So long.

00:56:47.000 Okay.

00:56:48.000 Well, that was fun.

00:56:49.000 That was fun.

00:56:50.000 Let me get rid of that now.

00:56:51.000 I got to see if I can remove that Skype deal. 1.00

00:56:56.000 Boop.

00:56:57.000 People wonder how I'm so good with the tech, how I delete things on the screen and put them all up.

00:57:03.000 I'm an aficionado, some say.

00:57:05.000 But that's our debate.

00:57:06.000 It was fun.

00:57:07.000 He brought up some good points.

00:57:07.000 I thought it was fun.

00:57:09.000 I think we really hashed out that fundamental divide there, which I don't think people address enough in the CREA debate.

00:57:17.000 It's a lot of name calling, it's neocon isolationist, neocon isolationist.

00:57:21.000 So I was glad that he came on and we really got down to the nut and bolts.

00:57:25.000 And he was smart.

00:57:26.000 He knows the history of proliferation, he knows the history of the.

00:57:30.000 Korean Peninsula of the China situation, fairly well read on geostrategy.

00:57:35.000 So, smart guy, smart guy.

00:57:36.000 So, it was fun to have him on.

00:57:38.000 We'll move over into the live chat and we will take your questions now.

00:57:42.000 As we do every casual Friday, we'll stick around for maybe a half hour or so, half hour, maybe a little bit longer.

00:57:49.000 We'll see.

00:57:50.000 We'll see how many questions we get.

00:57:53.000 And so, jumping into the live chat now, and what are people saying?

00:57:58.000 What are people thinking?

00:58:06.000 Everybody's saying we both did well, he was good, and everything else.

00:58:12.000 So that's great.

00:58:14.000 Glad people came around and they enjoyed.

00:58:18.000 But I'm surprised we didn't see a huge turnout for this debate.

00:58:22.000 I should have done a better job promoting it, but I was sleeping for five hours this afternoon because I was up all night.

00:58:28.000 I did a little periscope about that, and I got like a booger in my eye.

00:58:33.000 And it looks like we got some live chat money.

00:58:35.000 Appreciate everybody that's throwing it up in the live chat.

00:58:38.000 Guerrilla Radio, Shlomo, John Doe.

00:58:41.000 Thank you guys for the shekels. 0.99

00:58:43.000 We appreciate you.

00:58:46.000 And let's see.

00:58:47.000 Can the North realistically supply the logistics for an invasion of the South?

00:58:51.000 Oh, yeah, they've been preparing that for a long time.

00:58:53.000 That's all they've been preparing for.

00:58:55.000 So, absolutely.

00:58:57.000 Do you want to go for nachos after the show?

00:59:00.000 Hell yeah, I'd like to go for nachos after the show. 0.89

00:59:04.000 Should abortion be legal? 0.88

00:59:06.000 No. 1.00

00:59:07.000 It's against life.

00:59:07.000 No.

00:59:09.000 And liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

00:59:10.000 Can't have it.

00:59:11.000 All human lives are protected by the Constitution.

00:59:16.000 Nick, did you see your interview on Channel 4 News?

00:59:20.000 Was that in Britain, right?

00:59:22.000 That was in Britain.

00:59:24.000 I didn't watch it.

00:59:25.000 When I do interviews, it's hard for me to watch them because it's like I was in it, and then to watch it, it's like the same stuff.

00:59:32.000 But it was pretty aggressive. 0.96

00:59:34.000 The British guy who was interviewing me, he's like, So you hate black people, is that right? 0.96

00:59:39.000 And I'm like, No. 0.99

00:59:41.000 He's like, so you like Nazis?

00:59:44.000 Nope.

00:59:45.000 No, I don't.

00:59:48.000 So that was that.

00:59:49.000 But yeah, it was fun.

00:59:50.000 It was funny because you love to take these people and just chop them in half because they're used to dummies and dopeies from the LARP movement who don't know how to respond to this sort of stuff.

01:00:02.000 I'm a pretty good framing guy, so I was able to catch them off guard a couple of times.

01:00:07.000 I also happened to be sitting on the floor for that interview.

01:00:09.000 I don't know if you can tell, but I was sitting on the floor with my laptop in my lap.

01:00:14.000 John Doe, get some nachos.

01:00:16.000 Thank you, my man. 1.00

01:00:17.000 Much appreciated for the shekels.

01:00:20.000 Should we remilitarize South Korea and Japan with heavy military equipment? 1.00

01:00:24.000 Should we give them nukes? 0.87

01:00:26.000 That might be an unnecessary provocation towards China.

