The Misfit Patriot - Political Commentator | Content Creator | Social Media Personality - World Ablaze with George Fontes

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I want to welcome the misfit patriot, mister misfit, So
I appreciate you actually taking the time to be here too.
I know you've been around lately. You've been on Peers Morgan,
You've been on a bunch of other podcast doing debates, etc.
As we kind of discussed offline, I really wanted you
here because I wanted to give you the opportunity to
explain yourself a bit more, because what I've seen is

(00:25):
a bit I'll just say this, I've seen other people's
fan base where fanboys basically get behind the other person
or whoever and really bolster them up to try to
make you look bad. And in my opinion, I don't
think everything you say is a bad opinion. I don't,
And I just don't think you're given enough air to

(00:47):
breathe right, or enough room to actually say what you
got to say. So I just wanted to get to
know you and just get to know like where you're
actually coming from. And I will bring up some of
the things that were I guess controversial, especially if you're
paying attention to social media, which is another world in
and of itself, right, So yeah, well that I just
want to start with this. I am going to get

(01:07):
into the Iran Israel thing because that was pretty recent.
You have a lot to say about that, but I
want to start with what's going on with your not
I wouldn't say best with your squabbles lately, for example,
like Dave Smith. He said some stuff about Laura Lumer,
which I can understand, But can you explain a bit
what's going on between you and Dave? I mean, Dave
kind of tries to dismiss you, but you seem to

(01:27):
not not let him get away with everything that he says.
Can you elaborate on that for me? Sure?

Speaker 2 (01:34):
Dave's just like everybody else that I call out when
I when I see hypocrisy online, I usually call it out.
I don't care if it's on my side. I mean, look,
I spent years calling out the hypocrisy of the left
because it's it's easy. It's it's literally like fish in
a barrel. And I've noticed recently, pretty pretty recently, that

(01:56):
there is this wing of the right that's adopting this
you know, double standard what about ism, and and I
would I would classify it as as woke ideology, like
so this, there's this, there's this debate about you know,
James Lindsay, myself and some others adopted this whole woke

(02:17):
right a framing tactic, and a lot of people are like,
woke means left. No woke actually just means oppressor oppressed
ideology where it's basically like, there's a there's a they
out there that's responsible for all of your problems and
you bitch about it and you don't have no personal accountability.
The right has never adopted this, but until recently, so

(02:41):
I've been calling out the quote woke right, and I
think that I don't know if Dave is necessarily woke right.
He's definitely fucking woke because he's got this this ideology
where where there's this, uh, there's this boogeyman bad guy, Uh,
the American government is government, this, that and the other,

(03:02):
and you know, under the guise of morality and libertarianism,
he thinks that he's got this moral superiority over others.
So that's just you know, a little intro into why
I'm calling anybody out. But as far as Dave Smith specifically,
what I've noticed about Dave Smith is he's a he's

(03:23):
he's got this debate me bro like you know stick now.
Andrew Wilson has the same thing. But Andrew Wilson I
would say, I disagree with.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
Him a lot.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
But Andrew Wilson, I would say, actually should be in
that space, right. Andrew Wilson smart, articulate, well read. He
goes after the substance, whereas Dave uses gaslighting, narcissism, and
abuse techniques to to bully berate his audience, and he
usually does it under a platform where he's got the

(03:58):
home field advantage, like on Pierce Morgan, or on Joe
Rogan or on his own channel. I've really not seen
a lot of substance from from him and others where
they're actually they're actually arguing in good faith. Like so
as far as like why why this bothers me so much,

(04:22):
it's because I'm seeing I'm seeing it accepted in my
own party. I'm seeing a lot of people that are
sort of just jumping on. There is this single issue
voter block that's now just anti Israel, right, they don't
give a shit who you are. I see Johnny ut D,
a far radical leftist from the UK, reposting Nick Fuentees

(04:47):
because the only thing they have in common is they
both hate Jews, and I don't. And I also see there.
This is why I think this is one of the
biggest issues of our time right now. I see a
September tenth mentality in this country where we are not
looking at the threat of radical Islam and how it

(05:11):
is a real danger to I would say any Western
civilization or any you know what. I don't know why
we always do that peaceful civilization. Everywhere radical Islam has
been implemented, it has made the place that it is
implemented in worse. And we just had a primary in
New York City, the biggest city in America, and they

(05:33):
voted in a radical Islam as supporter and socialists. So
why am I calling these people out? It's pretty much
me pulling the fire alarm, except I'm not Jamal Bowman.
I actually think there is a fire right well.

Speaker 1 (05:50):
My thing I think with Dave is and I've talked
about this person myself, My brother and I have gone
down this road. I actually respective for the fact that
he is intelligent, but I think that he's gotten to
a point where he's gotten so big and he's used
to being patted on the back that everything he says
is gold and I don't believe that he's even made
the argument that, well, I make better arguments because I

(06:12):
read books. Great, everyone reads books. But the problem with
his books is he only accepts the ones that he
says himself quoted, I just read better books. But both
these books have the same facts. He just prefers the
ones that have the inflection of the author or the
opinions that support his view. So regardless, he does come
into things with a lot of bias, he just won't
admit it. And I don't believe he's always correct. So,

(06:35):
you know, I do understand why you call him out.
I just I don't know. I think he should be
on a platform where he's more, like you said, challenge,
not necessarily surrounded by his peers and constantly being you know,
like I said before, pat on the back or even
they gang up on the other person, you know who
they're dating, which is a bit ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, and this whole debate thing, it's like, I'm not
a debater, by the way, right, these people keep asking
me to debate them. I don't go out and say
I would like to debate x y z no Owen
Shore said, I'll I want to debate you, Andrew Wilson said,
I want to debate you a couple other people I've
probably been in, I don't know, half a dozen debates.
Maybe I I will accept any debate because I think

(07:16):
that the best way to you know, solve problems is
through discourse, because you know, when when discourse ends, violence begins. However,
what I've noticed is when these people, when these people
try to talk to me, you were you were alluding
to this earlier, right, it's they have they have this

(07:37):
I would say, false sense of of confidence because they're
they're they're in their own echo. They have they have like, look,
I'm not gonna I'm not gonna discredit the fact that
these people have actual fans and real people that really
support them. But I think that it's a lot of
fake engagement where they're getting they're getting boosted and they're

(08:00):
they're literally they're seeing their notifications they're like, you did great,
you won, You're the best and crushed him. So what
I do is, like, like with the Owen Shoryer debate,
I did an own short debate. I rewatched the debate.
I will fully admit that my first debate with Andrew Wilson,
I lost right. I have no problem saying that I
didn't know the substance. I told him I didn't know

(08:20):
the substance. We were trying to have a theological debate.
Was clearly he's clearly more educated on theology than I am.
So I can say that I lost right on the
on the substance. The second debate, I think it was
fairly even. I watched the Owen Shorer debate, and I
rewatched it knowing that I can be wrong. I can
lose debates. If somebody does better than me or knows

(08:42):
more than me, I'll be happy to admit it. When
I rewatched it, I did not see him make a
single point that that actually won on substance. He just
yelled and screamed, and he and he didn't have any argument.
He said Katar was our greatest ally. I said, what
evidence you have that are greatest alloy? He goes, whatevers
you have that they're not. I asked you a question.

(09:04):
So anyway, So what happens is because he has so many,
so much more followers than me, he does the debate.
He doesn't do anything to win the debate, but everybody goes,
you won the debate. But he but he actually didn't.
But he's going around. It's like that meme where you

(09:24):
see the cartoon guy and he's popping a bottle of
champagne and biting, biting his medal and he's like yeah,
and then it zooms out and he's in like fifteenth
place and he's just like celebrating, and and I think
that that's what's going on with Dave Smith. I think
that he's literally like people are stroking his ego. And again,
he might have real fans, but I think that a

(09:44):
lot of it is I think that a lot of
it's manufactured because there are people out there with an
agenda that want to frame a narrative, and they will
they will jump in and they will throw a bunch
of bots under one person's post. And you know it
also to the point that we made earlier, when he's
going on these platforms, like Pierce Morgan, who's Pierce Morgan

(10:07):
had Dave Smith on one side, he had the person
that Dave Smith was supposed to be debating on the
other side, and he's supposed to be in the middle
as a moderator, right, Pierce Morgan joined in on one
side of the argument for an hour and they tag
teamed two different women. Where it was when you have

(10:28):
a debate that's one hour long and two people are
talking over one person, that person is going to get
Maybe I would say a maximum, if it's a fair debate,
thirty three percent of the airtime. But she didn't even
get that. She probably got ten percent because they just
wouldn't stop filibustering, interrupting. And then Dave literally in these debates.

(10:52):
I don't want to make this whole podcast about Dave,
but you asked Dave in these debates, who goes before
the fucking debates?

Speaker 1 (10:57):
Even Olveray's like, I won well on the debate, And
I did ask because I want to know, you know,
I want to know where you're coming from. I know where
I come from. I know where a lot of people
come from. In my opinion, I think, okay, the deal
with people like Dave, for example, comedians, they're trained to
be very quick, witty, snappy, their comebacks right. They think quick,

(11:18):
they react quick, they talk fast. Dave was was on
National I think it was on Fox or whatever. I forgot.
I forgot which news network it was. He would come
on as a consultant or someone who would you know,
like a talking head basically wants to.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
Make a contributor or something.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
Yeah, basically, but you know, we can't lie to ourselves.
And I'm going to say this flat out, Dave would
not be where he was if he wasn't Joe Rogan's friend, period, exactly.
In my opinion, I'm getting very tired of these comedians
thinking that just because they're witty on stage that they
suddenly are authorities when it comes to politics and geopolitics.
A guy doesn't know shit about geopolitics.

Speaker 2 (11:53):
No, and and Douglas Murray did a really good job
of pointing this out to him, and you can tell
it left a mark because Dave is still talking about
I can't believe this appeal to authority. And then he
makes the same appeal to authority to other people. Just
came out and called out Rob Schneider and he goes,
you're a comedian, you don't know what you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
It.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
It's like, bro, right, dude, what's up Dave Murray?

Speaker 1 (12:15):
What's up?

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Dave Murray? Like what are you doing? You're literally so anyway,
and again like so Dave is a good Dave is
a good general, Like he's a good figurehead, to to
sort of focus on the overarching broad issue of this
false sense of confidence and how we're bolstering the dumbest
voices who are not making actual intellectual arguments, but instead

(12:39):
are are are dominating the clout market where they are,
they are getting boosted, they are getting fed positive affirmations
for nonsense. Meanwhile, what they do is they try to
beat down and silence anybody that's actually making an articulate,
well rounded argument, like I can't Elica. I think her

(13:00):
name is the girl that was on the debate with
Dave Right, she's Look, you had two lawyers, right, you
had an international lawyer, you had a lawyer, you had
an Iranian who actually knows about the Middle East, because.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Yeah, she's she's she's.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
Well overqualified for this conversation, right. And you have Piers
Morgan who brings on you bring on Natasha Housdorff, right,
who's again an international lawyer, way overqualified for this conversation.
And all they do is scream and shout he down,
don't let her talk gaslight abuse, abuse abuse, And then
they just go, look at what we did, right, And

(13:40):
it's like, you shouldn't be proud of this, Piers and
also one final thing that I was going to make
a video on this. I got busy with work and everything.
But before that debate that Dave was just on on Piers,
they had on this guy who's supposedly a professor at
Tehran University, which is essentially meaning he's he's an Iran spokesperson,

(14:03):
the iurgy, he's an IERGYC spokesperson. Let's just call it
what it is. He's a terrorist, right, He's an actual terrorist, right,
there's no doubt about it. Pierce Morgan asks him. He goes,
do you are you proud of what Hamas did on
October seventh?