01:00:30.000 You have to consider all the balance that's going on.

01:00:32.000 I mean, even the THAAD system, the Terminal High Altitude.

01:00:36.000 The Terminal High.

01:00:36.000 What is it?

01:00:39.000 I used to know it, and we talked about it often.

01:00:39.000 I forget.

01:00:41.000 But the THAD Missile Defense System, which was going in in South Korea, the reason that.

01:00:46.000 Wasn't fully implemented, and South Korea called that off was because China was not welcome to that at all.

01:00:53.000 China saw that as an attempt by the United States to surveil their recon, to surveil their communications, because the THAAD would require that kind of surveillance technology to detect missiles.

01:01:05.000 And certainly, I think getting rid of the THAAD or not implementing it fully has been a reason why China has been more cooperative, that we've sort of understood that we're both in the same boat.

01:01:16.000 We're rivals, but we have to take care of this.

01:01:19.000 So I don't know if that's the right answer.

01:01:20.000 I think that'd be.

01:01:21.000 Too much of a provocation.

01:01:26.000 Isn't attacking North Korea what the globalist wants?

01:01:30.000 Yeah, but it's like every broken clock is right twice a day, that kind of a thing.

01:01:37.000 I don't think it's the first option.

01:01:38.000 Diplomacy appears to be doing better than it was previously.

01:01:43.000 I'm not going to say it's working.

01:01:45.000 We're seeing some progress, but it's looking like conflict will be inevitable.

01:01:50.000 And just because the neocons want an occupation and offensive realism, Doesn't mean we're doing it for the same reasons.

01:01:56.000 P.S. Love the show.

01:01:58.000 Glad you enjoy.

01:01:58.000 Thank you.

01:02:02.000 Nitch, did you see your Channel 4 news interview about Alabama?

01:02:07.000 No, I didn't see it in Alabama.

01:02:08.000 I thought I got interviewed for Channel 4 in Britain, but I don't know.

01:02:11.000 I guess it was in Alabama.

01:02:16.000 Nick, Koreans are smart people.

01:02:18.000 Why should I believe that the ones in North Korea can't figure out how to feed themselves?

01:02:22.000 Possible disinformation.

01:02:24.000 That's, you know, they have high IQs in Asia.

01:02:28.000 On average, they have higher IQs than Europeans. 0.99

01:02:31.000 That doesn't. 0.96

01:02:32.000 That doesn't negate the fact that their state apparatus, their economic system, does not allocate resources efficiently.

01:02:39.000 That's sort of the fallacy of composition.

01:02:41.000 You can have the smartest people in the world, but if your economic system and economy is the allocation of scarce resources, if that's not functioning efficiently or properly, it doesn't matter how smart they are.

01:02:54.000 I mean, sure, people will find a way to survive and feed themselves, but will there be enough food for people to be healthy and strong? 0.94

01:03:02.000 The average North Korean is shorter than the average South Korean because they don't eat as much and they haven't for about 40 years.

01:03:09.000 So you look at even Russia or the Slavic countries, we have smart people, but during the occupation, the Bolshevik occupation of those countries under the Soviet Union, they didn't know how to allocate resources or their state apparatus didn't do it effectively. 0.67

01:03:24.000 Nick, have you been hitting the gym?

01:03:26.000 If not, why?

01:03:27.000 I haven't.

01:03:28.000 Admittedly, I haven't.

01:03:29.000 It's just a matter of getting into the habit.

01:03:32.000 There's been a lot of transitions in my life right now where I started the show.

01:03:37.000 I used to work at UPS, and that was basically my workout.

01:03:40.000 I would supplement that with push ups and sit ups and all that here and there, calisthenics.

01:03:45.000 I used to work at UPS, and that was five hours of lifting 70 pound boxes, throwing them onto a conveyor belt every day of the week for hours.

01:03:55.000 So that used to be my primary workout.

01:03:59.000 Then a lot of things happened after Charlottesville.

01:04:02.000 Started a company, started doing the show again.

01:04:05.000 So I'm going to start this week.

01:04:07.000 I think I'm looking at gyms this weekend, and I'm getting on a program starting Monday.

01:04:12.000 It's funny for the college tour, my manager who is putting it all together told me I got to start hitting the gym and eating so he could cut security costs.

01:04:21.000 Funny, but true.

01:04:22.000 So it'll happen.

01:04:23.000 Don't worry.

01:04:24.000 There's time for that.

01:04:26.000 Why does everybody think the Korean army is a walkover?

01:04:30.000 It's not that they're a walkover, it's just that they are, I don't think.

01:04:38.000 They're not a walkover.

01:04:39.000 They're much stronger than North Korea conventionally, but we supplement their military with our military, and it serves our own interests as well to have a military base in the Korean Peninsula to preside over the things that are happening in the South China Sea, in the Sea of Japan, et cetera.

01:04:55.000 So it's not a charity mission why we're there.

01:04:59.000 What are your thoughts on immigration reform being the first step to getting hard right candidates elected?

01:05:06.000 No, it's kind of putting the cart before the horse.

01:05:09.000 How can we get immigration reform if?

01:05:10.000 Congress is full of cucks, right?

01:05:12.000 Maybe that's the plank in the platform that gets people elected, but that wouldn't change things quickly enough for you to see it electorally.

01:05:20.000 And beyond that, politicians wouldn't allow that sort of reform that would put them in jeopardy to take place in the first place.

01:05:29.000 Terminal high altitude air defense.

01:05:31.000 That's right, Thad. 0.99

01:05:34.000 What is the Kalergi plan? 1.00

01:05:36.000 That was a plan by a Jew, I think it was during World War II. 1.00

01:05:41.000 Again, I'm. 1.00

01:05:42.000 The details, I haven't looked into them in a long time.

01:05:44.000 I read about it like months ago.

01:05:46.000 But this was a plot sometime around World War II where they wanted to invade Germany.

01:05:53.000 They wanted to have Germany be taken over by immigrants, by young male immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East to, quote, breed out the war strains of the Germans.

01:06:03.000 Because you look at World War II and even World War I, and there was extreme anti German sentiment, like there is anti Semitism, like there is anti or Islamophobia, like they call it.

01:06:16.000 Anti German sentiment was huge, where the Brits hated Germans.

01:06:21.000 And you look at Douglas MacArthur, or not Douglas MacArthur.

01:06:25.000 Who was the general?

01:06:27.000 I forget who the general was, but they had, it was Eisenhower.

01:06:31.000 Eisenhower had concentration camps for Germans throughout World War II in Germany.

01:06:36.000 And Winston Churchill hated Germans.

01:06:38.000 I mean, there was really a bigotry, a racism towards Central Europeans that inspired World War II.

01:06:46.000 And that was merely a part of it the clergy plan where they wanted to breed out the war strains of the strong German people.

01:06:55.000 What's your opinion on. 0.74

01:06:56.000 Who should be a true American citizen? 0.95

01:07:00.000 You know, look, we can grandfather in everybody that's non white now, but going forward, it's got to be a white majority country, okay? 0.99

01:07:07.000 And we can tolerate, I think it's fair to tolerate maybe a small percentage. 0.98

01:07:13.000 Maybe that's conciliatory.

01:07:15.000 Maybe that's a concession we can make.

01:07:17.000 I don't know if it's possible that we have people living together that are so divergent and different.

01:07:23.000 But at the most, you're talking about maintaining, or rather, at the least, you're talking about maintaining. 0.75

01:07:29.000 A white majority in the country, at the most, you're talking about a complete ethnostate. 0.66

01:07:33.000 I don't know about an ethnostate. 0.70

01:07:35.000 It's never been the case here.

01:07:37.000 You go back to 1776 or 1790 when the first census was taken, and it was 20% non whites.

01:07:44.000 So you've never had an ethnostate. 0.63

01:07:47.000 So that said, you know, we got to go back to the Naturalization Acts.

01:07:52.000 Good character, similar in manners, Christian, to an extent European in character. 0.99

01:07:58.000 I don't know what we're to do with all the people. 0.86

01:08:00.000 Excuse me, all the people that are here that are not this way, I don't know what that will look like.

01:08:07.000 But certainly, I think it shouldn't be the focus right now.

01:08:10.000 The focus right now should be getting our numbers up so that we can deal with this more effectively and with a stronger hand, maybe in 20 years.

01:08:18.000 Nick, will there be a debate on the proper role for women in society in the future? 0.99

01:08:23.000 Yeah, maybe. 1.00

01:08:24.000 If Allie Stuckey wants to debate, I'd be glad to have her on the show.

01:08:28.000 But every time I add her or every time she references me, she never wants to have a conversation. 0.71

01:08:33.000 She never wants to debate.

01:08:35.000 Which is unfortunate.

01:08:37.000 So, I don't know if I can find a prominent conservatop to come on the show like Cassie Dillon, Ali Stuckey, conservative millennial.

01:08:46.000 I'd be happy to have them on, but they never want to argue. 0.99

01:08:53.000 Preside over the Korean Peninsula.