Speaker 1 (14:16):
And he goes, yeah, right, he goes yeah. I mean
he goes.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
Because and then Pierce is like, they killed they killed
Holocaust survivors. He's like, well, just because you survived the
Holocaust doesn't mean you're allowed to settle in someone else's land.
And he was It was like blatantly obvious that this
guy is a terrorist, right, right, And then Pierce goes
to Dave. Pierce goes, I think he made some good points.
I obviously don't agree with the bad things he said,

(14:39):
but I think he made some good points. What do
you think? And Dave's like, yeah, I think he made
some good points on I obviously don't agree with the
bad things he said. Go look, dog, here's the deal.
If you ever have a fucking terrorist on your platform,
the one thing you do not do is say they
had good points, because this is the same argument as
Hitler had some good ideas. But I don't agree with
the genocide. Right. It's like, bro, no, right, if you

(15:03):
cannot universally condemn somebody who is out there in four
k say yes, I am proud of the rape, murder, slaughtering,
and kidnapping of twelve hundred plus people, Right, You've lost
the thread. And it's not about like people are like, oh,
you're taking them out of context. He only agreed with it. No, No,

(15:26):
I didn't take him out of context at all. He
agreed with a terrorist on some parts of the terrorists argument.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
I think, I think exact the problem. I think the
problem with people like Dave is they they don't want
to lose their base or the base of the sympathizers
on the opposite side of the argument. They're trying to
play the middle as much as they can so that
they're always relevant and they're always you know, at the
top of social media pulse or whatever it is that

(15:56):
they get their Yeah, yeah, whatever works for them. But
here's Morgan. We'll get off this in a minute. But
the reality is, if you're going to be a moderator,
you need to be a moderator. You're not supposed to
jump in and gang up. And that's why I saw
what that other debate when you're talking about orn I
forgot the last name. Oh and Shroyer. Yeah, it was.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
It was a three on one. They had too much.
When we started that debate, there was two other people
in the little boxes and I go, am, I debating
two people, right, and then the guy goes, oh, no,
I'm a second moderator. I'm like you moderators.

Speaker 1 (16:27):
Yeah, I saw that one because you know, I did
watch for your debate because I wanted to see I
see the chatter, and I was like, Okay, let me
see where he's coming from, let me see what happened
outside perspective. Yeah, there was a couple We're personally not
an attack, but I don't know if you were fully
prepared on some of them. Yeah, fair enough, it happens, right,
But there's others where I'm like the one with Oron.

(16:48):
It was like, Okay, you're trying to make some good
points and this guy, I actually never heard of him.
I'm not an info war guy, but whatever, and everything
that he was saying was nothing but based on conspiracy theories.
He didn't have any real basis for his arguments. Yeah,
and then he tried to tell you, or are you
trying to make this argument about Jews choose being the

(17:08):
problem while he is trying to explain the rule of
the problem by also stating that the Jews are the
rule of the problem, Like what the fuck you?

Speaker 2 (17:16):
I mean, well, this is the problem, this is the issue. Like, look,
I have I wouldn't say I have respect for somebody
likes Stu Peters, but I at least I at least
can I can say that with Stu Peters and somebody
likes Stu Peters. Right, he just says I hate Jews, right,

(17:38):
And I'm like, damn, why can't they all do that? Right?
He wears it, honestly, the argument that these people are
not anti Semitic, they're anti Zionists when there's eighty to
ninety five percent of jewsers Zionists. Right, It's just I'm
just tired of the argument. Right, So you got people
like Owen Schroyer who gaslight and they go, this is bullshit.
Just because you call out Israel doesn't mean you Jews.

(18:00):
And then then you criticize nobody else but Jews and I.
And that's why I wanted to pin him down on Islam, right,
because if you have somebody this is what I do respect.
I respect somebody who goes fuck them both, right, Like
I really do respect those people. I respect the people
that go fuck Jews, fuck Muslims, and I don't agree

(18:20):
with them because I don't see a problem with Jews, right,
but I respect it.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
It's like, well, you're making a hard stance, right, You're
going you're going fuck them both, right. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
But when I tried to pin Owen Schroyer down on Islam,
he goes, nos are quitar is one of our best allies.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
We have a military base there.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
I'm like, we got a military base in fucking Cuba, right,
Like we got a military Like have you heard of
Bogram You remember those thirteen dead service members? They were
at a military base. So it's it's a non argument,
like like Dave says, and then they don't they just
they don't see that what they're doing, right, see with
Hitler and and uh shit, I'm drawing a blank right now.

(19:01):
Early the Islamic leader back in nineteen forty something that
sat down with him, the muzzle. They created this coalition
because they had a shared enemy, right, the Jewish people. Right,
Islam is always going to hate the Jewish people. Hit
their hated the Jewish people, and they came together. This
is what I'm seeing with horseshoe theory, with the right
and the left who are coming together and coalescing around Jews,

(19:24):
where I'm like, look, I'm not Jewish, I'm not Israeli.
I don't give a talk about Israel as far as
like the government, I don't care. I don't care who
the president is. I don't know how their system works.
I don't know anything about Israeli politics.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
Right. I saw on October.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
Seventh, nine to eleven, Part two, right in a different country,
And I remember nine eleven. I'm old enough to remember
nine eleven, and I remember how other nations were standing
with America and they were showing their support, and I go, yeah,
let's return the fucking favor. Let's show our support with
like they did this to us twenty four years ago.
So yeah, of course, well back then it was three

(20:00):
years ago.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
I'm forty all right, I'm gonna be forty seven. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
So I was fifteen that it happened.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
I remember I was driving to I was a union
painter for a little bit. I was driving down to
the Bay Area and then it was on the radio
and everybody was just like, what the fuck just happened.

Speaker 2 (20:16):
Me and my dad were driving. It came with with
his neighbor. It came on the radio. We were out
running an errand and we ran rushed back to the
house and sat there, all three of us, and watched
the TV crying, you know. And I was crying because
my brother at the time, it was still my brother,
but at the time, my brother was over in the

(20:38):
Middle East, overseas in the Marines. Oh, and I was like,
my brother's going to die. I was like, he's going
to die. He's going like he's because as a fifteen
year old, you just know that war means people die.

Speaker 1 (20:50):
Anyway, he didn't, but it was.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
It's a moment that if you lived it, you don't forget.
And I think that the reason why there's this indifference
to Islam is because it has been now twenty something
years and we have a brand new generation that just
does not understand what that what that felt like?

Speaker 1 (21:12):
The problem? Okay, not disagreeing with you whatsoever. I think
what people don't understand is they don't they don't do
a deep dive on the history, and they want to
cherry pick the parts of history that makes all of
this look good. Right. Yeah, Islam going back to when
their prophet Muhammad was still alive is when in around

(21:34):
sixteen twelve, between sixteen twelve and six I'm not sixteen,
I'm sorry, six sixteen twelve to six twenty two is
when they decided that, hey, we're gonna expand and we're
going to bring the world under Sharia law or under
the Muslim way, right, And since that it has not stopped.
They never forgot they're objective. It's it's still there.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
I mad, I made a post. I made a post
last night. I think it was somebody asked me, and
they asked me in good faith. They weren't they weren't trolling,
which is normally you get this question when somebody's trolling.
They go, uh, wouldn't wouldn't killing more wouldn't killing people
in the Middle East make more terrorists, not less?

Speaker 1 (22:15):
And I was like, no, absolutely not. And here's why.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
If you actually know history, right, there's been over sixty
six thousand Islamic terrorist attacks in the past fifty years.
They were they kill each other when there's no interventionism. Uh,
there's been eighteen hundred attacks or eighteen hundred deaths just
last year in twenty twenty four. It's like the the
idea that people that have spent like centuries murdering other

(22:43):
people are murdering us because every once in a while,
when they get too crazy, we intervene and try to
stop them is retarded. It's it doesn't make any sense
right these people, it's Islam is a convert or killed
death cult because the the Quran states as doctrine that

(23:04):
you need to kill infidels, and you need to and
it's an expansionist religion. It's a it's a political ideology
disguised as a religion, first of all. But it's it's
ike it's ikea instructions on how to take over the world, right,
that's what it is, right, and and that's the thing.

(23:25):
It's the exact opposite of Judaism right, where it's like Judaism, Well,
let's not even go with Judaism.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
Let's go with Israel.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
Right, let's just go with the modern state of Israel,
because people don't like when you get to theology Israel
is an isolationist country. They don't want to expand. They
never have they they they they they're the same. They're
at the same numbers they were at the end of
the Holocaust. As far as population, they don't grow. They
just try to survive. They stay in their little dot

(23:58):
in the Middle East. They have no real plans for,
you know, taking over anywhere else. And if you look
at Islam, if you look at a map of the
Muslim nations in seventeen seventy eight, when the Ottoman Empire,
like you know, the Barbaries started their whole you know,

(24:20):
modern expansionist movement, it looks like cancer spreading. They're everywhere
now right, They're in Africa, the Middle East, Europe. It's like, bro,
how are people missing this?

Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, you're right, you're right. So. And also, Palestine was
never an actual country nation. It was really referred to
as a region that was a collection of tribes and
you know, sub nations I guess you would call them
back then. Yeah, but that's what it was, that's what
was referred to.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
That's what it still is. It's a region in Israel.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
It is a region now. The history between like you
were talking about Muslims and the Jews or just the
really is that's that's that's an old, old, old war.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
Old titles back to Charigan Ishmael. Yeah, Isaac and Ishmael.
You can start there. It's two brothers had a fight,
and three thousand years later we're all paying.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
It just never stopped. It just never stopped. And this
whole two state solution that keeps getting rejected was I
mean the act like this was a new concept and
people are upset about it first mentioned, I believe, like
officially like nineteen seventeen, nineteen eighteen, by the way, way
before nineteen forty eight, when when the Israeli state was formed, right,
and then it was it was introduced again nineteen thirty seven,

(25:34):
and then from there it just it just continued, It
just continued, I believe in the late nineties and two thousands,
it was it was continually pushed and introduced, but constantly
rejected because they don't want their peace of land, Like
they say they want the area now it's well, I
mean riverge disease what they say, right, they've they've they've
rejected the two state solutions. They've rejected they've started every

(25:57):
war since the since the Arab is where they were
nineteen forty eight, there's been you know six Like the
talking point is Nakba, right, Knachba was a reaction to
the initiation of the Arab Israeli war, which the with
the Arabs started. And you want a two state solution,
I have one. There are already two states, Jordan and Israel.

(26:17):
Put fucking put one.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
Put these people in Jordan because I I did a
debate where the opposition leader to the King of Jordan
told me straight up, he goes, we'll take them, he goes, absolutely.
You know, there's dating.

Speaker 1 (26:33):
The original proposal was when when when that split happened,
was Palestine was literally part of Jordan. Were supposed to
be part of Jordan. But a lot of people argue, well,
they're not the same Palestinians, they don't have the same culture,
same whatever. Great, but there's diverse cultures in Israel. We
have diverse cultures here.

Speaker 2 (26:50):
That's that's the Middle East in a nutshell, it's literally
just a bunch of different u iterations of Muslim, you know,
like look at Iran, I ran, like I ran. It's
not there's I hate when people do this and it's
it's ignorance. Dave Smith does it, a lot of people
do it own Schroy does it where they try to
compare two different regions in the Middle East, like it's

(27:10):
all the same. The Iranian people, there's so many. I
would say the majority probably are against the Irgc and
the and the the Iarola. So you don't have the
same dichotomy as you do in Gaza, where Hamas has
an overwhelming support of the Palestinian people.

Speaker 1 (27:29):
They they took part in October seventh. The people did
they do? They do to a degree, So.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
There is there is definitely, there's definitely opposition, and they're
they're silenced and killed if they if they speak out.
But I'm saying the percentages are way different.

Speaker 1 (27:45):
No, Okay, I'll agree with you there. What I was
gonna say is is when Hamas came into power, though
they were originally voted in as the governing body to
represent the palest Mp people, correct, they were not originally
just a terrorist organization. They were't supposed to be anyway,
they turned into that, and now they're using their own
people that they rule as shields and as sympathy cards
that they can pull against the world to say, Hey,

(28:08):
there's nothing what are they doing. Our hospitals could be
geting bombed, We're being targeted, Like why why are you
killing our people? Yeah, and there's that's really putting their
people in danger.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
Look, there's a valid criticism for Israel's part in funding Hamas.
There's valid criticism of course, or there's valid criticism for
the CIA and George Bush going through regime changes in
the Middle East and causing these people to do these things. Right,
But just like I told Owen Schroyer, I don't fucking care,

(28:37):
right because once you look look like these people, they
constantly try to find the root cause, which doesn't change
the fact that as in this moment, we have a
terrorist organization doing terrorist Do you think figuring out why
it happened and telling them is going to be They're
going to be like, ah shit, I'm sorry, man, I
didn't realize we didn't have to cut people's heads off. No,

(28:59):
they're doing these actions now in the current moment, right,
and and yeah, like cool, find out who killed JFK.
I don't give a shit. He's dead, all right, Like
what are you doing now? We don't even know who
tried to kill Trump, and you guys are like focusing
on who tried to kill JFK. So what I'm saying
is these these people that that try to hyper fixate

(29:21):
on the root cause they're ignoring the fact that right
now currently Hamas engaged in October seventh, right, and the
reason they did it is because they're a terrorist organization?
Now why are they a terrorist organization? Like That's that's
what what these people focus on. I just personally don't care, right,

(29:41):
I don't care if Kamene wasn't hugged enough by his mother,
he's a fucking terrorist, kill him, right. So that's that's
my that's my mindset of of like the the the
people that are blaming the the Israelis, it's like, cool,
who cares?