01:08:55.000 Nick, you're sounding a little neocon ish there.

01:08:56.000 Okay, you know, I'm not a neocon, obviously.

01:09:00.000 So, to pick apart these semantics like that, I think it's unfair.

01:09:04.000 You know what I mean by that.

01:09:05.000 Exert. 0.99

01:09:06.000 Or rather, project power in the Korean Peninsula or from. 0.74

01:09:09.000 Is that better?

01:09:10.000 Does that sound better?

01:09:12.000 I really hate this sort of thing.

01:09:14.000 You know, you say one wrong thing, you say one wrong word, and the alt right says, You're a neocon.

01:09:19.000 You're.

01:09:20.000 It's so annoying.

01:09:23.000 It's so annoying.

01:09:24.000 You guys know I'm not a neocon.

01:09:25.000 If anybody watches this show, they know I'm not a neocon.

01:09:28.000 I'm very sick and tired of anonymous people who don't do any work for this movement questioning the allegiances of people that are putting things on the line.

01:09:40.000 Oh, you're right, you're right, you're right.

01:09:41.000 Spoiler alert says I'm conflating the Hooten plan with the clergy plan.

01:09:45.000 You're right.

01:09:46.000 You're right.

01:09:46.000 I am thinking of the Hooten plan.

01:09:51.000 And what else do we have?

01:09:52.000 Vendetta is a smart guy.

01:09:54.000 Yeah, definitely a smart guy.

01:09:56.000 And we appreciated having him on.

01:09:57.000 Do a thought patrol on Cassie Dillon.

01:10:00.000 That'll probably be tomorrow on Nationalist Review because James was sparring with her on Twitter.

01:10:05.000 So we'll save the bants for when it's me and my white brother, James Alsup, our stormtrooper camaraderie. 0.94

01:10:15.000 Patton was right. 0.87

01:10:16.000 We should have fought the communists.

01:10:18.000 He was right. 0.63

01:10:19.000 As you know, Patton wanted to keep going to Moscow, he wanted to keep fighting after Berlin and conquer the Russians. 0.99

01:10:26.000 We should have done it. 0.98

01:10:27.000 We should have struck when they were weak.

01:10:28.000 This was still four years before they had a nuclear weapon.

01:10:32.000 This was before they had an empire, before they even industrialized, and we let that opportunity go.

01:10:38.000 Unfortunate.

01:10:40.000 One of the great tragedies of the modern world.

01:10:43.000 Nick, could the alt right hijack Mormonism and create a de facto ethnostate in Utah?

01:10:48.000 I have considered this proposition before that, you know, you look at like South African refugees.

01:10:54.000 If you resettled the white boar South African refugees in like the Pacific Northwest, Or in a small city in Canada or in a state in the United States, you could feasibly wrest control from the federal government in sort of a white enclave, sort of an alt right haven somewhere in North America. 0.77

01:11:14.000 But I think that's sort of extreme. 0.92

01:11:16.000 Maybe that should be pursued parallel to what we're trying to do overall, but certainly not the worst idea in the world.

01:11:23.000 How can you be a neocon?

01:11:25.000 You're not Jewish or Republican.

01:11:26.000 Well, there you go. 0.77

01:11:27.000 I mean, there it is.

01:11:28.000 I'm not an Israelite, right?

01:11:31.000 Do you know anything about Vendetta?

01:11:33.000 I do not.

01:11:35.000 And I do not.

01:11:37.000 Cassie knows better.

01:11:38.000 She was on camera once with Nick, and he just made her look unprepared and sophomoric.

01:11:43.000 It's true.

01:11:44.000 I mean, she was on a live stream with me a couple of times, and it was very clear who was competent.

01:11:50.000 It was very clear who was the rising star there. 0.93

01:11:53.000 So even when we were cooperative, it was not a good look for her because I would come at her with history, with allusions, with quotes, with pretty sophisticated analysis, and she would come back with, Yeah, the loony left is crazy.

01:12:08.000 Back to you, Nick.

01:12:09.000 And on top of that, so flirty.

01:12:11.000 If you go back, she deleted it, I think.

01:12:13.000 But she did a periscope after my debate in Boston.

01:12:16.000 And you should have seen her fawning, twirling her hair.

01:12:20.000 Oh, my God, Nick.

01:12:21.000 You know, laughing.

01:12:23.000 You know, we could tell there would be a huge disadvantage when one side kind of wants to be dominated, rhetorically, of course, and the other side is the conqueror.

01:12:33.000 So I don't know if it would work out so well. 1.00

01:12:35.000 She's smart enough to stay away.