Speaker 1 (30:01):
But I ran became the largest state sponsor terrorism in
nineteen eighty four, they were okay, So the current regime
was put into power in seventy nine, right eighty four,
not too long after all of a sudden, they're one
of the largest state sponsor terrorism. Here we're on twenty
twenty five, and they still are you know, they're using
their proxies to do their bidding so that they can
have a buffer.

Speaker 2 (30:21):
Exactly, Like, at what point how long of a pattern
of behavior do you get to go through before you
actually blame the people that are doing the shit that
they're doing.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
Right, It's like, you guys, not you guys.

Speaker 2 (30:35):
Some people, some people are just trying to figure to
justify terrorism because they don't like a certain people group,
which is the Jews. Right, So they're trying to justify
the terrorism of the people that are committing terrorism. And
then they're trying to blame the people that are engaging
in anti terrorism, right, counter offensives. And again I have

(30:59):
no problem if you create size Israel's actions. Right, However,
hold up a fucking mirror, because you got people like
Pierce Morgan who're like this, this is a disproportionate response.
Blah blah blah.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
You heard of Operation Gomora, fuck face? Right?

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Like Operation Gomora the Royal the Royal Air Force, in
conjunction with the Allies in the United States, dropped nine
thousand tons of bombs on Hamburg Germany and they killed
forty thousand civilians pavilions. They didn't care. Another forty thousand
were injured. Another two hundred and fifty thousand were displaced.

(31:36):
Nobody called it a fucking genocide because the Nazis needed
to die, right like. So, I don't understand how we've
got this revisionist history of current history of right now
what's happening, whereas you have actual history that they that
they just ignore.

Speaker 1 (31:57):
As Rook let me interject, I think I think the
issue with zech is that the wolf ride, as you
call them, I think they're just they're just holding fast
to kind of to America. First they say they are,
but then they're not, but then they are. I think
they I think they pick and choose for whatever suits
suits them, depending on who they're talking to. But what

(32:19):
I see is nobody wants to go to war on
the behest or behalf of another country right now, especially Israel,
and a lot of people do not like the fact
that the United States seems to be bleeding money right
by funding all these other nations. It's a fair, it's
a fair, and I understand that when it comes to Israel.
For looking at the USA numbers there was. There was
sign into law basically that we, at a minimum minimum

(32:43):
every year give them three point two billion dollars. That's
not the full amount we give them every year, but
that's the minimum. They're supposed to use that to buy
weapons and military aid whatever from US. But at the
same time, we give above and beyond that three point
two billion every single year. So I see where people
are upset with that.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
No, yeah, no, they do offset. They do offset that, right,
But I don't like it. Look, look, here's the deal.
I'm going to agree with with people on this one,
right that disagree with me on Israel, right, like in general, right,
I don't see why we do that. It's basically money laundry.
It's like, you know, we give them the money that
we say, give it back to us, and then you know,

(33:22):
we it's a weird it's a weird system of foreigner
and we do it with other countries too. But yeah,
it's not just Israel, right, we do this with with
his amic stakes.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
I mean, we forgured the over two hundred I think
it's two hundred and forty countries and territories every single year.

Speaker 2 (33:38):
Exactly, And I don't like it. I don't like it
at all. I don't think that we should have it,
just like I don't like APEC.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
Right.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
My issue is, why the fuck are you bitching about
one and not the others?

Speaker 1 (33:50):
Right?

Speaker 2 (33:51):
And or just don't pitch about Look, here's the deal.
If like I don't know, if you follow Stephen Crowder,
I like Stephen Crowder's argument, right. Stephen Crowder usually comes
in and he goes, he goes a pack, gave money
to Hakeem Jefferies, fuck a pack. But it's like, if
you're mad about APAC, you should be mad about all
the packs. And you guys, aren't your only focus on
the one that's about the Jews. And I think that

(34:15):
that I don't think that that's necessarily And this is
what the conspiracy theories will say. I don't think that
it's some nefarious favor, you know, like shake handshaking, back scratching,
grand conspiracy.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
I really do think it's just like.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
A way of laundering money where it's like nations do
this because they can they can. It's just like it's
just like you know, slush funds and greedy corporations. I
don't think there's I don't think it's that deep, but
it is it is concerning that we give so much
money to Israel. I don't think we should.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Well, it's already been proven that a lot of this
aide like I said, okay, money laundering, but it's already
been proven that a lot of this does come back
to other companies where we have congress people who have
invested interest in these companies. Yes, and then they later
get a kickback via a you know, air quote donation
for whatever they need. So yeah, there is corruption there.

(35:12):
We can't I can't deny that.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
Look, and that's what That's what I'm trying to say.
If you have a problem with government corruption, we are
on the same fucking team, man. But call it government corruption,
don't call it is really control of the government.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Right, because it's not.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
It's it's the same level of corruption that the pharmaceutical
industry has. It's the same level of corruption that the
National Association of Realtors has.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
Right.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
Do you think those California wildfires and Hawaii Hawaii wildfires
didn't have some nefarious shit going on? You don't think
that there was somebody that was surveying it. You remember
after the Hawaii wildfires, how the government came in and
was like, hey, we're going to take your land. By
the way, Hey it's burnt down, you don't need it anymore. Yeah, right,
this shit happens, right, and I have a problem with
all of it, including the ship that happens from the Jews, right.

(36:03):
But I also have a huge problem when narratives are
framed because of a political agenda where you ignore one
thing and it's like moral relativism. Right, It's like the
girl that Elka I think her name is that was
just debating Dave Smith was trying to articulate this point
where it's like, have a problem with all of it,

(36:26):
or have a problem with none of it, because if
you hyper fixate on one thing, you're being disingenuous.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Agreed. I believe the I believe the issue that a
lot of people have with the US involvement on all
in the middleases trying to force Western ideals onto Middle
Eastern principles. It's never going to happen. It's it's it's
not We're just we're just too far apart. I mean, yeah,
we have some ties, as you said before, with with

(36:53):
Israel because of the Christian you know, principles or outlet right,
but like it's not the same. We're not. The Western
and Midle East are not exactly the same.

Speaker 2 (37:04):
They're not and they're not gonna. We really do need
to separate the cultures, right. It's it's just like you
need to separate them in Gaza, you need to move
those people to Jordan, and we need to do the
same thing.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
I am, I am.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
I have called for a Muslim band in America for
for a long time, not because I hate Muslims, right,
I don't think that there is a It is oil
and Muslim sorry Islam, yes, and a Judeo Christian or
even Western civilization cannot coexist. They they just can't, right,

(37:35):
because their ideology is to change our ideology. Our ideology
is not to change their ideology, right, I mean.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
Well not not in modern times anyway.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
Well, as Christians, you're, as Christians are supposed to preach
the Word of God and hopefully people come, people come
to Christ.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
So I was kind of referring to like the Crusades
and then you know the Catholic Church funding. Yeah, that's
why I said more.

Speaker 2 (38:00):
I mean plenty of plenty of people have died in
the name of Christ through wars, the name of religion
in general and the name of religion in general. But
I'm talking about in twenty twenty five, right Like, in
twenty twenty five, you have countries in the Middle East
where they can still stone a woman to death. You
have countries in the Middle East where they can still
marry an eight year old, right like, this is not

(38:23):
going to mix with modern civilization in the greatest country
in the world. And you mentioned Judeo Christian values. Judeo
Christian values doesn't even necessarily have to apply to a religion.
Our constitution was framed based off of the Judeo Christian
principles of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Our
constitution mirrors the Ten Commandments, right like, our rule of

(38:44):
law mirrors the Old Testament that Jews follow, and our
I would say, the structure of our personality is more
New Testament.

Speaker 1 (38:56):
Right.

Speaker 2 (38:57):
So we have law and then we have principles. And
that's Judeo Christianism. It doesn't mean jew christ it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
It means it's really a way of coining. It's a
way of of of terming the relationship between the Jewish,
the original Jewish beliefs, and Western Christian values. And how
they somehow meet because you know, both both sides got entangled,
the West and and the and the East through those principles.

(39:26):
They're not exactly the same all the way down to
a t, but they're very similar. And then take commandments.
Going back to what you said, I mean, that's the
foundational principle of many nations when it comes to law exactly.

Speaker 2 (39:37):
You know, it's like almost every I'm pretty sure that
murder right is illegal. Don't steal, don't kill, culture, don't steal,
don't kill, don't rape, you know, like that basic things.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Don't lie?

Speaker 2 (39:51):
I mean that that's the other thing. You know, there's
this high there if you if you follow the New
Testament like I do, and the Old.

Speaker 1 (39:59):
But if it's all the New Testament, the thing.

Speaker 2 (40:01):
That that Christ hated more and the thing that God
hates more than anything is lies, right, Lying is pretty
much the greatest sin. And it's in different iterations, right,
like don't covet thy neighbor's wife, Like that's that's a
form of you know, dishonest, like you know, the circumventation
of trust.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
And then you.

Speaker 2 (40:21):
Have the Muslim religion, which tells literally tells you to
tells you to lie. There's this practice of takia tekia. Yeah,
tekia is is is if it if it moves your
agenda forward on it.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
It's learning hiding who you are, hide who you are
until you have to reveal. It tells time to reveal
it exactly.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
It does not mix. No, it just doesn't.

Speaker 1 (40:46):
You you will agree. I've I've had Okay, I've done
many episodes on this and I've I've done some posts
where I literally have stated Islam is not compatible with
the West, and I was attacked that crazy. But nobody
can make the argument on how they are compatible. And yeah,
and everybody wants to say, well, you got it wrong.
Not all Muslims are bad. Well, a Muslim by definition
from what I found, I could be wrong, But from

(41:06):
what I found is someone who follows the Koran or
practices Islam. That's who a Muslim is. The issue is, yes,
there could be some good Muslims, those who have modernized,
who have progressed and look at the Koran as well.
It's just like the Old Testament, right, do we really
live like the Old Testament? We're not stoning people that
was in the Little Testament. Yeah, but the culture progressed

(41:27):
and we realized we can't do that anymore. Now you're
the extremist Islamist. That's the issue. And I think they're
just using that to control people so they can just
literally gain power. It's all about power and control, that's
all it is. Well, this is what I told oh,
this is what I told own in our debate. Right,
there's about two billion Muslims, right and growing and growing,

(41:49):
and let's say, let's say ten percent of them right
are extreme, which it's more it's actually more right. A
lot of people don't believe this, but it really is right.
You have Sharia.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
Sharia practicing Muslims are somewhere between five and nine percent,
and then strict religious Muslims are like forty percent. So
you can come to a conclusion that that the the
radicalized Muslims are probably somewhere in the double digits. Twenty
percent doesn't matter, right, But if it's ten, if it's

(42:22):
ten percent, right, that's two hundred million people that want
to cut your fucking head off, right, And that's too many.
That's way too many. That's two hundred million people who
have an ideology that they want to kill you if
you don't convert to their way of life.

Speaker 1 (42:41):
You're correct, you know, it's always death to America, and
not even just America, death to the West.

Speaker 2 (42:47):
And then they go but no, they chant that, they
chant Nott in Seattle, Balm Seadle.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
Or what a stupid fucking argument.

Speaker 2 (42:54):
I just I was like to the fact that you're
trying to equate some you know, bird trust fund baby
liberal who's just repeating that because they heard it. It's
just like versus versus a radical, like, you know, terrorists
who will actually do it. Like the difference between the

(43:17):
pink haired liberal in Seattle and Mohammed guy over here
is the Mohammed guy will set you on fire, literally,
just he will throw you off a building, He will
chop you to death, and the whole time he will
be screaming a lah.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Yeah, I've got the individual. But the one that just
just tried to burn those.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
Colorado Yeah yeah, with the Maltov cocktails. His name was Mohammed.

Speaker 1 (43:43):
Right. It's like, I'm like, you can't draw that motherfucker
you name it, man, you just can't. Let me. Let
me make a make a point that backs up a
little bit about what you said. So extreme aslam As
have been tied to terrorism I mean that that's the
whole basis and foundation for their movement. I'm going to
go to dominate the market, yep. I'm going to go
to some faction data because we're talking about possible attacks

(44:05):
here in the US, but people are ignoring, they're saying,
you're full of shit. Whatever. I have the Terrorist Screening
data here from Customs Border Control twenty twenty five alone,
And this is you know what the TSDs is. It's
the me Okay, it's the Terrorist Screening Data System. So
this has all the known terrorists, the people they know

(44:25):
are terrorists. So the number they apprehended that they knew
of that I actually caught so far in twenty twenty
five of known terrorists is seven hundred and seventy two
just this year so far. That's enough to put about
fifteen or more terrorists in every single fucking state of
the United States. And we've seen how small groups of
terrorists can do a lot of damage. How many how

(44:46):
many did it take to do to pull off nine
to eleven.