01:12:39.000 What's the link to Nick and James' show?

01:12:40.000 You can actually find it on James's Twitter.

01:12:43.000 He's got a link to the speaker.

01:12:45.000 I'll have to put that in my bio now that we've done a rebrand and now we're America First Media.

01:12:51.000 All the paperwork just got finalized at the courthouse of LA County.

01:12:57.000 And so we should have an announcement probably tomorrow or later this weekend, more official.

01:13:03.000 But yeah, we did a rebrand on his speaker.

01:13:05.000 Now it's America First Media, and everything falls under that.

01:13:09.000 So, he's going to launch a show on Tuesday called America First Overdrive.

01:13:12.000 It'll be after my show, and it'll be Tuesdays and Thursdays.

01:13:16.000 And then on top of that, there'll be Nationalist Review on Saturday.

01:13:19.000 So, we've got like a network started, and we'll be looking at bringing on more talent in the future.

01:13:24.000 But enough about that.

01:13:26.000 Can't spill the beans totally on that just yet.

01:13:30.000 You can't ignore the fact that America projects power throughout the globe.

01:13:34.000 It doesn't mean that he's a neocon.

01:13:35.000 Exactly.

01:13:36.000 Exactly right.

01:13:36.000 And America has projected power.

01:13:38.000 And look, if you want disengagement from the world, okay, you know, that's a legitimate, that is extremely a pressing concern and a legitimate opinion to have about what should be done in the aftermath of the Cold War as we enter a multipolar world order led by the United States, China, Russia, India, and the European Union as a cooperative entity.

01:14:05.000 It is a major question how we were going to handle.

01:14:08.000 This disengagement or this transition of power away from American global hegemony to the regional hegemony of many powers.

01:14:17.000 But it doesn't happen overnight.

01:14:19.000 It doesn't happen in a day where it's like, okay, we're done.

01:14:22.000 Everybody go home.

01:14:24.000 All the bases, all the troops, everybody go home.

01:14:26.000 I mean, it doesn't happen like that.

01:14:28.000 That's not how diplomacy works.

01:14:29.000 It's not how.

01:14:30.000 And look, guys, I studied international affairs in college, albeit for a short while.

01:14:36.000 But I did study these issues in detail.

01:14:41.000 And there's a lot more to it than people think.

01:14:44.000 This is not elitist, like intellectual BS.

01:14:48.000 This is the reality of the situation.

01:14:49.000 There's more to it than this sophomoric, let's just take all the troops home.

01:14:54.000 I'm sick of war in Afghanistan.

01:14:56.000 Let's bring our boys home.

01:14:58.000 Okay, but understand there are consequences, serious, dire consequences you haven't considered if you want to have a withdrawal on day one, let alone in the next couple of years.

01:15:10.000 So there's a lot more to it.

01:15:15.000 Is there any neocon YouTubers?

01:15:17.000 Oh, yeah, Ben Shapiro, Brett Stevens, or YouTubers.

01:15:21.000 I don't know about YouTubers, but personalities, there's no shortage of neocons.

01:15:26.000 I get the feeling Cassie wants to get some nachos.

01:15:29.000 Look, I don't want to get into stories or details.

01:15:33.000 Look, I wouldn't want to go there, but yeah, I mean, let's just say it became pretty apparent that she wanted a little bit more than I did.

01:15:42.000 Let's just leave it at that.

01:15:43.000 Okay.

01:15:44.000 It's the great mystery, and you'll never know.

01:15:46.000 You'll never know.

01:15:47.000 Nobody will ever know the extent of that time in my life.

01:15:54.000 But let's just say she wanted, you know, she was a little nicer.

01:15:57.000 I wasn't so much about that.

01:16:00.000 Nick, I'm a good Catholic.

01:16:02.000 Let's put it that way.

01:16:03.000 Nick, have you listened to Myron Fagan expose the Illuminati, which was recorded in 67 and prophecies everything that has happened?

01:16:10.000 No, I have not.

01:16:11.000 But if you're talking about the Illuminati, I'm iffy on that.

01:16:15.000 You can talk about the Illuminati on television.

01:16:17.000 That kind of tells you everything you need to know.

01:16:19.000 What are you not allowed to.

01:16:20.000 You know, what.

01:16:21.000 Sam Hyde is not allowed on television, but Illuminati talk is.

01:16:25.000 What does that tell you? 1.00

01:16:27.000 How do we deal with the Islamic rapists? 1.00

01:16:29.000 Nuke Mecca? 1.00

01:16:30.000 No, and I hate all this antagonism towards Muslims. 0.87

01:16:35.000 You get to a point where you understand that Muslims are only the foot soldiers of a much darker, more sinister force in the world, which goes by a certain name that you can't say. 0.67

01:16:48.000 But. 0.98

01:16:50.000 Oh, that gets my goat so much.