Speaker 2 (44:50):
This hand for a handful of this is the CoA
did it. It's like I don't even care. And that
that's that's the other thing, right, This whole, this whole
dismissal right, this whole deflection of well, the nine to
eleven was an inside job. It doesn't negate the fact
that the terrorists got on a plane and flew a
plane into a fucking building. It's like, you can't you

(45:12):
can't force somebody to do that. They wanted to do that.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
What was crazier is there was sorry to cut you off,
but no, what's crazier is I all right, I know
people literally and they've been guests mine that were in
intelligence literally working for the army. This is their job.
They were in intelligence. Yeah, these guys, one in particular,
literally told me the story how they were giving fair
warrant to the government about the chatter around nine to

(45:39):
eleven that had nothing to do with our own government.
It was chatter by terrorist organizations. And then then the
dismissal of the two terrorists that were taking flight courses
and training in those Yeah, there, Alane, they were training
in America.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
So look, my brother, I told you, my brother was
in the Middle East when love happened. He called my
mom the night before. I'll never forget this. He called
my mom the night before and he said, I don't
know what's going on, But something's going to happen, right,
he's and because they had they had intel that they
were about to do something. Yes, it's like but and
it wasn't. It wasn't like, hey, I'm in the CIA.

(46:20):
No he was. He was infantry or he was recon
so he was forced recon And at the time, I'm
not even sure that he had even uh completed the
the UH special Forces training, so he might have just
been a grunt. But he called my mom and he
asked to talk to me too, and he just spoke
to me. He goes, hey, ro He's like, I just

(46:41):
wanted to say, in case anything happens, I love you.
And I was like, And then the next day when
it happened, that's why I started breaking down because I
was like, my brother just warned me that something was
going to happen. Twelve hours later, I'm looking at the
buildings falling down. This is something's wrong, something's bad. So yeah,
what was where they? Like I don't even like going
down these roads of validating people like own, but was

(47:05):
there probably some like I would say CIA involvement, Yeah, probably,
But you know what, we do that shit all the
fucking time.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
Welcome to spy shit. We do, we do, you know,
and I don't like it. I don't like it. I'm
not just because I'm not.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Just because I'm not ripping my hair out and going
down rabbit holes doesn't mean I think it's cool or okay.
And that's the other problem that you have with debate me, bros. Right,
if you do not agree with them, if they cannot
force you to accept their narrative, they immediately say that
you're complicit. Right, It's like, no, I'm not complicit. Here's

(47:45):
the thing though, Right, how much time do you put
into this thing when you could be focusing on this
thing because this thing is happening right fucking now. And
JFK was killed sixty fucking years so I.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
Understand where you're coming from, right, Yeah, I mean they
want they want to base all their arguments on these
deep rabbit holes of conspiracy theories versus what can be
proved and what's happening now. I mean, we have a
real situation. We've seen what's happened. Okay, let's just talk
about this. We've seen what's happened in the UK, you know,
through consistent immigration migration of asylum seekers. I guess now,

(48:27):
most of London is ran by a Muslim population, and
they start just like it's happening in New York where
this is. They get these people to say what you
want to hear, they get voted into a position of
power decision making, and then once they got one in,
they get the other guy and the other guy. Before
you know it, you've lost. And look at what's happening
in Ireland right now. The people over there are fucking pissed.

(48:49):
They're done. The other day, my wife just told me
about this. I didn't realize what's happening. They're fighting against
migrants right now over there. They're done with the government,
they're done with the invasion.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
That's why mc connomer is getting attack so hard. I'm
not I'm not like you know, look, I don't I
don't know about the scandals. I don't care about the
scandals as far as Connor. Yeah, as far as Connor,
I'm I'm a fan of Connor McGregor. But if it
turns out that he raped somebody, fuck them all right.
But however, my point is not that. My point is
a person like Trump coming in and uh, you know,

(49:23):
be defying the odds in twenty sixteen was because people
were tired of, like the what was going on in America.
Somebody like Connor McGregor could fucking win the presidency in
Ireland because people are tired. It's like, but the thing
about what's happening in the UK, Like you look at
the rape statistics in Germany, you look at the stabbing

(49:44):
statistics and uh and the rape gangs in the UK,
and you look at the common denominator and it's like,
it's fucking Islam.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
It's not.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
And they say immigrants, what kind Like there's a difference
between the immigrants in America which have come here from
a bunch of different nations. And sure, yeah, we have
a Haitian problem, we have a like you know, like
Al Salvadorian Venezuelan, we have you know, the Latin country's
problem over here. But over there in Europe their problem

(50:14):
is way worse because that ideology that's taking over their nation.
You can't vote it out, right, you have to fight
again at this point, Yeah, you can't. You cannot vote
that out if in the UK, the UK I think
is going to be i would say, taken over by Islam,
and it already kind of is.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
Well, it's as part of their playbook. Yeah. I mean,
if they can't do it through violence and overpowering you
with the military, which they really don't have because they're
very segregated and broken people as far as who's in
charge and who's going to do what, how else they
going to do it?

Speaker 2 (50:48):
They're not stupid.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
You're taking advantage of your system by playing on your sympathies.
I mean, that's that's why. Well everything's going on with
exclusivity and DEI. They're using those two things to infiltrate
the US. When we look at Dearborn right now.

Speaker 2 (51:02):
It's yes, it's actually exactly, it's Andy. They even tried
to change the flag so they looked more like the
flag and I'm like, I'm like, guys, look here's the deal.
This whole, this whole anti Israel woke right movement where
it's like a pac blah blah blah. The fucking conspiracy.
There is the the irony that the majority of these

(51:23):
people continuously talk about this is a distraction. You're being distracted.
You don't understand. Look at you don't see what the
real picture is. While they don't understand what is actually
going on, they are being played, right. They are useful
idiots for a cause. And I think the cause is

(51:47):
Marxism of accuse your enemy of what you yourself are doing. Right,
So all of the like and Dougs Murray said it,
uh he the quote. I think it was Gail Gail something. Uh,
show me what, Show me what you accuse the Jews
of doing, and I'll show you what. Tell me what
you accuse the Jews of being guilty of, and I'll
tell you what you're guilty of.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
Oh okay, So Islam and.

Speaker 2 (52:12):
You know Iran and all that stuff, they're like, they're
committing a genocide, they're trying to take over, They're doing this,
they're doing that, And it's like, bro, that's exactly what
Islam is doing. Literally everywhere everything you die, everything you're saying.
The Jews and Israel a country. By the way, I
always have to bring this part up. It's the size
of New Jersey, nine million people, nine billion people. They

(52:35):
are point two percent of the global population, two percent
of the American population, whereas Muslims are twenty five percent. Right,
So we have a base off of numbers and statistics
language rhetoric, like the amount of terrorist attacks we have
a fucking huge Muslim problem and a very very tiny

(52:59):
jew problem, right, and there is a problem there.

Speaker 1 (53:01):
I just hope you know, Okay, I already know everyone's
going to watch this and say we're anti Islam, and
you know Islam fucking right, I am, and I'm not.
I'm not.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
I'm not even gonna Look, here's the deal. I do
not Muslims. You said it earlier, right, there's a there's
a Muslim population that is peaceful because they ignore their
own religious doctrine. They have they have made it into
something that it is not. They have to ignore the
parts of the Quran that tell them command them to

(53:30):
do certain things. They literally aren't their own religion. They
are something else. And those those Muslims are wonderful people.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
I know them. They're great.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
The vast majority of Muslims are great. But like I said,
if ten percent of them aren't, that's two hundred million
people that want to cut your head off. So I'm
not anti Muslim, I.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
Am, no, No, No, it's it's the extreme right. It's it's
the extremists that are the issue. And it's it's equitable
to me, like, we don't live this way again, as
I said, you know, Old Testament, it was pretty cut
and dry. Well, we don't live that way. We progress
as a society or as a culture. And some some
of them, some of those are practice.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
I like to put I want to push back on
that a little bit, sure, because because the Old like
the argument that the Old Testament is, you know, like
the fire and brimstone thing. It's like, even in the
Old Testament, God says you save all of the judgment
for me, right, Even God says you do not enact

(54:29):
your your law and your rule over others.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
And then there's there's the parts of the Bible in
the Old Testament where they're like they're talking about how
if a person cheats, you stone them to death. That
was for specific tribes, and it was for it was
specific laws based off of specific needs. And like there's
you know, like the slavery thing in there. It's like
it's there's a lot of nuance and you need to

(54:53):
contextualize it and understand it. But there is nothing in
the Old Testament or the New Testament that commands a
person to unjustly subjugate another person. Everything in the Old
Testament can be contextualized for the time where it's there.
You can explain it. You can't explain Islam. So yeah,

(55:13):
I don't. I don't understand what you're saying. Old Testament was. Okay,
this is what I look at the Old Testament as
it was.

Speaker 1 (55:21):
It was. It was literally instructions and laws to keep
a tribe together that didn't have a land. That's exactly
what it was.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Correct.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
And the things you just brought up with, like the slavery,
the stoning, those were what was happening at the time
within certain tribes. So yes, you gotta, you gotta, you
gotta look at the time periods like Okay, yes we
have slaves in America a long time ago. Was it
the right thing to do? No? But is what was
happening and people who lived through that period had to
live through it. So there might be some statements, as
you said, that could be taken out of context because

(55:52):
you're not understanding what the individual is actually going through
or the era they're living through. So I understand that. Yeah,
I agree.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
And then but then but then again, like I said,
the Qoran, you can't you're not allowed to contextualize it,
right like that, like in their in their religion.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
You don't get to have your own interpretation exactly.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
So if you don't get to interpret the Koran, but
you can interpret the Bible, then we have a big
problem because, like I said, it's ikea instruction. It's it's
it's A goes into B, he goes into C and
you kill or convert any infidels and like and and
I'm like, yo, that's the problem. Look, that's why I

(56:34):
say I one thousand percent have a problem with Islam.
I do not have a problem with Muslims. Islam is
the religion. Muslims are a people. There's a problem with
the system. That's not me being like muslim phobic. That's
one hundred percent of me being Islamophobic.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
Well, let's let me ask you this before we move
on from this topic. I mean, because look, there's never
going to be an answer to this, you know, but
there really isn't. You and I given a lot of this,
some people are going to oppose it. But as you
said before, I mean, there's a three thousand year old
religious war regardless in the area, and everybody wants the
Holy Land. Everybody has a claim to it. Until Jesus

(57:14):
comes back, it's not getting solved, right. But I'm going
to ask you this October seventh. I believe Israel had
a right to retaliate. They should have. Anybody should. We
would have. We probably would have obliterated. We would have
done way worse. Oh I know for a fact we
would have. Do you think at this point, though, is
there any period where they take a step back and go, look,

(57:34):
we made our statement, We'll let you know who we are.
Should they reel it in a bit at this point?
Do you think that? Or do you think, hey, you
know what, let let them do what they got to do.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
It's a good question, and it's a valid question because
it has been over a year and a half. But again,
what I will point to is in the Ukraine Russian War,
I think it was seven thousand soldiers died last week
or before or something like that. Is anybody telling them
to rein it in? Is anybody telling them to pull

(58:06):
it back? It's a war man. It's like, listen, I
don't know the ins and outs of the military operations
going on in Israel. I don't know why they are
doing what they're doing, right, and if it turns out
that they are doing shit that they shouldn't be doing,
and I can see the evidence. I will one be like,

(58:27):
whoa dude. No, But if we are only going off
of media reports, and we're only going off of Haret's
articles and Al Jazero headlines, then no, I don't think
that we have a right to tell any other nation
how to fight their fucking war right. And and the
numbers that people are quoting I don't believe are the numbers,

(58:49):
because you have the iyatola literally coming out last week
or this week and say, look at what we did.
We killed this many people, we did any it's a
fucking lie. He got his ass handed to him takiya literally,
lying is part of their doctrine. So when they say, oh,
fifty thousand civilians, a lot of them women and children,

(59:11):
blah blah blah, bullshit, I don't. I not. By the way,
if you take one fucking look at Gaza, any reasonable
person will be like, Israel definitely killed civilians. I mean one,
And do I like it?

Speaker 1 (59:24):
No? But do I.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
Necessarily like that we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Speaker 1 (59:34):
Not really?

Speaker 2 (59:35):
Do? Am I okay with it?