01:16:52.000 Because I used to be that way. 1.00

01:16:53.000 I used to be, you know, we have to, Muslims, Islam's evil, and all of that. 1.00

01:16:59.000 And then I realized, wait a minute, they wouldn't be a problem at all if they remained in the Middle East, but who's bringing them here? 1.00

01:17:05.000 You know, and it's sort of weird. 1.00

01:17:06.000 Everybody's so courageous in defaming Islam, the religion. 1.00

01:17:10.000 You can go on Fox News and say, look at Islam, their prophet was a rapist, their prophet was a pedophile. 1.00

01:17:18.000 Islam, the religion, is broken. 1.00

01:17:20.000 And liberals can get on television and they can say Christianity is a lie. 0.99

01:17:24.000 Christ never existed.

01:17:26.000 But what can you not say?

01:17:27.000 Can you talk about the Talmud on television?

01:17:30.000 Can you talk about the Talmud on television?

01:17:33.000 Can you talk about how in the Talmud it has it that rabbis correct God on rabbinic law?

01:17:40.000 Can you talk about that? 0.84

01:17:41.000 Can you talk about how in the Talmud they have Jesus Christ boiling in semen and excrement in hell? 0.52

01:17:47.000 Can you talk about how in the Talmud they say that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and that he was a philanderer just like his mother?

01:17:54.000 I mean, can you talk about that on television? 0.53

01:17:57.000 Can you talk about the fact that Jewish people in the modern tradition are against scripture, are against the Old Testament, which they purport to live by?

01:18:07.000 No.

01:18:09.000 Short answer, no, you cannot. 1.00

01:18:12.000 So when people come at me with this Islam stuff, like it's the edgiest thing in the world, I'd say, think about what you're not allowed to criticize and then get back to me. 1.00

01:18:20.000 Then you tell me all of that. 1.00

01:18:23.000 And you know, look, I'm not saying all Jewish people believe this.

01:18:28.000 I'm not saying Jewish people are bad.

01:18:30.000 I'm not saying anything like that.

01:18:31.000 I'm saying these are facts.

01:18:34.000 Why can you not talk about these facts in the same breath as facts about Muhammad and Christ? 0.74

01:18:40.000 Weird, right?

01:18:42.000 So, you know, and people don't like me to talk about that because they say it sounds anti Semitic.

01:18:47.000 They say it sounds like Nazi talk.

01:18:51.000 But notice I stated a series of facts.

01:18:54.000 I didn't say Jewish people believe this.

01:18:56.000 I didn't say Jewish people are bad.

01:18:58.000 I didn't say anything of the sort.

01:19:00.000 I just said if you look in their book of laws, of rabbinic laws, which is what Orthodox Judaism is, it says these things and nobody knows about it and nobody talks about it. 0.80

01:19:13.000 So, if you want to be edgy, talk about that, I guess.

01:19:18.000 What do we have? 0.92

01:19:21.000 Can you talk about how there seems to be a lot of Jewish people running these immigration NGOs to Western nations? 0.91

01:19:27.000 Total coincidence. 0.90

01:19:28.000 Don't focus on that at all. 0.99

01:19:36.000 Joe Northpal, a rabbi can slap God's face, according to the Talmud. 1.00

01:19:39.000 It's true. 1.00

01:19:40.000 It's true.

01:19:41.000 And that's why it confuses me when evangelicals will defend Israel to their dying breath. 0.98

01:19:46.000 Jewish people hate evangelicals. 0.81

01:19:50.000 You can look into this. 0.96

01:19:51.000 I forget the study exactly.

01:19:52.000 And if you're interested, you can look into it.

01:19:54.000 But there was a survey of religious groups where they said, rate other religious groups on a scale of zero to 100, 100 being your warmest feelings, zero being your coldest feelings.

01:20:05.000 And evangelicals had an incredibly warm opinion of Jews, and Jews had the lowest opinion out of any category of evangelicals. 0.97

01:20:13.000 And in addition to that, in their Talmud, It says that our Savior, who died on the cross for our sins, who saved the world, he is boiling in excrement and he was illegitimate. 0.95

01:20:27.000 I mean, that's what's in the book.

01:20:30.000 You don't believe me?

01:20:31.000 Babylonian Talmud, right there, 400 AD.

01:20:36.000 Nachos, nachos, nachos.