Speaker 1 (59:36):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Because I think that it saved more lives? I think
when you when you take out civilians and your goal
is to save more lives in the long run. That's war,
and war's hell. So I don't I just don't think
that we're I don't think that we're in a position,
especially with the shit that we've done, to tell anybody
to pull it back or rein it in.

Speaker 1 (59:57):
Yeah. I can agree with that, and I believe that.
But this is where the whole argument of the morality
of the situation comes in from guys like you know,
Dave Smith. They can argue the morality of it all day.
A false binary it is. But you know, war as hell,
as it's been said, war as hell, and in war,
you know, someone like Dave, if someone ran behind him,

(01:00:18):
push him down, start raping in with the broomstick, is
he going to try to argue the morality of it?
He turns around, slaps on the face. Yeah, let's just
be real. Well, you know he's gonna have reaction. He's
gonna have a violent reaction.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
I came up with a with an analogy a while back.
Let me see if I can remember it, because it
was a good one. But I'm going I think I
only used it once. Okay, here's here's October seventh in
an in an analogy form, right. I think it was
Anna Anna, Anna Casparan, the young Turks. Check she made
she made this this analogy like there's a gunman holding

(01:00:52):
a gun to your grandmother's head and the cops show
up and they shoot the grandmother to kill the gunman. Right,
And that's not what's really going on. Here's what really happened,
all right, the like hamas the the gunman. Okay, they
actually went in and they killed that woman's whole family, right.
Then they took her back to that house where they

(01:01:13):
were holding her hostage, and they locked her in her
room and they didn't tell anybody what the fuck which
room she was in. And then from the window they
went out and they yelled, I'm gonna do it again,
over and over and over again, and as soon as
you leave, I'm going to kill the rest of her family,
and I'm gonna kill your family too, and I'm gonna
do this, I'm gonna do that. And then and then

(01:01:33):
at a certain point, when do you blow up the house?

Speaker 1 (01:01:37):
Right, like like.

Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
When do you when do you say, hey, look shit,
I mean we don't want we don't want this, we
don't want this to happen again. And sure, like, and
by the way, that the the hostage in this situation,
The analogy doesn't really work in her in her interpretation,
because it's she's saying that the hostages are the Palestinian

(01:02:00):
people and the real hostages were the actual Israeli people,
but they're used, they are they're using human shields while
constantly saying that while they're firing rockets. Also, by the way, right,
and anyone anyone who who doesn't almost right, seems like
it's it's hundreds a day, right, dozens a day now,

(01:02:22):
But at one point it was hundreds a day. It
was I think that I think that at one point
it was seven thousand rockets, right, And it's like, at
one at what point do you say, Yeah, I kind
of am okay with killing civilians if it stops this ship.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
And like, I that's that's my argument. Is it a
moral one? No?

Speaker 2 (01:02:44):
Is it a pragmatic one?

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
Yeah, it's that's a tough one. It's a tough one
to agree with or disagree with, because.

Speaker 2 (01:02:52):
That's what I'm saying. Has this this false binary where
it's like, no, killing wrong, And it's like, and that's
the thing. The woman that he was debating on Pierce Morgan.
She goes, you're trying to make an equivalency between these
two these two people, right, Israel and and and Gaza

(01:03:12):
or Hamas. I guess you could say, right. And it's like,
that's like trying to make an equivalency between a cop
and a robber, because they're both pointing guns at each
other and they're both in fear for their lives. And
it's like, no, they're one of them is a terrorist organization,
the other one is a legitimate government that is abiding

(01:03:32):
by all international law and rules of war. I mean,
and if they don't, then that's that's why we have
these these organizations.

Speaker 1 (01:03:41):
I don't I don't think anybody. I don't believe anybody
wants to see innocent people or civilians killed. Yeah, okay,
these these people are, unfortunately cott in the middle between
two governing bodies. You know. I wish that the governing
bodies of leaders were just getting a fucking ring and
fight it out and leave the people out of it.
But that'll never happen. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
Well, but yeah, I mean, where where are where are
the Hamas military installations? Where exactly are there military installations?
They're in apartment buildings, they're in hospitals.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
There, right, And then that's where that's what I was
going to get to, is that you know all the
hospitals they claim that are being destroyed, like you know
how many hospitals are in Gaza?

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
By the way, they just keep on popping up.

Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
I mean, at some point I forgot what the percentage was,
but someone made a point. Don't quote me on this
because I can't recall it all, but they were saying
like something like La or whatever, some county there's like
twenty six hospitals within a certain area, and then you
got Gaza has over two hundred hospitals somehow, and it's
a much smaller area, just like are is this not
just a practice of deception in war?

Speaker 2 (01:04:42):
Well, here's here's another question nobody's really asking, right, Gaza
is just a few miles really like it's a small strip.
It's a small relatively, right, relatively, it's a really small.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
It's in like three miles.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
I think it's I think it's about I think it's
about three miles. Okay, So now October seventh was over
over a year and a half ago. Okay, how how
long does it take for somebody to walk three miles
because I know it doesn't take I know it doesn't
take two fucking years. Right, So as soon as the
first fucking bomb went off, right, I, if I was

(01:05:18):
a Palestinian, I would be like, I'm gonna go out
into the like I don't care into the ether. I'll
I'll build a treehouse somewhere. But I'm not fucking staying here.
So why are civilians there?

Speaker 1 (01:05:30):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:05:30):
Why are they there? Because Hamas won't let them leave.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
No, they won't let them leave. That that's a that's
a that's a good point that nobody ever brings up.
You know. The argument is like, well, deir Lan, why
should they leave their own home. Well, they're not given
the opportunityies bombs. That's why, Yeah, lost won't let them go.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
I love I love San Antonio, I love my apartment,
I love where I live. My neighborhood is fucking awesome. Right,
if a fucking bomb went off tomorrow, you know what
I would do, I'd fucking leave.

Speaker 1 (01:05:58):
That's a that's a really good reason to who have
will really fast and figuring it out.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
Right, that's the dumbest argument ever. They're standing. They're staying
there because they're well.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
You know what. The other question that has never been
answered is you know they blame Israel for the aid
never getting to the Palatine people. Answer why before all
this happened, that Hamas and the leaders of most extremist
islam As governing bodies always seem to get rich from
the aid that is given to that country, but yet
the people always remain poor and hungry.

Speaker 2 (01:06:31):
Exactly, Well, no, take it one step further, sure, why
do they need Why does Israel? Why is Israel required
to allow aid in there?

Speaker 1 (01:06:41):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
No other nation in history is required to feed their enemy,
right like, and for for some reason, this one is now.
I think they should. But but my question was why. Right,
here's the answer, Because they're not feeding their enemy, they're
feeding their own thought people. Because Gaza is in Israel,

(01:07:02):
it's not a country, it is in Israel. Israel has
a moral obligation to get aid in there, and they
have an absolute right to restrict it, to inspect it,
to use it as a bargaining chip, because guess what,
it's technically a civil war. It's technically a region in

(01:07:23):
Israel firing at the main body of Israel. So I
don't have any problem if Israel were to be like,
you know what, no food until you stop fucking around.
But that's not what they're doing. Well, that they're actually
allowing the they're allowing the aid in. They're just they're
just allowing it in under their terms.

Speaker 1 (01:07:42):
That's that's an interesting take, But the reality is okay, Israel.
Israel relinquished its control of GAZ. I believe two thousand
and six, five thousand and six, control not ownership fair enough.
But they're not supposed to be controlling it, right, Okay.
So so HAMAS is the government body of the policy,

(01:08:03):
and so any negotiations should be between the Israeli government
and HAMAS. Yeah, I should become on the table to say, hey,
we need water, we need electricity. Where are we going
to get it from? We're kind of cut off. Can
you help us out? But they don't do that. So
I get your point. But you know, it's all about optics,

(01:08:24):
I believe, you know, And that's the bigger reason I
believe that they're being forced to do this. Do they
have to know? And war you don't have to But
I think it's it's really comes down to what you said.
It may it may be them taking care of their people.
Or just realizing, look, there's innocence here that shouldn't be
caught in the middle of all of this. And I
believe that they see that, the world sees that. The
problem is you know, terrorists fight dirty, period. You know,

(01:08:47):
they fight dirty. There's no there's no there's no playbook
for this.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
Everybody who's arguing.

Speaker 1 (01:08:54):
Yeah, everybody's arguing what Israel's doing right or wrong in
a war are the people that aren't even involved in it.

Speaker 2 (01:09:00):
Okay, so right away in it. Yeah, but I would
just put that out there. So you said that, but
you said that Israel, Israel should be negotiating with the
governing body of Palestine.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
Well in both ways is what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
Yeah, yeah, sure, no, and they should they should, right,
But if it's a government, what what's their currency, right?
Their currency is the Israel shekel and the dinari. Right,
they don't have their own currency. They don't have a
real president. They got the you know, the Palestonian authority,

(01:09:35):
and they got this like fake president. Their leaders are
in Qatar, uh in Gaza, but they don't have a
real government. They have they have a group.

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
That's okay, I'm sorry, representative body.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
That's what I'm saying, yeah, yeah, no, and you're right,
you're right, right. But so that's what I mean by
I'm saying it's a civil war. It would kind of
be like like the governor of Texas are like negotiating
with the President of America if there was a succession,
right like, So that's what it's. That's the better, the
better analogy. And I'm not saying that you made a
different analogy. I'm just I'm just making a point of

(01:10:10):
clarification so that people understand that they don't you don't
want to create this idea that these are two sovereign
nations that are I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
Not I'm not not no, no.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
I'm not saying I'm not saying you are. I'm not
saying you are right. But what I'm saying is there
are a lot of people that frame this as if
Israel should or has to negotiate with these people, as
if they were a sovereign state. They're not right, So
it's a completely different It's like it's a weird situation, right.
You have you have Ukraine and Russia, right, two countries

(01:10:41):
right fighting over a land grab, and I would I
would make arguments against both of their leaders uh. As
far as corruption and as far as how they've handled
the situation, I don't see a good guy there. But
what they really are, they're what they're both fighting for
is their people. I will say that I think that
they are both fighting for their their their nation.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
The war in Israel is a completely different animal because
it's it's an ideological war. It's not a political war.
It's not a war for the people, it's not a
war for It is a war for ideology. You have
one side that they want to kill the other side
they don't want to negotiate. Then you have the other
side who has to negotiate with people who want to
kill them, right, And it's it's completely different, right. So

(01:11:29):
I just don't see how you look through you look
at it, not you, but some people look at it
through a normal lens of previous conflicts. There's no comparison,
and and I think that's an important distinction to make
so people understand when they make the argument.

Speaker 1 (01:11:45):
Well, I think I think in the end, the issue
with this whole conflict is I believe many people just
think Israel went too far at this point. And again
I think that's what it is. I think that's what
people are hung up on. Look, and it's a pretty
big hang up. I mean, I'm not trying to I'm
not trying to make this seem like a small issue.
It is just I think that's not where it lies.

Speaker 2 (01:12:05):
And I'm not making excuses necessarily for Israel what I
But I have said this since since the beginning of
this war. I don't really I mean, I have a
dog in the fight because you know, I believe in
the Abrahamic Covenant, right I am a Christian who is
observant of the Old Testament, which I think most Christians

(01:12:26):
should be. So I think that I have a duty
to stand up for the Jewish people, not a modern
nation state of Israel, just because it shares the same
name as someplace in the Bible. But I do know that,
you know, you got nine million Rican Jews over there,
and I'm like, hey, I got to kind of take
a side here. But I have been of the mindset

(01:12:50):
that they haven't gone far enough, right oka. Not because
not because that not because I think that.

Speaker 1 (01:12:59):
It would be.

Speaker 2 (01:13:01):
What's it called, like reaction, Not because I think that
it would be like you know, George Bush going into
iraqan being like you killed our people, I'm saying, I
think that they should have done a consolidated, just massive
attack right away, and I think the situation will be
over by now. I think the mistake they made was

(01:13:21):
not going far enough early, and now they're sort of
dripping out these attacks and prolonging it and stretching it out,
and it's giving the appearance of a disproportionate response when
in actuality, they could have just bombed the whole region
had the exact same amount of desk that they have
spread out over the past, you know, eighteen months or

(01:13:43):
whatever it is, and people would probably have gotten over
it by now. So that's where I think that a
lot of people are getting that notion.

Speaker 1 (01:13:50):
Okay, I think what Israel was trying to do is
get rid of the root of the problem, going back
to that statement, which was the terrorist organization, which was Hamas.
So they were trying to do strategic attacks, strategic missions
and operations to get those individuals. So that's why this
has been dragging out. And you're correct, they could have
obliterated Gaza, but yeah, they would could have been limited

(01:14:14):
to criminals because then we're looking at wiping out the
innocence an Unfortunately they're trying to walk this tight rope
of Look, we need to take care of this. I
can give a fuck less versus we need to strategically
take out Hamas. Who's the instigators and the people they're
driving this entire thing.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
Well, exactly, they're damned if they do They're damned if
they done right right, Because what you said is that
would have been a war crime. I don't think so.
I don't think that would have been a war crime. No, no, no, no.
If you saw, if if you had October seventh happen
and is and BB said drop a bomb on Gaza
and get rid of that three mile strip of land
right now, I don't think that's a war crime. And

(01:14:54):
he would have had he would have literally said he
would be like, called all two hundred and fifty hostile
families and tell them, I'm sorry, but your your family
members not coming home.

Speaker 1 (01:15:05):
They're going to be a casualty of war. I think
it would have been a war crime if they did that.
But but here's what they could do. What they have done,
by the way, Zach, which does support your argument, is
they have given the people fair warning. They have said, yeah, evacuate,
take shelter. This is happening. The problem though, is as
you as you mentioned earlier, is SAMAS won't let those
people leave. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:27):
So again it's it's an impossible situation. John Spencer breaks
this down in several different articles that he's written where
he talks about the complexity and how this has never
happened before in any modern warfare. Where there's been there's
been some comparative comparisons to embedding in civilian areas in
Nazi Germany, et cetera, et cetera. But this level of

(01:15:49):
consolidation while simultaneously not allowing the people that are there
to leave to with the intent of having them as
human shields. It's never happened throughout history. Is negotiating something
that's never been there, navigating of course that nobody's ever
gone down. And I don't know, I think there, I

(01:16:10):
don't really. I don't think again that we have a
right to play armchair quarterback when they're the ones that
have to decide what's best for their sovereignty. Like like again,
we we literally bombed, we bombed Hiroshima, and we said

(01:16:32):
to the Japanese, are you done? And they said no,
fuck you and then we bombed Nagasaki and we said
are you done now, and they went yeah, right, right.
So I don't understand how it's a war crime when
you can justify the same justification that we used in

(01:16:53):
that operation. More people will die if we don't do
this right. And okay, hold on.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
We're not arguing, by the way, I'm just what I'm
going to say is I think I think the difference
being is we know better now, right. So those bombs
that were dropped Nagasaki, Hiroshima, we didn't really understand the
entire situation or what would happen dropping an atomic bomb,
for example, we didn't know what the fall art would
to be. We had no idea the actual impact. We
had studies, we had tests, but no one's ever dropped

(01:17:23):
one before. That's why now, you know, everyone's so hesitant
to do it again, because we know the difference.

Speaker 2 (01:17:29):
I'm not even saying that they should have nuked Gaza,
by the way, I'm just saying.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
I'm just saying the difference between that situation is now
and now is really we know better, we know we
know the ramification, we know what will happen.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
I mean, you don't drop a nuke three miles from
your house. Well, no fair enough. But look, I mean,
but look like I think that I'm not a military
I'm not a military strategist, so I shouldn't I shouldn't
even be talking about this because I'm really just opining.
I'm just a contractor that's giving my opinion. So could
I be wrong one hundred percent? Am I There's a

(01:18:02):
huge possibility I'm wrong. I'm a contractor, right, But but
I do read I read the John Spencer articles. I
try to be as educated as I can on this
and and I'm offering my opinion because you asked me
a question. But here's here's what I will say.

Speaker 1 (01:18:17):
Right. I know for.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
A fact, based off of my research, that the civilian
to combatant ratio in this particular war is either on
par or below other comparable conflicts. I know for a
fact that Israel is telling these people. I have so

(01:18:41):
many friends in Israel, They're like, they give me this information.
Over the past eighteen months, Israel is sending out leaflets,
sending out mass texts, sending out sirens. So every time
they try to bomb a target, they do everything they
can to get these people. Give these people heads up
which is also giving the terrorists a heads up.

Speaker 1 (01:19:04):
So I don't see.

Speaker 2 (01:19:06):
From a three thousand foot you know view, I don't
see them going like you said, like too far. I
see them. I see them trying to thread a very
small needle. And I don't know. And hey, look, if
it turns out like I said, if we look back

(01:19:27):
on this in five years, ten years, shifty years, right,
if we get all the information after the fact, and
we find out that Israel actually was just indiscriminately bombing
people and they lie to all of us and everything
like that, I'm going to be their first critic because
I have no loyalty to the nation state or governing
body of Israel. I have a loyalty to the Jewish

(01:19:48):
people because I believe in the Abrahamic Covenant, right, and
anybody that's doing shit like that that some people are
accusing all the Jews of, even though it would just
be a small part of of a government which probably
has corruption in it, because every government does. You're not
going to get any argument from me, right, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (01:20:07):
I'm not.

Speaker 2 (01:20:08):
I don't have a blind loyalty to to anything other
than the Bible. And I mean, I would say pretty
pretty much the Constitution, cause the two books that I
really follow without asking questions of the constitution of the Bible.

Speaker 1 (01:20:22):
Okay, so the I'm going to say something that I'm
sure is very controversial because this is what I think.
I say, let Israel starting and their own wars man. Yeah,
you know, if if they if they want to start something,
let them end it. If someone attacks them, let them retaliate. Sure,
and they're going to have to deal with the consequences
on how they handle that. That's my opinion of it.

(01:20:44):
And I understand they're one of our greatest allies and
we're always going to be there to, you know, protect
our little brother, as they say. But at the same time,
I mean, at what point do you let them just
stand on their own? At what point do you just say, look,
here's your situation, this is what happened, do what you
gotta do. See, but we always have to get involved.

Speaker 2 (01:21:03):
I think that that argument doesn't hold water because they
are they It's not just their war, right, and it's
not just because the same people that they're fighting chant
death to America and death to Israel. It's more of
our interests are their interests. So I would say that

(01:21:26):
when a lot of people are looking at it like
there are ally they're a little bro and they're friends,
so we gotta go fight because of them. And I
don't think that that's the way to look at it.
I think that when they fight somebody, we have an
opportunity to jump in for our own benefit. And that's

(01:21:48):
the way I view it right where it's like, hey man,
you're no fucking like, hey, Timmy over there is fucking
up that dude that said he was gonna fuck your sister,
And it's like, oh, okay, I'm gonna go over there
and fuck him up too, because they also don't look
because I all so don't like that.

Speaker 1 (01:22:00):
Here, here's your counter. Okay, I understand what you're saying,
because it's true. We do look out for our own interests.
Israel is very strategic for us in terms of a
military position within the area.

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
Period.

Speaker 1 (01:22:14):
We have a presence with an ally that we don't
have anywhere else in at least not to the level
we got with Israel. Sure, but my argument is there
has been times where Israel's gone into conflicts with other
nations that might upset the geopolitical relationships if we get involved,
especially when we're talking about resources, you know, more than
more like oil, et cetera. So that I think that's

(01:22:35):
my point. I'm not saying that you're wrong, because yes,
we do have to protect our interest, but if our
ally is putting us in a position that pretty much
fucks up the relationships we have or that negotiations we
have with other countries, it kind of does get sticky.
At some point you got to be like, hey, you
need to chill the fuck out. Look absolutely right.

Speaker 2 (01:22:55):
And this is the exact same argument I would make
against Zelensky, right, where it's like it's like, look, man,
frickin' I don't even consider you an ally, but everybody
else does. So like, look, we're gonna get your back
with poot, but when you start pulling some shit, we're
gonna you're on your own. And so I think that's

(01:23:17):
a very valid argument to apply to Israel, because you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:20):
Don't you don't just blindly like again a right.

Speaker 2 (01:23:23):
So the analogy with Timmy is in a fight with
the guy that said he wants to fuck your sister, right, Yeah, okay,
so we both want to fuck that guy up. But
if Timmy just starts getting into a fight with some
random dude at the bar who did nothing wrong. We're
not backing up Timmy. So that's that's the analogy right
where it's like, if Israel's interests align with our interests,
then sure I want to get involved. If Israel's interests

(01:23:43):
do not align with our interests, leave them the fuck
alone and let them do So there's the clarification. Yeah, absolutely,
absolutely understood.

Speaker 1 (01:23:51):
Let's let's get off this topic for a bit because
we've been at it for a while. Sure, I agree.
I want to get to some of your social media
stuff if you're okay with that. Yeah, all right. So
as you as you said earlier in the beginning, as
you do call people out, you know, because you believe, hey,
they're getting away with running their mouths but not really
you know, backing up with any real facts or just
you know, they're being bolstered by by their fans. You've

(01:24:14):
also let's do this first, because you've said this on
social media, can you please because I don't pay attention
to it much to me, woke, right, you said a
little bit in the beginning, but can you kind of
define it better because I'm trying to understand it and
there's a lot of other people that have opinions on
what it actually means. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:24:32):
See, look, so I was calling I was calling out
the woke right, and I was calling them the woke
right in like twenty twenty one, James Lindsay, Bless his heart.
I like James Lindsay. He's sort of become the figurehead
and the spokesperson for this whole calling out the woke
right movement. But he makes it a very intellectual argument
and he tries to, in my opinion, complicated way too much,

(01:24:55):
and people really get lost in the definition. Here's the definition.
This is the dumbed down version right woke. The woke
ideology right was started by the black community when they
were saying that they they are they are being oppressed
right by the white man, and now we are awake,
we are woke. We you have your boot on our
neck and we have woken up. Right, So that's where

(01:25:18):
that comes from. So it is an oppressor oppressed victim
mentality that is responsible for movements like BLM, Antifa, et cetera. Okay,
that's woke. Now the left side of the argument where
you say woke left right, So you have oppressor oppressed
and then you have what their ideology is how do

(01:25:40):
you fix it? How do you fix the the oppressor
oppressed relationship? Right? And it's it's i would say, like socialism, Marxism,
you know, like whatever. Then you have the woke. Right now,
there is an oppressor oppressed, right, globalist Jews they have
the same like victim mentality, right, like there this this

(01:26:01):
people group is responsible for all of our problems.

Speaker 1 (01:26:03):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:26:04):
A lot of conspiracy theorists, truthers, they think that they
think that there's these this grand conspiracy against them. But
how what is what is their solution to the problem? Right,
So on the left you have socialism. On the right
you have nationalism and isolationism. So you have two sides
at the same point. You have a victim mentality, oppressor, oppressed.
We we are waking up? What are the what are

(01:26:27):
the grapers call themselves?

Speaker 1 (01:26:28):
Noticers? Right? You know?

Speaker 2 (01:26:31):
Notice notice wake woke, Notice say their synonyms so woke
right essentially means an oppressed group of people that wants
to fix the uh, the the dynamic by being isolationists

(01:26:51):
or nationalists. Right, They basically have have decided we are
we are oppressed by in are here? Usually it's the
Jews usually it's the globalist and the way to fix
this problem is nationalism, right, or or Christian nationalism freaking whatever.

(01:27:15):
It's the same exact thing the left says. The left says,
we need to get rid of capitalism, we need to
redistribute wealth, we need to have reparations, et cetera, et cetera.
They're so similar. The only difference is how they want
to attack the person they think is responsible for all
of their problems. So that's woke right in a nutshell.

(01:27:37):
It's the best way to describe it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:39):
Now. Here's the thing.

Speaker 2 (01:27:40):
You can also just not call them woke right right,
because you can call them dissident right. You can call
them reactionary right, you can call them far right, radical right,
you can call them any other thing that you want, right.
But if you really are breaking down what they are about,
woke right is the most accurate terminology because it hype it.
It defines the oppressor oppressed narrative.

Speaker 1 (01:28:02):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:28:02):
There is some weird obsession with not being accountable for
your own shit. Right, It's like, sure, are there bad people?
Are there is there you know? Psyops going on? Is
their conspiracies? Are there some Jews that are bad?

Speaker 1 (01:28:21):
People.

Speaker 2 (01:28:22):
Yeah, sure, right, but you don't fix the problem by
essentially trying to impose radical ideologies on the rest of
the world.

Speaker 1 (01:28:32):
They're just two sides to the same coin.

Speaker 2 (01:28:34):
Really, then it's just radicalism, yeah, as a solution to
a problem. That's what it really is. It's radicalism as
a solution to a problem. Right, It's like the far
left are. And by the way, the horseshoe theory is
just a lucky coincidence, right, the woke right and woke left.
Like I said, the definition is just oppress or oppressed.

(01:28:57):
Here's how to fix it. Get radical and impose your use.
Think about horseshoe theory though, right, First of all, you
have the you have the uh both sides hate the Jews, right, right,
and and then you have Marxist ideologies right like, so
you have on both sides, right, you have a desire

(01:29:18):
to impose your ideology on the other. So what is
the What does the left want to do? The left
wants to make abortion legal up until birth right, what
is the right want to do? They want to get
rid of every abortion right they want They want you
to not be able to get one right.

Speaker 1 (01:29:31):
They are extreme used.

Speaker 2 (01:29:32):
They are literally the far sides of both of both
sides of this argument. And most people are in the middle.
They are not the majority, they're not the base. They're
not They're not there. And and the thing is, here's
the difference between these sides. By the way, the right,
as far as I can tell, is rejecting their woke

(01:29:53):
the left is electing them as the mayor of New
York City.

Speaker 1 (01:29:57):
They're embracing it, They're running hard with it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:59):
So if you if you want to say, like, look,
I don't want to. I'm not taking all the credit.
I'm not taking most of the credit. I'm taking some
credit though, because I've been blowing the whistle on this
for for a while. I'm one of the biggest voices
against it. And from what I can see in the
online space, the top generals of the woke right seem
to keep having a fucking problem with me. They're the

(01:30:21):
ones that keep on so judgement. So I say this
all the time. I'm like, please, for the love of God,
if you do nothing else to judge me by my enemies.

Speaker 1 (01:30:29):
Let's look at you. That's just good. Because I was
always a big confused I'm like, how it's like, what
does it actually represent because there's always you know, like
far right, extreme right, bull credit, like there's all these
all these terms like whatever. Man, it's important.

Speaker 2 (01:30:46):
Not to complic It's important not to complicate it, you know.
Like I'm in the debate I had against Andrew Wilson.
He lost on substance. I mean, I'm sure that he
took a victory lap, but he tried to call them reactionaries, right,
They're not really reaction right reactionaries have would have a
complete justification for an actual problem. This is there is sure,

(01:31:07):
like I said, there there are globalists, I guess you know,
there are New World Order people.

Speaker 1 (01:31:13):
But to to.

Speaker 2 (01:31:15):
To state that they're to state that two percent of
the no zo point two percent of the global population
is responsible for all of your problems. Nick funt Does
was on Info Wars and Alex Jones asked him if
you were to take every Jew and just send them
to the moon, do you think all your problems would
go away? And that motherfucker said yes.

Speaker 1 (01:31:36):
Okay, that guy's a fucking idiot. Man. I'm just say
and I can care less people feel that.

Speaker 2 (01:31:41):
Look, but think about think about a reactionary is reacting
to a real issue, right, somebody like that Nick Funt does.

Speaker 1 (01:31:47):
And then you've got Candae, you know, with her views,
you know, she's kind of going down that path while
she isn't kind of she is going down that path.
She's she's lost, she's definitely.

Speaker 2 (01:31:57):
And then you got you got people like you got
people like Tuck car Carlson, MGT Russell Brand. You got
all these people that are flirting with it. And when
they start flirting with it, right, you see them flirting
with it just a little bit, right, they creep out,
they creep out a little bit and they go, actually,
you know, you really do have a valid argument about
the money that we send to Israel. And then then
it gets a little bit more and a little bit more,

(01:32:19):
and then they start getting a little bit more conspiratorial,
and then it's like you can just see the progression
and then all of a sudden boom then and it's like,
I'm telling you, Charlie Kirk said it really well, right,
anti Semitism is brain rot, right, it really is. It's
like this, And then like they're like, I'm not antisemitic.

Speaker 1 (01:32:40):
Yes you are.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
Let's just say let's say anti zionism. Then anti Zionism
is brain rot because I can. I can say this
a thousand times, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself,
but repetition is how you get through to dumb people.
I'm not talking to you, talking to maybe somebody who's watching.
Two zero point two fucking percent of the global population

(01:33:05):
is not responsible for your fucking problems. It's a retarded statement.
I agree, that was that's like, that is the dumbest
thing I have ever heard a book. But they're disproportionate
in the in the tech industry. Yeah, yeah, I know,
all right, So what the twenty five percent of billionaires
are Jewish? Okay, they're good with money, Chinese people are

(01:33:25):
good with math, Black people are good at basketball. Who cares.
It's a it's a stereotype. It's not a conspiracy. It's
a stereotype. Yeah, And there's a reason for it. And
the reason is because after some dickhead in a funny
mustache tried to exterminate them when they got expelled to America,
they started getting into industries at the perfect time before

(01:33:47):
they blew up. They got into the tech industry, they
got into the Hollywood industry, the film industry, and because
of their religion and their faith and how their family oriented.
They created generational wealth and handed it down to their children.
And because they didn't trust anybody because again somebody tried
to fucking exterminate them, they kept it very tight knit
and they don't allow other people in. They are an

(01:34:07):
exclusionary religion now because of how many people that have
tried to fucking rite.

Speaker 1 (01:34:12):
But there's there's many cultures who do that. Like I
can just talk about people from India because I've done
a lot of business with them in the entertainment industry
for example, you know, and there's a lot of that
going on, you know, as far as concerts with the
artists coming in and they're doing these big arena shows
and I've got to know them. And their families will
do this like you see them by a gas station
or a hotel. Well, that individual gets that funny, But

(01:34:34):
guess what the entire family does. The entire family works it,
They build up that and then they buy another as
a family.

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
We don't do that. What about Greeks. Greeks do the
same time.

Speaker 1 (01:34:44):
You're right, I'm just saying, you know, other cultures do
do that. So let's let's move off of Let's let's
move off of the woke, right, because well, defined, thank you,
but what do you think of what's going on? Because
you do identify as maga? What's up with all this infighting?

Speaker 2 (01:34:57):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:34:58):
And then let's also talk about people like Laura Lumer
for example. And I know you've had some os on her.
You know, I'm just giving a let you go because
I you know.

Speaker 2 (01:35:07):
So so I'm so back. I'm so back and forth
with I hate this. This is why I hate Laura.
I hate Laura because I like Laura.

Speaker 1 (01:35:13):
Right. I hate her because I like her. Every once
in a while, I'll be like scrolling and I'm like.

Speaker 2 (01:35:18):
Fuck right, It's like I almost hate that she gets
it right, Because here's the thing again, right, I am
completely objective when it comes to calling people up. I
don't really if like, if if my best friend said
something stupid, I would comment under it.

Speaker 1 (01:35:35):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:35:36):
So I don't have I don't have this thing that
other people have where it's like uh tribalism, where you're like,
oh my, this person that follows these people that follow
me said something stupid. I don't want to say anything
because I don't want my friends to get mad at
me for calling out their friends, right, so with Laura Lumer,
I called her out for the things that she did
wrong right. What she did was she said that Joe

(01:35:58):
Biden was going into hospice, Jimmy Carter was dead. She
doxes people that are, you know, anti Trump. She starts,
she goes in. She calls it investigative journalism. Every time
somebody comes against Trump, she tries to find out what
their fucking family does for a living, and then she
floods their inbox. It's canceled culture. I don't like it.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
It is.

Speaker 2 (01:36:17):
I do not like cancel culture. I don't like it
when anyone fucking does it. I was canceled by the
woke left. I've been canceled by the woke right. It
is not something you guys want to go through.

Speaker 1 (01:36:28):
I have had.

Speaker 2 (01:36:30):
I have a stack of police reports from all the
credible death threats I've gotten. People have showed up to
my house. I've been had the cops called to me twice.
They've tried to get me kicked out of this apartment.
They've called the They've done some crazy shit to me.
They put me on the next door app as a pedophile.
When you put somebody's information on the Internet and you
put it out there with with a negative inflection. Right,

(01:36:54):
bad person, here's their name.

Speaker 1 (01:36:56):
Well, that's what you're trying to intentionally cause harm, not
just to them, their entire family relationships.

Speaker 2 (01:37:02):
And I don't give a ship what you think about
Laura Luman. She fucking does that and she needs to stop.

Speaker 1 (01:37:07):
She does.

Speaker 2 (01:37:09):
However, like I said, this is why I hate my
light right because she does good stuff. She puts out
good information sometimes well she gets some things right, And.

Speaker 1 (01:37:19):
I'm going to equate that to like Alex Jones, you're
throwing off ship the wall. Something's gonna stick exactly. Listen.

Speaker 2 (01:37:25):
I just just did that.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
I just did this with Sean.

Speaker 2 (01:37:29):
On my podcast with Seawn. I was when in that
debate with Owen Schroyer, He's like, how did Alice Jones
predict nine to eleven? And I'm like, I don't fucking know.

Speaker 1 (01:37:38):
And he is like, he's like it's a script.

Speaker 2 (01:37:40):
I'm like, yeah, or he said terrorists are gonna do
terrorist shit because you know, the World Trade Centers were attacked.

Speaker 1 (01:37:45):
I thought it was a plane, by the way, but
it was a bomb.

Speaker 2 (01:37:48):
He's like they were attacked in ninety three, yes, and
Alex and then oh, some of the law. And everybody
knew who he was. They knew that they wanted to attack.
So Alex Jones said, they're going to attack the World
Trade Centers and Osama Bilad's going to do it. But
then here's what he did to frame the narrative. He

(01:38:08):
said the CIA did it.

Speaker 1 (01:38:11):
Yeah, but no, you.

Speaker 2 (01:38:12):
See, so he didn't necessarily technically get that whole thing right,
but they believe that because he got a portion of
it provably right, which is they flew planes into the
World Trade Centers. True, but you know, then they believe
the whole thing, though they believe it blindly because if
you get if you get most of something right, but

(01:38:32):
then you add in a caveat and you can't prove
that second part right, people believe the whole thing. So
what he does is actually dangerous because he creates these paranoid,
you know, delusional people who think that there's some person
in a black hat that's gonna like shoot him in

(01:38:53):
the head when they walk out of their house.

Speaker 1 (01:38:54):
How much, but how much, how much of what he
gets right is due to whatever source he has where
he gets this information. Because like you and I had
discussed earlier, and I found out later, you know, through
some of my contacts. Is like, there was chatter going
around and the intelligent community that this was going to happen.
How do we know? He just didn't get that lead
or didn't get that That's exactly That's exactly what happened.

Speaker 2 (01:39:17):
Right. But like I said, my brother called my mom
the night before, so there they knew, Like the government
knew and the government you know. This is the other
thing about these people there some people act like the
government is supposed to tell you when something bad is
going to happen. No, that would create maccessaria, right, It's
like no, like they did this with Trump. Trump was

(01:39:39):
like there was supposedly a threat and attack and the
media was like, why didn't you tell us? He's like,
you guys would have lost your ship and he was honest.

Speaker 1 (01:39:47):
True.

Speaker 2 (01:39:48):
No other president has ever come out and said, yeah,
I held that from you because I didn't want you
to freak out. So again, like, yeah, Alex probably has
some good context. This is exactly what Laura Lumer does.
Laura Lumer does not do journalism. Laura Lumer has a
group of simps that do journalism and they send it
to her inbox and then she just reads it and

(01:40:08):
then drops it on her platform, right, And I'm sure
that she does her ruin research a little bit, But
for the most part, I think what Alex Jones has
is he has the same thing. He has a network. Right.
When you have a network, when you're a social media influencer,
are you really doing journalism or are you the anchor
that's reporting the story that your journalists gave to you.

Speaker 1 (01:40:31):
Well that's okay, And that's been my argument against guys
like you know, Chris Cuomo, people from that era. They're
just talking heads. They're reading off a fucking teleprompt for them,
and journalists in years, well.

Speaker 2 (01:40:42):
Look at look at what Alex Jones's show is, right,
So look this is I'm gonna do.

Speaker 1 (01:40:45):
Actually, let me do this.

Speaker 2 (01:40:46):
I'm gonna do Alex Jones, Alex Jones the show Info Wars.
That's what he does. This is what he does. Give
you the camera shot here, Yeah, I got a tweet here,
this is what this tweet says.

Speaker 1 (01:40:59):
I got a tweet here, And what this tweet says?

Speaker 2 (01:41:02):
He had a tweet here. It's like that's all he's doing.
He's literally he's an anchor, He's a news anchor. That's
he's not a he's not a fucking like and he's
not a mentalist, right, he didn't like Look at I
think that I have.

Speaker 1 (01:41:17):
I think he's probably good at connecting the dots, you
know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:41:20):
I think, yeah, that's what I was about to say.
I think that I'm really good at that too. I
think that I have a lot of critical thinking skills.
I'm able to, you know, see things that may or
may or may not be happening. I mean, I basically
predicted that the Zohan guy was going to win the
New York City election hours before it happened. I'm like,
maybe he's gonna win because I mean, honestly, I think

(01:41:43):
that New York might be better off for it. I
think that it's.

Speaker 1 (01:41:50):
Hold on, Look, let me explain this.

Speaker 2 (01:41:51):
Sure, there is also a very real possibility that it
starts the downfall of America. But it's one or the other. Right,
So there's this is either this is either going to
be responsible for the next walk away movement where it
creates a mass exodus from the Democrat Party because they're
going to watch the biggest city in America fall leave

(01:42:15):
and never come back. Right, and if they and if
by the twenty twenty six mid terms you have enough
people who are reaching out to all their Democrat buddies
and be like, we're going too far, it could create
a red wave in the twenty twenty six mid terms.
And then if they implement their socialist ideologies and policies
in that state, new York's fucked, but the rest of

(01:42:37):
the country. Hopefully, this is why I said it's a
high risk, high reward. Hopefully we view it as a
learning moment instead of embracing it. So what what did
it take for Rudy Giuliani to come in and fix
New York in the first place? Right? It took the

(01:43:01):
corruption crime unchecked it. New York was a shithole. Then
he came in and fixed it. What did it take
for Reagan to come in and fucking you know, fix America?
America was falling, falling apart. What did it take for
Trump to come in? America was in like good time?
It's really that whole, you know. Joe Rogan made the
quote like or repeated the quote, but it's an old quote.

(01:43:25):
Weak men create hard times, yeah, right, so week men
create hard times. Right now, you are a weak man
who is about to take over the biggest city in
the country. So I think that hard times hopefully will
create strong men, and strong men will hopefully create good times.

Speaker 1 (01:43:46):
I would I would hate. I would hate for you
to be correct, I don't know. You're probably are on
this and that he does get elected and this does
have to turn out to be a learning moment for
the rest of the country. But hopefully if that is
the say situation, that the rest of country wakes up
and puts a stop to this bullshit and realize we
do have to preserve who we are in our culture period.

(01:44:07):
We can't let this you know, slow dripping infiltration happen
and allow our country be taken from us.

Speaker 2 (01:44:13):
Yeah, if it goes the other way though, we're fucked.
Like you got to think about what happened about six
months ago. We almost put Kamala Harris into oh I know,
and if that happened right, the hard times would have
been every state, not just one.

Speaker 1 (01:44:29):
True.

Speaker 2 (01:44:29):
So I don't know, man, I really, I look, I
love this country more than I hate the opposing party.
So I would like it if he does not become
the mayor, right because I do not want to see
New York City fall I don't want to see that happen.

Speaker 1 (01:44:48):
So I'm not rooting for this.

Speaker 2 (01:44:49):
I'm just reading Tea Leaves right, So I don't want
him to become mayor. But based off of everything I'm seeing,
there's so many people that are like, they're like, oh,
but what if the what if Cuomo splits the vote
and the Republic. No, I's he's probably going to be
the mayor. Well, that's part of our that's part of
our problem America right now. It's aways politics before people. Yeah,

(01:45:12):
you know, it's it's fucking bullshit. I wish, I wish
I would go away. But really, well, I mean that's
that's human beings man. It's a tribalistic nature.

Speaker 1 (01:45:20):
Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:45:22):
And you know, the two party system. I was saying
this to somebody else recently. They're like, the two party
system needs to be your vote. No, it doesn't. No, No,
the two party system works absolutely perfectly when you take
corruption out of it, right, the party, the two party system,
the system that we have in place is a near
perfect system. It's just been abused, right. The system itself
is not the problem. It's the people that are abusing it. Right,

(01:45:44):
So take money out of politics and and get back
to UH for the people, by the people. Adding adding
more parties isn't going to fix anything. Changing the whole
system isn't going to fix anything. You find out where
the what what is broken? Right, Well, it's broken is

(01:46:06):
we have public servants that make more than the people
they serve. We have public servants that are incentivized to
be corrupt. We have foreign lobbies in our country, we
have domestic lobbies in our in our system. So I've
said this to so many people. I just I just
did an interview with the guy who's running John Goodman,

(01:46:26):
who's running for Senate in Illinois, and I told him,
I go, when you get in there, this is what
I want you to do.

Speaker 1 (01:46:31):
I want you to propose this.

Speaker 2 (01:46:32):
Right, you get no secondary income in Congress, none, not
one fucking dollar above your salary.

Speaker 1 (01:46:39):
I don't care what you set your salary at.

Speaker 2 (01:46:40):
Set it at five hundred thousand if you want, but
you don't get a dollar over it. Right. No book deals,
no speaking events, no stock trading, no nothing, no moonlighting.
That's what you get, right And if you and if
you do that, there is no incentive. I mean sure,
you know there are some people who are going to
be like, yeah, I'd like to make three hundred thousand

(01:47:01):
dollars a year for the rest of my life. But
the majority of people that go into Congress, they go
in there because of the incentives.

Speaker 1 (01:47:09):
The incentives and the connections, the power everything comes with.

Speaker 2 (01:47:12):
Yeah, exactly. So take that out of politics. And the
other thing is get rid of fucking packs.

Speaker 1 (01:47:20):
Yeah, all of them, all of them.

Speaker 2 (01:47:24):
You should only be able to raise money based off
of the people of this country every and raise raise
the minimum amount to five thousand instead of thirty five hundred,
and that's all you get.

Speaker 1 (01:47:36):
And there should not There should not be one person
in Congress that is able to do any stock trading. Yeah, no,
that's what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:47:48):
And then third, the third thing is the third thing
is there should be a There should be a cap.
There should be a campaign cap, right, and I don't
know what the number needs to be, but one candidate
shouldn't be able to have can one hundred million dollars?

Speaker 1 (01:48:02):
No for tv ads. Look when your salary is about
one hundred and seventy five thousand, and I forgot what
the actual number is, but one hundred seventy five thousand
here or they were less as a congress person. You
don't come out the end other end a multimillionaire. And
you definitely don't become a multimillionaire while you're serving in
Congress with a salary of one hundred and seventy five
thousand or so.

Speaker 2 (01:48:21):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:48:22):
I can't explain that away.

Speaker 2 (01:48:24):
If you take Look, here's the deal. If you take
away the monetary incentive to be in congress, right where
you go in, you go in a bartender and you
come out a millionaire.

Speaker 1 (01:48:35):
Oh right, that back of rocks.

Speaker 2 (01:48:37):
Yeah, if you take if you take that away, right,
you're only going to have two kinds of people that
want to go into Congress.

Speaker 1 (01:48:44):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:44):
You're going to have people that really want to go
in there to do the job, patriots, right, You're going
to have veterans. You're going to have people that are like,
I just want to go do the job because I care, right,
public servants. And then you're going to have rich people
who don't need to do it. No, they don't need
that Trump they're going to policy, but they again, they
also want to go in there and do it for

(01:49:04):
the right reasons. So the second one, you could have
some people who are like bad intent.

Speaker 1 (01:49:10):
Right, oh you will. You're still gonna be that one.

Speaker 2 (01:49:12):
But I think it's going to be way less than
all of the people that come in there with with
an idea of changing for the better well and then
get and then get corrupt.

Speaker 1 (01:49:23):
Maybe we should go back to removing the salary and
just giving them a stipend. Sure, if you want to serve,
this is what it is. You want to serve your nation,
and you want to influence the nation from that position,
then here's your five thousand dollar year stipend or whatever
it is.

Speaker 2 (01:49:36):
Now, if I had it, if I had my way,
you'd make the you'd make the median income of your district.
And the only way you get a raise is if
your people do.

Speaker 1 (01:49:43):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (01:49:44):
So if if you raise, you raise, the rising tide
raises all ships. Theory, Yeah, would be would be my
approach to Congress. But but look, man, Unfortunately, in order
for that to happen, you'd need the people who make
the laws to to give themselves a fucking pay cut. Uh,
And I don't see it happening.

Speaker 1 (01:50:04):
So no, I mean, come on, they vote in lifetime
medical Uh, you can serve like one year or so,
and all of a sudden you're locked in for a
lifetime retirement.

Speaker 2 (01:50:13):
Or here's here's what we might be able to do
right now that that perfect system that I just described
of taking money out of politics, because the system itself
isn't broken, the people are.

Speaker 1 (01:50:24):
Yeah, it always starts with people. Man, you can't take
out greed and and we need for power.

Speaker 2 (01:50:29):
What we might be able to accomplish with good leadership,
like hopefully Donald Trump will start pushing this messaging and
if enough people really push this, what we might be
able to do is no secondary income sorry, no stock
trading and term limits. If you do no stock trading
and term limits, that's a huge dent out of it.

Speaker 1 (01:50:48):
Well, it is huge.

Speaker 2 (01:50:49):
And ago, yeah, I mean it's the fucking president. Why
do Why does the president have term limits?

Speaker 1 (01:50:55):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:50:55):
So he doesn't, he doesn't get corrupted, right, fucking apply
that to everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:51:00):
Come on, man, Look when you're in Congress in your
thirties and here you are in your eighties, still trying
to walk around, well, get I mean, I have a
point to do. Their peers say, look, it's time for
you to retire. So I have another I have another.

Speaker 2 (01:51:16):
I have another suggestion too, And I thought of this
I thought of this a while back, and I think
it's a really good system.

Speaker 1 (01:51:23):
I think that you should have.

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
Term limits or sorry, you should have a like a
promotional system, right, so you should literally so you should
be able to be like a representative for like six years, right,
So a representative for six years, a House member for
four years, right, so that's ten. Then you should be
able to go into the Senate for two terms. So

(01:51:47):
what would that be twelve? Yeah, yeah, twelve, Okay, so
you got six four twelve, that's twenty two years.

Speaker 1 (01:51:54):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:51:55):
Then you can be vice president right from four to
eight years, and you can be president for four to
eight years. And so that means, right, you have twenty
two in Congress, eight in vice presidency, thirty years and
eight maximum in a presidency. The most amount of time

(01:52:17):
that you can be in politics if you win every
single election is thirty eight years. That's about how long
people work in a career before they retire.

Speaker 1 (01:52:28):
Anyway, I like that idea. The only thing is it
does it does remove the option for the average person
who never was able to get into that to be
able to run for president for example.

Speaker 2 (01:52:42):
No, no, no, what I'm saying is you start like.
It should literally be a like. It should work just
like any other career. I understand what you're saying, where.

Speaker 1 (01:52:51):
You would literally work yourself up to the ranks. Start
as you start as a rent, you get enough experience,
then you're eligible for X and your local politics.

Speaker 2 (01:52:58):
You can do whatever you want local politics, the politics
no rules. I'm talking about Washington. In Washington, right, you
can be you can start off as a rep. You
can start off as a then you can move up
to a House member. You can move from a House
to the Senate. You can move from the Senate to
the vice presidency, you can move or just straight to
the presidency. But I'm saying the maximum under this system
the most you could ever work.

Speaker 1 (01:53:18):
So you're saying, if you want to enter politics and
make that career, then your max service should be around
thirty eight years.

Speaker 2 (01:53:25):
So just like every other job, you start in the
mail room and then you get promoted to this and
then you get.

Speaker 1 (01:53:31):
I get it, But but you're you're not advocating for
like let's say me or you running for president of
the United States. It's just those career politicians should have
a shelf life regardless.

Speaker 2 (01:53:40):
That's what I'm saying, so with the term with the
term limits, right, I think that it should be like
in like almost like a promotional role, right where it's
like okay, so like that makes a lot of sense.
You're like, okay, if you you you've already done it,
You've already done your your six years. You have to
go to this position, right or you have to leave
or you have to leave office right right, So you

(01:54:02):
have to you have to either jump up to this position,
which is the only one available to you, or you're gone.
And that way, it's not just a term limit, it's
a congressional limit where it's like it's not even just terms.
It's like you're fucking done.

Speaker 1 (01:54:14):
You're done. You did this. Yeah, you did your service,
Thank you, Time to move on exactly. Awesome, all right, brother,
we covered a lot of grown Yeah that was great. Man.

Speaker 2 (01:54:24):
Like I said, I I've been trying to get on
these Uh I've been dealing with personal stuff and I
just got my show back this week, so I'm trying
to do these interviews.

Speaker 1 (01:54:33):
So I appreciate you bringing me on. Hey, no no worries.
There's gonna be a lot a lot coming from this.
But anyway, I bottom line thanks for coming on, Man,
appreciate I think you and I are going to keep talking.
I feel like we agree in a lot, but sure,
definitely Man, And again, thank.

Speaker 2 (01:54:47):
You feel.

Speaker 1 (01:54:52):
Vildemption. Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
doo doo doo doo doo do

All Episodes

The Misfit Patriot - Political Commentator | Content Creator | Social Media Personality

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Misfit Patriot - Political Commentator | Content Creator | Social Media Personality