01:20:38.000 You know what?

01:20:39.000 Nacho time in eight minutes, okay?

01:20:41.000 Nacho time in eight minutes.

01:20:42.000 We'll call it a night on this casual Friday.

01:20:47.000 But, Nick, they're the chosen people, right?

01:20:50.000 I like how it's like white supremacy.

01:20:56.000 Who thinks they're chosen, though?

01:21:00.000 Not us.

01:21:01.000 So, I don't know.

01:21:02.000 Look, I couldn't tell you.

01:21:03.000 What am I even saying?

01:21:04.000 Tin foil hat, conspiracy stuff.

01:21:07.000 You should probably disregard all these coincidences.

01:21:10.000 Probably.

01:21:11.000 I mean, who even cares? 0.89

01:21:12.000 A bunch of hateful Nazi talk. 0.50

01:21:15.000 What am I even saying?

01:21:17.000 Let's get back to the real important issues of the day, like.

01:21:21.000 Tax policy and leftism on college campuses, safe space culture on college campuses.

01:21:28.000 You know, let's get back to that, right?

01:21:30.000 Let's get back to talking about the loony left on college campuses, right, Cassie? 0.99

01:21:34.000 Dummy? 0.99

01:21:37.000 Look, I couldn't tell you. 0.96

01:21:39.000 I couldn't tell you.

01:21:42.000 Nick, are you going to do any campaigning for 2018?

01:21:46.000 Yeah, yeah, I'll be campaigning for Paul Nealon in the first district of Wisconsin in August 2018.

01:21:55.000 It sounds like they're saying Talmud or Talmud, Talmud, you know, whatever.

01:22:00.000 Talmudic conspiracy.

01:22:03.000 A rabbi and God are having a debate. 1.00

01:22:05.000 The rabbi wins.

01:22:06.000 I mean, that's what's kind of weird people tell me, like, oh, you know, you have the Bible, you have the Quran, and you have the Old Testament or the Torah.

01:22:06.000 Exactly.

01:22:15.000 And it's like, no, I think you're kind of missing something important.

01:22:20.000 I think you're kind of missing something that abrogates things in Scripture, things that go against Scripture.

01:22:26.000 I don't know.

01:22:27.000 Couldn't tell you. 1.00

01:22:31.000 I just believe whites are gods. 1.00

01:22:33.000 Yeah, right? 1.00

01:22:33.000 Right, exactly. 1.00

01:22:35.000 Exactly.

01:22:36.000 Everyone calls us white supremacists.

01:22:40.000 Hello.

01:22:41.000 But whatever.

01:22:42.000 Whatever.

01:22:43.000 Of course, it's not all of them.

01:22:44.000 And we recognize the contributions of the Jewish people to our Judeo Christian heritage.

01:22:51.000 And, you know, Jews rock, okay?

01:22:53.000 We love them.

01:22:54.000 And nothing wrong with them.

01:22:56.000 Nothing wrong with them at all, of course.

01:22:58.000 Tolerance, pluralism, these are our virtues now.

01:23:02.000 Nothing like strength or tradition.

01:23:05.000 God, I'm just right.

01:23:08.000 I'm just, I think I crossed the line, but, you know, whatever.

01:23:13.000 Whatever.

01:23:17.000 That's as far as I'll go.

01:23:18.000 I'm going to have to reel that back in in the future, but I'm going to have to come up with some excuse for that.

01:23:23.000 But, you know, you got to just look into these things.

01:23:26.000 I couldn't pretend to be objective and serious about these issues if I didn't present these facts.

01:23:31.000 I mean, what are you going to call them?

01:23:32.000 Hate facts?

01:23:33.000 I'm just presenting facts, guys.

01:23:36.000 I couldn't tell you.

01:23:37.000 Yeah, I couldn't tell you.

01:23:38.000 I don't know.

01:23:39.000 What am I even saying?

01:23:40.000 What am I even talking about?

01:23:42.000 Who cares?

01:23:44.000 A careful reading of Genesis makes it clear that there were other people in the world at the time of his creation. 0.83

01:23:49.000 Adam was the first white man created in Yahweh's image.

01:23:52.000 That's an interesting.

01:23:53.000 I've never heard that before. 0.93

01:23:55.000 Jews Rock.

01:23:56.000 That's my new bumper sticker. 0.68

01:23:57.000 Yeah.

01:23:58.000 You know, I heard it was actually Jews Rule, and then they changed it to Jews Rock.

01:24:01.000 I don't know why.

01:24:04.000 You ever heard of the movie Eyes Wide Shut?

01:24:06.000 There are rumors that the original title was Jaded Eyes Wide Shut.

01:24:10.000 The famous Stanley Kubrick movie that he died shortly after he made, the movie Eyes Wide Shut about a conspiracy.

01:24:20.000 Interesting fact.

01:24:21.000 It's rumored that the original working title for that movie was Jaded Eyes Wide Shut.

01:24:27.000 Jaded Eyes Wide Shut.

01:24:31.000 Interesting, right?

01:24:31.000 I've never heard that before.

01:24:33.000 My buddy Colin told me that it was Jaded Eyes Wide Shut.

01:24:37.000 Interesting title.

01:24:39.000 Hey, Nick, is there some sort of additional content slash show coming?

01:24:43.000 Next week, from someone we know you could plug.

01:24:46.000 Yeah, my man.

01:24:47.000 And you know what?

01:24:48.000 I think we're going to wrap it up.

01:24:49.000 I'm saying crazy things.

01:24:50.000 I'm saying tinfoil hat things.

01:24:52.000 So we'll close it on a positive, a high note.

01:24:55.000 There is a big show coming up America First Overdrive, a new show, completely new program, hosted by our man James Alsup.

01:25:04.000 And that will premiere next week on Tuesday.

01:25:06.000 So this coming Tuesday, America First Overdrive debuts on this channel.

01:25:13.000 So if you subscribe right now, you click the notifications.

01:25:16.000 You'll get notified when James Alsop goes live for the debut, the first episode of America First Overdrive.

01:25:22.000 It'll be at 8 p.m. Central Time, 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

01:25:26.000 And for our Pacific people, it'll be 6 p.m. Pacific time.

01:25:30.000 So it'll be my show at 7.

01:25:32.000 His show will be at 8, I believe.

01:25:34.000 I don't know if we hammered out the times exactly, but it should.

01:25:37.000 I don't know if there should be a lot of overlap there.

01:25:39.000 But so it's my show at 7, his show at 8 Central Time.

01:25:44.000 America First Overdrive.

01:25:45.000 Check it out with James Alsup.

01:25:47.000 That's in addition to this show, in addition to Nationalist Review every Saturday on Spreaker.

01:25:52.000 Additionally, this show is now available in podcast form.

01:25:56.000 So I will be uploading the podcast version of this show.

01:25:59.000 Later tonight, and you can get that on Spreaker.

01:26:02.000 I'll post the link and you can listen to that.

01:26:04.000 That's audio only, and you can also find Nationalist Review there as well.

01:26:09.000 But that's our show.

01:26:10.000 If you have any other questions, comments, anything I didn't get to, remember you can post that on the Twitter.

01:26:15.000 Hashtag AmericaFQ.

01:26:17.000 Hashtag AmericaFQ.

01:26:19.000 I'll try and finish up all the questions on Monday.

01:26:22.000 Maybe we'll take a half hour to answer everything that's jammed up that needs to get answered.

01:26:27.000 But that's the show.

01:26:28.000 Follow us on Twitter at NickJFuentes, Facebook.comslash NickJFuentes.

01:26:33.000 Hit that periscope.

01:26:34.000 I did a periscope this morning.

01:26:36.000 I'll be doing more periscopes in the future.

01:26:38.000 Got to follow me there, at Nick J. Fuentes, for those.

01:26:41.000 Please subscribe, smash the like button, click the bell for notifications on all of our content.

01:26:48.000 And I'm on the air every Monday through Friday, 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

01:26:54.000 I'm Nicholas J. Fuentes.

01:26:55.000 This was America First North Korea Madness Debate, signing off.

01:27:00.000 Thank you guys, as always, for watching.

01:27:02.000 We appreciate the hell out of you.

01:27:04.000 Thanks for everybody that donated the shekels.

01:27:07.000 Some shekels for a good guy.

01:27:08.000 It makes the world go round.

01:27:10.000 So we appreciate you guys in the super chat.

01:27:12.000 We'll catch you on Monday.

01:27:13.000 Have a great weekend.

01:27:15.000 And I don't know, maybe I'll do a scope tomorrow.

01:27:17.000 So we will see you later.

01:27:21.000 Whoops.

01:27:21.000 Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.

01:27:28.000 It's going to be only America first.

01:27:31.000 America first. 0.99

01:27:33.000 The American people will come first once again.

01:27:40.000 With respect to respect. 0.96

01:28:01.000 It's going to be only America first. 0.95

01:28:06.000 America first. 0.98

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - September 29, 2017

Is War in North Korea Justified feat. Vendetta Vidame | America First Ep. 21

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript