How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man? How many seas must a white dove sail before she can sleep in the sand? Yes and how many times must the cannon balls fly before they're forever banned? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind How many years can a mountain exist before it is washed to the sea? Yes and how many times can the last turn its head pretending it just doesn't see? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind How many years can a mountain exist before it is washed to the sea? Yes and how many times must the cannon balls fly before they're forever banned? How many times must a man look up before he can see the sky? How many voices must shout till he hears before he can see through the lies? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind And good evening everybody, welcome back to the Healtern tonight. We have a super special episode for you guys. I'm under water Alex Jones and tonight we have I always our guest walk hee hawk, Eric Striker and Christopher Cantwell. Good evening gentlemen. Good evening fellas. Are you guys doing tonight? Doing good? Doing well? Yeah, doing well. Doing well. Thank you everybody for joining us. It's been a fun little trip getting to this point here. I wanted to just take a minute to fan our own balls for a second because you know we're doing something relatively new when we're getting a lot of really cool people that are stopping by and we're having a lot of really fun shows. But unfortunately there's been a casualty in the Healtern family. Ian Miles Chong has been outed as a neo nazi by Jared Holt. He found out there was an old archive of a show that we had going on. Ian Miles Chong was on there and because of it Jared Holt was able to discover that Ian Miles Chong actually has 1488 in a swastik attitude right across his chest because he chest docs that night. And so our condolences are up. No, I'm just kidding, but that was pretty funny. Apparently apparently being on the show makes you a neo nazi now. So tell to you that tell prox blogger that we're all we're all just being attacked. But hey, at least we're at the point now where they're paying that much attention to us. So. Okay, I got. Can you hear me guys? Yeah, hey, what's up? How you doing? What were you just saying before? Oh, I was just talking about how Jared Holt exposed the evil notorious neo nazi Ian Miles Chong for being on here. Oh, I saw that. He said that Ian Miles Chong, the Chinese libertarian is actually a white national socialist. So yeah, we're making the most multicultural hate movement the internet has ever seen. Well, you know, these guys you can laugh at. Two people like Jared Holt all you want. But these mentally old clowns have been deputized to come and fuck with people. So even though what he's saying, he just keeps repeating it until it becomes true. Even though it's a lie, that could still have some impact on people's lives. And that's the problem. Yeah, and of course we wish you know the best Ian's a friend of the show. I'd like to consider you and I to be on pretty friendly terms. You know, obviously wouldn't want him to be negatively impacted for being on here. But that's the thing, right? Is if you go on MSNBC, no one's going to go out and ruin your life and say that you're like a dirty communist or something, right? Well, we had a literal ghetto Jew on the show the other night. Yeah, not see now. Yes. So stupid. Ah, this is the fucking just the discourse in this country. You imagine an Edward, even even as bad as the media was, even even juke Walter Cronkite. Do you think he would be on gab trying to extort people and intimidate people and personally insult people and say, hey, I'm going to get your docs in this net. These are in journalists. These are fucking political activists. They're scumbags. Yeah, no, I don't disagree with that at all. I just, you know, it's it's weird to see them finally coming after us. Not that that's a good thing, but it's like, okay, we're actually on the radar of them. That's that's some bullshit. Like, I don't fucking get these people, but nobody does, right? This is the whole thing is like blood sports Andy Worsky got banned from Israel. That kind of dumb dumb shit. We could open tonight kind of on that topic. If you guys are interested, because it looks like Alex Jones has been banned again from Twitter today. So this time permanently is what I read. So they had they had temporarily suspended him after, after, you know, everybody else did and Jack Dorsey was like, let me, let me try to look like sort of tolerant and I'm just going to ban up to seven days. And then they were like, yeah, you know, I'm kind of sick of Congress, but in my business. So I'm going to ban Alex Jones because I think that's going to work out well for me. All right, let me fix that. Yeah, and apparently it was a retaliation for him going up to some CNN journalist and treating the journalist like journalist treat him. This one journalist in particular really kind of like you can just see these people like that guy looked like barrier. He looked like a like a more soy bearded barrier, you know, like the Communist commissar. And frankly, his spirit is very similar. They're evil and they want to hurt people. That's what they're do. That's what they're up to. You know, have I fixed this? Oh, yeah, beautiful. All right, fantastic. Good to be with you, fellas. Hey, good to be with you, Chris. How you doing? I'm doing, I'm doing okay. And I don't, I don't know how much you heard of what I was saying there before. I mean, the Alex Jones thing, they had, they had prior banned him for like seven days. And they were like, yeah, you know, we still believe in freedom of speech. And then Jack Dorsey went up there on Capitol Hill for a little while. And he's like, yeah, you know what? Fuck you and the president. Well, I, in the case of Jack Dorsey, you know, he's the only Gentile that owns a major social media company. Yeah, but he's a baguette, right? Because it's basically like a functional Jew, right? Well, I don't, I don't even think that is true. I mean, he might be, you know, you know, I was wearing in front of Congress. That's kind of a faculty look. Yeah, but honestly, from what I saw in that testimony, yeah, he's a piece of shit. But I kind of think he's just like a suggestible guy who's in over his head. And he's got people from the ADL bullying him into doing their bidding. The problem is that, you know, if you're going to, to, to, to, to market 50% of the population's political opinions and say, this is hate speech and it's not allowed now. Well, guess what? Your business is going to tank. So where is the ADL going to be then? No, I, I look, I completely see that. And that's, I mean, that's the problem is we need to have more parallel institutions. But I guess because you get us come at politics from a allegedly different perspective. Now, I think you're probably closer to most people, most people would guess just in terms of especially pragmatic solutions to things. But where would you both fall in terms of like if you were to run the country, let's say, how would you, how would you handle free speech in general and the internet? All right, I'll go first. I, I think that if you control who's there, you don't have to worry as much about what they do. But as long as you have this rainbow coalition of Mongols into generates in your country, you have to fucking control them. And so I don't, I don't think free speech is a particularly hot idea. I mean, if you give me dictatorial powers over the United States, anybody, anybody with a website promoting transgenderism is, is going to end up in jail if they're lucky. You know, I think that, you know, honest people should be able to communicate honest ideas freely. But when things are clearly subversive and granted that would basically in this, in this fictional scenario we're talking about, it would just strictly be my opinion judging. When something is clearly subversive, when, when something is a purposeful con job upon the society, you have to get rid of it. Yeah. Well, I, I have a, actually, it's kind of ironic because I'm the, I at least on paper, more authoritarian one on some things, because I actually think that we don't have to censor anyone. I think that we can afford to have all the free speech we want. I'll tell you why, because we are right and they are wrong. That's why they have to resort to violence and censorship and defamation and Soviet style courts like in Charlottesville. They have to rely on those things because what they believe is fundamentally unpopular. I mean, I always say this when you, when you look up populism and Google News and look at how the mainstream media, the oligarchs, how they talk about populism, which is the dictionary definition being concerns with ordinary people, the way they actually talk about it is like it's this really scary thing. So my solution would be to break the liberal technocracy, the neoliberal technocracy, nationalized, you know, rather put quotas on the Jews, you know, put a 2% quota on Jews. And, you know, these are just like pragmatic solutions. Now ideally, you just fucking take the Jews out of power completely out of every single institution. But I think that without, without controlling absolutely everything, all these narratives like the transgender stuff, people naturally, viscerally are repulsed by the idea of giving an 8 year old child cross sex hormones. That's just naturally repulsive because it's unnatural. So our net or our instincts will always rule the day unless there is a very powerful counter inertia ruling against our instincts, often with violence and solitarism, which is what we're seeing in America today. Well, I think I mostly agree with what you said there, but the situation that we have is that they are using all of these tools in their toolbox. If you took away all of their tools and they could not cram this crap down people's throats, then, you know, then yeah, of course, the reason that they censor us to reach they have to cut us off from social media and the financial system is because people will listen to us and pay us. Right. And so they get us at these choke points specifically because they know will be will be successful. Right. But the fact of the matter is is that like, you know, somewhere during the course of all of this, they did manage to obtain these controls. And so something has to be done to wrench it from their hands. And so and fundamentally what's what's doing this is ideas, right. Their ideas have gotten their ideas have gained hold specifically because they have used all of these artificial forces in order to cram them down people's throats. And so in my opinion, there, there has to be some sort of correction in order to in order to fix the problem. And so, you know, you give if you just had, you know, speech controls for a generation, say, then all of this crap would fall out of style pretty fast. And even if you just completely deregulated everything immediately afterwards, then it would sort of take a while for them to to to to cane back. If you if you let them compete on a level playing field, but like, why would you like like for what reason would we allow Jews to pedal transgendarism, you know, in any context, right. If they started peddling this crap to people, it's just like, okay, you know, we know what you're doing. We've seen this happen before. So we, if that's if we already know this, why are we going to wait for the consequences to come? We can just get we can just stop you from doing it right here. Now, if we want to teach people about, you know, what these people did before, that's probably a prudent thing to do. But we can teach it in our own context, right. Like, okay, we're going to teach people about transgendarism in school today. And it's going to be us teaching about it. It could be like, okay, so Jews tried to fucking destroy the white race and they started peddling homosexuality and transgendarism to our people promoting abortion, telling women to murder their children and sterilizing themselves. And this is why we can't have them in their country in our country. And that's a really good like thing to teach people. That's fine. But you can't allow it. You can't allow them to obtain a position in a university and from a position of authority, turn around and start telling people, oh, you're a big it. If you don't, if you don't let people turn their penises inside out at eight years old, right. That's just it just can't you can't allow that to happen in a healthy society. Yeah, no, no, I think that there are different tools you can use for that. For example, I think personally any doctor that will do the transgender surgery is fundamentally unethical and should have their license revoked. If anyone that anyone that would do that to a person, you know, a mentally ill person, imagine if there's a mentally ill person that wants to have their hand amputated because they're trans able, right. That's like on the horizon. It's fundamentally unethical. But no, I do agree that there needs, you know, there is a like the main contention. I usually have libertarians is the idea that, you know, power is the static thing. In truth, if you look at history and you look at nature and you look at anything that's organic, well, either you're on the offense or you're on the defense. And so when it comes to the culture war, what we really need, it's not so much just a top down revolution, but also a cultural revolution, a kind of a culture comp, right. But instead of the cat against the Catholic church in Bismarck's time, we have it in terms of a Western rebirth, an Aryan rebirth. Yeah, no, I agree. So we're going to get there, right. And so like I agree with you that anybody who's going to go and give puberty blockers to a toddler, you know, medical license getting revoked. Forget about it. That guy, you know, I think it's. Public executions were probably a healthy instinct that we're used to have. And those people probably would make good use of them. Well, wait, I shouldn't say that that's I'm just talking about in Minecraft. Public executions, that's just a public policy thing. You're just advocating for a public policy policy. So is what you prefer when it done them, right. But you know, you get the idea. In any case, we should issue harsh penalties through our laws for anybody who would mutilate. I shouldn't say just flat mutilate generals because I'm not trying to get into a circumcision argument here, but like, but you know, you're going to go and try to turn a penis into a vagina. Yeah, let's just go ahead and whatever we can get away with doing to you, let's do that. If you're going to, if you're going to give puberty blockers to a kid, whatever we can do to you, let's go, well, we can get away with doing to you, let's do that. And, but of course that that happens as a result of people communicating the ideas to do it, right. And so, you know, that that has to if we if we know where that's going and we can stop it before we have to start issuing, you know, insane, insane levels of penalties to scare people away from doing things. And, you know, those things, those things can, you know, happen. I mean, I thought Donald Trump was good the other day at the rally when he said, you know, we won't allow large corporations, a sense of sensor conservative voices. And by the way, you can go the other way too, right. As Eric was just saying, it's like if you're not, if you're not on offense, you're on defense, right. That's what it has to be all of the time. And even if even if we never, even if we never. Um, issue to speech control, that would have to be the constant threat in my opinion, because it's it's it's it's exactly as Eric put it. It's if you're not on offense, then you're going to be on defense. And if you're on defense, you're at a disadvantage. And so there has to be this constant attack on leftist horse shit. Otherwise, otherwise it will fester, right. Well, I would actually, I actually don't fear the ideas themselves, you know, just remember, uh, 20, even 20 years ago, right. You had a Saturday night live making fun of traenys. It was it's pat, right. Uh, Jim Carrey is a good example. He's now a leftist. Now he's a trying to save it. Whatever's left of his career and reputation after his girlfriend committed suicide. Uh, Jim Carrey is now pretending he likes tranny stuff. But here's the thing. You watch Ace Fentura. And there's a scene there that is making fun of traenys. So this went from a laughing stock to national policy to the point where if you say it literally you say the word tranny. And quotes on Facebook, you will get banned. So how did that happen? And I think examining that not not immediately going for the censorship idea. Like I am consistent on censorship. I actually think that without all the money and controlled media behind these sick ideas, they wouldn't go anywhere. In fact, the tranny stuff is actually quite remarkable. It's it's shoved down your throat everywhere. And yet, you know, just from talking to everyday people, most people secretly, uh, think it's ridiculous. So I think really just putting the power back in normal people's hands is all we need. Uh, when it comes to leftist ideas, they are so weak right now. I mean, there's a reason why leftists spend all their time, you know, harassing and committing violence and terrorism against nationals rather than debating them. The reason they do that is that they don't have an argument. If we actually had a public moderated debate where no violence or political retaliation is allowed, we would win every single debate. And most people would agree with us. So I think really that's all it takes. You don't need a sense of it because it would be like censoring a crazy homeless person in on the San Francisco bar. That's mumbling to themselves in the corner and being like, we need we need speech laws to stop them. No, people just point and laugh or ignore them. Is there a medisplomic terrorist? What about it? I mean, they use their speech to even though they're not going to win the public argument, they certainly use their speech to recruit crazy people that will kill our people. Right, but again, what is the power behind ISIS? I mean, just today it came out that Israel was supporting something like 15 terrorist groups in Syria. Suddenly, Donald Trump pulls the plug on funding for quote unquote Syrian rebels. Where are the ISIS attacks? No, where'd we found ISIS is God. So a lot of this stuff, it seems like it's having traction, but it's not. It's just pumped into all of our media. It's pumped on your YouTube ads, it's pumped on your Facebook ads, it's pumped on the television movies, and of course an academia, which is controlled by again, a tiny, unpopular minority of people. So just put the people back in charge of these things. Let's bring our culture back in that alone is the bulwark. You don't even have to sense or anyone. But at the same time, I mean, are if we're taking a free speech stance, I mean, isn't then, isn't then Facebook really just exercising its own freedom of speech? Right, it's like, okay, this is my website. Now I decide what's on it. Right. So then Mark Zuckerberg has every right in the world to ban you from his website, because he doesn't like what you're saying. Right. And I don't, and I used to think that way. And now I'm realizing the political consequences of allowing that type of power to concentrate. Right. So I don't, I don't think that Mark Zuckerberg should have the, I am now to a point where, all right, I'll throw all of my, you know, affinity for the market out to damn window, because I understand that there's political consequences to allowing Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to have so much control. Over the political discourse. And so I don't care about the property rights or free speech rights of Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey or really anybody else, but if I fear that it will have catastrophic consequences for the country. Right. And so, don't, if you're talking about, well, if these things were just in the hands of the right people, well, sure. You know, I mean, I started, I sort of started the thing off with that with, okay, if you just control who's here, then you don't have to worry so much about what they're doing. But, you know, we do have this situation where these people are here. They do have this power. And, you know, any, any, any, any coherent conception of rights would, you know, sort of like let them do this. And we have to violate those so-called rights of those people in order to get it to a point where reasonable people are in control. Oh, no, no, no, you're totally right on some level there. I know I'm not saying, I listen, I definitely not a libertarian with economics. What I was saying is that I am kind of a free speech absolutist. But when it comes to the means to impose an unpopular agenda and socially engineer the West, like what Jews are doing now, absolutely. Take every Facebook and all of it, take it all over and, you know, put these people up on Nuremberg trials. We don't have to even change any laws. We can just use all the precedents that the system is using against people now and has used against people in the past. We'll just use the court systems as they are. We'll put our judges in there. And these people will have to, these Zuckerbergs and these, all these people that are destroying our nation, our people are raised. These guys can answer to the people. So, you know, if in a court setting, yeah. So if I understand correctly, I mean, what your premise is more or less, let's do it. If we deal with the property, then we don't have to deal with the ideas as much. Is that kind of the idea? Yeah, the, well, not just the property, but the, the money, the reason these I, again, these ideas are in there. Okay, sure. But the reason these ideas are institutionalized is because we have billionaires that are basically operating as a cabal to plan our culture, to engineer our society, our culture, the way we think, the way we feel, the way we view things. And even with all that power, despite having the monopoly, they still can only get like 20 or 30% of the population on board with their Jewish neoliberal agenda. So, yeah, that's my view. Okay, I mean, I, and I'm okay with doing that, right? If we just, okay, we don't have to necessarily so, so, all right, I'm just trying to envision this. So say we nationalize Twitter and Facebook. Is that sort of the idea that you're getting that? Yeah, yeah. Okay, nationalized Twitter and Facebook, but then allow it to be a free marketplace of ideas. Is that sort of your, the Vaineran? Right, but have it like, you know, Kadoffi in the green book, where it's like a national press, where every, where every ideology is allowed to be freely debated. And of course, from there, guess what? It's going to be our ideas that will always come up, come out on top because our ideas are true and their ideas are wrong. So I do believe in that. Let me, let me ask you this. I mean, they ended up in control of these things for a reason, right? I mean, it is not as if there was just some, you know, magical power that put the hands of these platforms in the hands of bad people, right? So I mean, if, if, and what do you say to that, right? If they're allowed, if they are allowed to compete as they once were, then how do they not end up back in control again? Well, the premise here is the idea that competition has ever existed in the, in the modern United States. So the problem the social media is a problem that stems far, far, far before social media even existed. It was a problem of, of Jews buying up all the major newspapers. You had this group of people coming over very, very different ideas. They want to control the majority of the population for their own benefit. So they buy up all these private newspapers. And what happens is that you suddenly, you go to the, to the, to the corner store, you buy a newspaper every single newspaper has the same exact opinion. Why? Because it's controlled by the same exact people. So by nationalizing these things and confiscating the wealth of these oligarchs and these, these, you know, Jews and putting, putting some quotas. And again, I'm open to anything, but I'm just trying to be like the most pragmatic as possible, putting some hard quotas on these things, you know, and of course having like a committee to pick which Jews can be, if any. So my point frankly is that, yeah, let's, let's nationalize the media, put it back in the people's hands, let our guys use it. And if they want to protest, if they want to write articles on box or whatever, you know, they want to blog about it, let them, it doesn't make a difference. I think that's a really good point to make real quick, just because we've got some super chats rolling in and I don't want to get completely buried in them because at the end of the night, I was like everybody to be able to go home at some point. So if that's everything I just want to just hop into these real quick. Garden. From Gordzilla 37 for five dollars, thank you very much. Five dollars because there's a lot less do veto on tonight. Yeah, thanks. That was, that was fun. That was fun to do veto on. I kind of wish we kept his face off the screen, but, you know, I, I appreciate everyone's suffering with me. Oh, I thought that was from earlier. All right, perfect. I apologize. From Wamp Wamp for 1069. I must mean that's something in Australia. Excuse me. No way. I've got to check now. Remember this is the last time. Yeah, we're good. We're good. We're back. All right, everybody. Yeah. Thank you for bearing with us through this technical difficulty from. Fashionable broker list for one for eight eight. Thank you very much, sir. I listened to you guys all day at my shitty job. One of my favorites on behalf of the boys in the black metal scene. We love Striker. Kim Kelly has been ruining things for us for a long time. Shout out to my brothers and sisters in the Apollonian Colts. Yeah, can I can I can I go ahead and comment on that? Yeah. So there's this woman who is an open member of antifa. In fact, she was at Charlottesville attacking people there. She was assaulting people. And this woman is the top editor of vice noisy. And so she promotes all these shit tier antifa bands. While at the same time going after bands that have that are from the NSBM scene, which even non not political people always admit are the best bands. Not eternal mortem and absurd and such. So she's basically turning black metal into this really gay. Hipster soy thing. And you know, when when black metal was always the it was always for like fat sweaty guys, you know fat racist sweaty guys. Oh, I'll tell you why that is how this is working again. It goes back to money. So there's a there's a company called obviously nowadays with piracy in the internet. It's very hard to make money for music. So what happened is that there's this company called nuclear blast that's run out of Germany. It's run by a literal antifa literal member of antifa in Germany. It's a CEO who's part of antifa. And this guy signed all the big bands because there's no other record label because he's the only one with the money to to pay them to tour. So yeah, this is just like monopoly capitalism, which is the like Tucker Carlson said the driving force of Judeo leftism. Did Tucker Carlson call it Judeo leftism? I missed out. I'll go get that one for the soundboard. He said it under his breath. I have. I gotta say, I don't know. Did you guys watch Tucker Carlson by any chance last night? Unfortunately not. Oh my god. You have to watch it. You have to if you watch it on YouTube. If you have it. Like his conversation with Lou Dobbs was the most anti-Semitic thing I've ever seen. They're just they're not saying it, but like if you just if you just pretend that instead of saying the the permanent Washington class, the Washington foreign policy establishment and the elites, if you just replace all of that with Jews, it's the most anti-Semitic thing. And I'm fairly confident that they knew exactly what they were saying. Well, when Tucker goes on his ranch like the other day I saw one where he was saying and then anti-Lac and Nikki Oppenheimer, whatever that guy in NBC's name is, Oppenheimer and Lac for some strange reason rush to cover up for Harvey Weinstein. It's a mystery why they would do this. It wasn't wasn't Tucker calling out because I did read in the caller and that Tucker was starting a fight with what's his name Chuck Todd of MSNBC. I guess now he's the director news for NBC and he's saying Chuck Todd must have known about all the stuff with the Ronan Ferris story about Weinstein and knew they tried to shut it down too. Yeah, and you know any time he named Rob someone who's like an enemy of the people, it's always very distinctive name part of a certain tribe. So, you know, he's not going to say it outright, but you know if you have two brain cells to rub together, you'll know what he's talking about. Like, you know, the guy just has to know. Yeah, it really is becoming difficult for me to try to pretend that he doesn't. From Clinton of Donald for $10, thank you very much. Hillary of the South, Hail 33 to victory. We shall march and God willing, write the wrongs inflicted on our people stand by our radicals to the end, also higher and then they make the little uu wu face. Oh, no, I like the league guys are good boys. What can I fucking I from Jerry's, I guess the dissident, I'm going to say Jerry's woodshop and outdoors for $5 white pride worldwide. Thank you very much. I appreciate that from co-pollated pecker wood for $14. Thank you very much, Mr. Pecker would. Hey guys, oh, says you don't have to read this out. Okay, very enough. I won't, but I will read that and I will get back to you. Thank you very much. I'm not an anonymous for $5 when removing the newport smoking megalodon of mud sharks, which of the following should not be used since we adhere to YouTube policies and believe in non violence lampshades and rope woodchippers helicopter stocks, challengers free Dylan roof. How about cholesterol? It's like cholesterol, dude, it's job. And then Mike, I don't know that I can say your back name, your last name. So if a mic for $5, no message. Thank you very much. Mike if you try to put in a message and it doesn't come through, I'm sorry, but we do appreciate it. From curious leaders for one pecking dollar, not just getting, but thank you very much. Question for striker. If our demographics are going to be minority levels within 20 years or so, can we afford to be free speech absolutists? Love the show. Thank you very much. Eric, what are your thoughts? Yeah, no, see the point I'm making isn't that, you know, I'm not making some NAP fucking argument. Obviously what I am saying is that we can be free speech absolutists because one, we're right. The issue right now isn't who has free speech. The issue is that there is no free speech. We have a system that's taking away people's free speech and it's not just us. They're going even after old light people. They went after, you know, I mean, you guys saw that retard, that fat retard Billy something at the, at the hearing with Jack Dorsey, he was talking over Laura Loomer for, you know, she's a Jew, whatever, but, you know, she's right on this. She got up and she said, you know, these people are taking away our first amendment rights because they were trying to manipulate our elections and which is true. And this fucking guy who's a GOP guy, by the way, this, this fucking fat sack of shit went up there and he was doing a dumb little auction thing just to get applause from his peers. Now, compare that. This is for all people to say the Republican party is our party. Yeah, right. Compare that to the cabinet office. Okay, but compare that to the cabinet hearings, we had all types of freaks and misfits getting up to scream in the audience. Did any Democrats do that? Did any Democrats start doing stupid, signaling auctioneering stuff? No, so they're representing their constituents, but the GOP isn't doing a very good job at representing ours. Well, all right. Before we get into the GOP thing, I think that'll make an interesting discussion. Let me ask you this. I mean, while we are met with what we are met with, one of the things that crosses my mind, it's that's driving me crazy in a censorship discussion, is there, they're quick to point out that like, okay, they're, they're censoring right wingers or whatever. And that's, that's sort of like a mainstream understood opinion almost at this point. I find it frustrating that so few people are paying attention to the fact that while, while Twitter and Facebook ban us, they are allowing Antifa to openly advocate for criminal violence. They're openly advocating for criminal acts on their platforms. And so it crosses my mind like, okay, if we are, if we, if we are going to have trouble overcoming the free speech barrier here, what if we applied, as an alternative to preventing social media from banning us, what do you think about the prospect of pressuring social media companies to ban far left account? Oh, well, I'll tell you what, the tolerance and hence the, you know, when you make, when you ban one group of people for criticizing some politically correct sacred cow, and then you allow another side to openly put people's pictures up and say, we want to kill this person. That's an editorial decision and you should definitely be held liable for that. And it's only a matter of time before enough people are victimized by this system of, of social media embracing and enabling Antifa and journalists. There's certain very unethical, often mentally ill journals, a certain segment of them that are openly embracing and enabling and even colluding with members of Antifa to hurt people. Absolutely, but here's one thing I will say though, I was talking more so in the long game. You don't need any free speech restrictions to deal with Antifa. I'll tell you why. They don't have any ideas to censor. They're pure reaction. They're pure totes of the system. So what they do is, you know, they're basically coalescing with the oligarchs. So we have this, this kind of unity where you have the court system being used to shut down decent everyday Americans expressing their opinions. You got the media demonizing them and getting them fired from their jobs as retaliation, you know, Soviet, South, the Soviets and that. And then you also have the extra legal branch of this repression, which is of course the Antifa. The problem is most people despise them. The solution to the Antifa problem is not a speech one. It's well a physical one. That's the only language that they want to debate in. So well, well, I don't I don't disagree with most of what you said there, but at the same time, like, okay, we don't it's not fundamentally a speech problem. The Antifa's because they don't have ideas. All right. Well, it's really not like a physical confrontation problem either because put us in a confrontation with these people and will mop the damn floor with them, right. But of course, like it doesn't happen that way because they come out they they basically monitor themselves in brawls with us and then our guys go to jail, which is and then their media allies pick up the slack by turning us into terrorists. Yeah, oh, absolutely. Like there's there's there's a lot of moving parts to the thing, right. And so, oh, absolutely. No, you're totally right. And the police are or collaborators in that sense. And we see this in every state, particularly the blue states, the police are in on it. Like they will essentially allow them to attack you. I mean, they're so the pigs are so bold that in Portland, they were willing to risk a public relations nightmare by letting these. Noodle armed, you know, pierced nose freaks and transvestites go and attack, you know, flag waving maggot guys or whatever of the Patriot prayer, we just want to go outside and pray. I mean, think of that from a from a perspective of the city of Portland, but the point the point I'm making is that yeah, that is definitely a problem of power. Right. Now, I'm not saying we should we need to take political power and I do agree we need our own media. Media organs to push our ideology, just like they have theirs to push theirs. So there was nothing wrong with that. When I am saying is that, you know, having a some kind of restriction on free speech against the anti foot that isn't criminal. Like if they want to criticize capitalism from the Bernie Sanders point, that's kind of harmless. What they're what the problem is with them is that they don't have any ideas and they're being enabled by people and power. These are just street criminals. It would be like going after MS 13 or the or the crypts and saying we're going to take your free speech away. It would be pointless. This is just a paramilitary organization being used by our government, by our media class, by our plutocracy specifically. To shut down political dissidents. I mean, it's not crazy. Look at Germany. Haiko Moss, the minister in Germany, part of the Merkel regime, when those German nationals went out there, thousands of them in a totally sporadic grassroots protest against immigration. When they went out, Haiko Moss, the fucking leader, one of the top leaders in Germany goes out and say, hey, Germany, you got to go help anti foot, put this protest down. So like, you know, it's mainly a problem of global homo, not a free speech. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath waters all I'm saying. All right. What about all right. So you brought up the Republican party thing that that guy who I guess that was what was at Laura Lumer got up there, right? Is that who that was? Yeah. Yeah. And so she gets up there and I and I guess that was sort of the point. I didn't get to hear what she said because some because some representative or senator sort of doing his action, or action, or voice, right? He was just trying to shut her up in the idea being that the Republicans are not standing for our free speech while the Democrats are standing for the free speech of their degenerate friends who are interrupting the cabinet hearings. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the cabinet hearings and cabinet was just some cuck and and yet the Democrats are allowing these, you know, asrute turf activists to go in there and interrupt the hearings. Meanwhile, the GOP with one of their own constituents, one of their own voters. Silences them essentially. Yeah. Right. And not just allowing them, but actually paying them is my understanding of it. It seemed like a pretty coordinated thing. The, the, the cabinet interruptions while as you point out, you know, it's not the DNC. It's, it's of course, it's, it's Tom Steyer. It's George Soros. It's what's that other one. Heim Saban. These, these, these, these Jews, these oligarchs, these plutocrats, these billionaires working in the finance industry. They're the ones that finance both the DNC and also the astro turf organizations. Yeah. Absolutely. Real quick. I think we're getting a bit of an echo when you're talking. From me. Okay. Hold on. Let me hold on a second. I'll just take the distraction. I was getting. Yeah. If, if I, I'll just respond to what you're saying. I mean, my view of it is, yeah, I agree with you. Yeah. It's the, you know, whoever's financing the DNC is financing the, the, the, the shit bags that show up and create all the problems. Right. Yeah. And the Republican party does not have the same relationship with their extremists. And so they will drown us out if we decide to show up and try to interrupt something on the other side. Now, I, there is probably not so long ago, even I, I would have completely agreed with you. But I've been reconsidering this recently because as the, as the left is doing all of these things is auntie, is rioting in the streets and, and calling, and calling ICE agents, the N word and, and setting fires and, and all the things that they're doing and interrupting hearings. I think it's exceedingly good politics to tie all of that crap to the Democrat party. And, and for the Republicans to say, look at us, we're the, we're the adults in the room and we're not engaging in this behavior. And so, while I do think there's a certain benefit to us talking about forbidden things on the internet, and there's a certain benefit to us having our more outlandish sort of demonstrations, I can see the political wisdom of the Republican party distancing themselves from those elements in order to maintain control of the government, which I view to be absolutely imperative. I, I am terrified that if the Democrats retake control the federal government, you could forget about the first and second amendments. All our, all our talk about, should we censor our enemies is going to go right out the window because this program will absolutely be banned and, and will be relegated to the dark web if we're, if we're lucky enough to survive the thing and they'll take any legal means by which we have to defend ourselves out of our hands. And so, as repulsive of certain elements of the Republican party may be, I view it as exceedingly important for them to remain in power. And so I'm willing to forgive them for a certain degree of punching right. What do you say that? I actually, well, I don't, I don't think the Republican party is not like they're not representing us. That's, that's just my view. But it's also another thing that's important is that they're not like all the things you mentioned, the censorship, the frivolous lawsuits, people going to jail unfairly for their ideology. That shit's already happening. The, just, just, just to give you an example, the Congressman representing Charlottesville is a Republican. Has he said one word about, I'm not even talking about, you know, endorsing these ideas, just the rule of law. As he said one word about the James Field case where fields tried to appeal to the, he tried to play with the judge to move his case out of Charlottesville. He's not going to get a fair trial. They everyone knows it and culture even said so. But the problem is that they want to, in the case of fields, it's a, it's the, the, the Department of Justice controlled in name by Jeff Sessions is putting him on capital punishment charges, 30 hate crime charges from our Republican government. So I'm not saying they have to endorse us or do anything like that. I'm saying don't execute us for political crimes. That's what I'm saying. Well, it's, it's, it's a, that's a reasonable request. Don't get me wrong. But if I were a Republican trying to get votes in Charlottesville, I probably would not come to the aid of James fields. And though I care deeply for the men who are still in those cages that I used to share with them, I think the border wall is more important than the lives of any of us. And so I'm, I'm seeing the wisdom of, okay, well, yeah, you're a Republican in Charlottesville. Well, that's a pretty unique thing. The Republican party didn't even run candidates for local offices in that city. That's, that's fairly unique to have a Republican representing that district. And so why would you want to screw it up? I don't think that a member of the House of Representatives is, is even capable of stopping that prosecution. All he could do is throw himself upon the altar of righteousness and sacrifice his position to the Democrats. Well, I disagree. Well, first of all, probably 99% of the Nationalist marchers in Charlottesville voted for Republicans and Trump specifically for Trump. Of course. A second of all, 100% of the people demonstrating against the Nationalists will never ever vote for a Republican. So those people aren't his constituents. His, his constituent is James Field. So his constituent is the average is the average voter, right? And so even even in a situation where, okay, you know, look, anybody who's even watching Fox News and I think that the average Fox News viewers probably better informed than the MSNBC viewer, right? Fox News was not about to come to our aid. And I think that a lot of people at Fox News probably had a better idea of what was going on than they'll willing to let on. I mean, Tucker Carlson just the other day said that on the flow is the primary perpetrator of violence at these events, right? And so, you know, they're aware of these things. But there's a huge cost associated with saying it and they're trying to be, in my opinion, you know, the, the well intentioned actors anyway. And I realize that there are bad intention people involved in this. But the well intentioned people are saying to themselves, I, if, if I go to bat for these guys, I'm going to get taken down that, that I am not going to be able to do anything else. And so sorry soldier, you've got to take one for the team. Well, I've got to push back on that because if basically everyone that is in the political establishment of the Republican party, other than Donald Trump is all about, um, uh, trainees for low taxes and Israeli wars. That is the consensus in the Republican party ideologically speaking. It's because they're being bribed by the same people that, that bribed the Democrats. So, uh, the Republican party's policy isn't any thing noble. It's money. That's why you see this new op ed in the New York Times from an anonymous source praising, uh, more military expenditure, more, uh, more low taxes for billionaires that are destroying our country, more things like that. And at the same time bragging, these are again, this is obviously an ideological Republican bragging about, you know, uh, basically being a veto on the president's trade and immigration agenda, which are the two things that got him elected by the people. So the Republican party doesn't just not represent other than Trump. It doesn't just not represent, you know, alt-right people being railroaded. It doesn't represent the people that vote that vote for them. So the people that voted for Donald Trump in the president. So, uh, I think they're almost worse than useless. Yeah. Well, but, but just try to think through the mechanics of this thing for a second, right? So, okay. Now, I think you'll agree with me that the anonymous op-ed author in there is probably a Jew, right? I think I'd probably go ahead. I think it's Larry Cudlow personally. You think it's very Larry Cudlow, huh? I'm on the news even forward. The guy who's the speechwriter for vice president. No, no, he said he said he was a top guy in, uh, in the cabinet, implying that I'm almost certain it's Larry Cudlow. I'll tell you my theory here. Just real quick. So Larry Cudlow recently was photographed with, um, uh, Peter Bremelow from V-Dare. And the Udin Press will was making a big stink about this. You know, I guess they're just like personal friends or something. So, uh, what came after my theory is that he said to these media people like, hey, bury this story in an exchange. I'll give you this op-ed. That's my theory. Okay. Um, all right. Well, that's a fine theory. But so Donald Trump is in the White House. He appoints a bunch of people and he makes a bad choice in the course of that and has somebody, whether it's Cudlow or somebody else. Underlining subverting his administration. Okay. If Donald Trump is not in the White House, then he, then he doesn't have the option of extricating, uh, himself from that subversion. Right. You just have Hillary Clinton there instead. Uh, if, if, if Donald Trump is in the White House and you have a Democrat Congress and a, you know, then they impeached Donald Trump and you get Mike Pence and something tells me that Mike Pence is not going to be better than Donald Trump. It matters. What party, it matters. What party is in control? And, uh, and I have a, I really have a hard time. Like you could, you could poke holes in what the debt went in, in, in the actions of individual Republicans. You can do that. And, and that's easy enough to do. You know, if I was so inclined, I could do that all day. Right. But at the same time, uh, the, the good elements, whatever, whatever elements that we do appreciate about it, whatever, um, whatever obstruction they're providing to the paving over of this country. You know, those things are all lost if they don't hold power in Congress. And so I've gone so far as to say, you know, the, the, the lion cocksucker prosecutor who knew that I was being framed for a crime and put me through to ring her for a year anyway. If I had to choose between voting for that guy and voting for a Democrat, I'd vote for the piece of shit who wrongly prosecuted me simply to keep partisan control of the institutions. And you can fight within the party, uh, in, in order to weed out the worst elements, but if the Democrats are in control, I mean, we're, we're on a fast track to martial conflict in that instance. And I mean, I know there's a lot of people that that's what they want. But, you know, I have to see in what that, you know, seeing what it looks like when order breaks down last year, I, I am really averse to that. Well, I totally see a lot of what you're saying. I, I definitely have like this is kind of an inversion of what you're saying before that I used to think that way too. But here's the problem. So the real reason why the Republican controlled Congress hasn't impeached Trump yet. The real reason why the Paul Ryan wing, which is the majority of Congress, they haven't impeached Trump because they know that they're at the very least their voters will punish them in the election coming up. Yeah, and at the, and at the very worst, people will march to Washington and go and kill them. Like, they're not talking about alt right people. I'm talking about regular good old boy red cap magga guys from Tennessee and all these places. They're just going to start getting in their cars, moving up to Washington and basically create American revolution number two. So are the Donald began to hate. Yeah, so if, if the Democrats by some way get control of Congress and try to impeach Trump, they better watch out because they're going to really, well, they're going to, they're going to create a civil war because Trump has a cult of personality people. The vast majority of Americans don't like the Republican party. What they like is Trump. They like Trump's agenda, not the Republican agenda. So when it comes to this, this whole thing about, you know, replacing him with Mike Pence and hoping no one notices. Oh boy, people are definitely going to notice and it will be the end of America. So I think they know better, you know, there's still some smart people in the government. The, the sole reason why they had a Mueller hasn't taken Trump down yet is this very thing. I remember seeing a, I believe it was some kind of CIA former CIA analyst or something. He's on the Bill Marshall. And he said that a military guy, guy in the military said, hey, what would happen if we try to impeach Trump? And basically what the guy said was like, well, we're going to have a civil war. So people inside of the deep state already know that, that they can't get away with that. I think they might do like a like a symbolic attempt at impeaching Trump if the Democrats win. But I think Trump will beat it back and he'll come out of it more radical than ever before. Yeah, I could, I could certainly see that happening. I mean, I don't think if you, if you listen to the, the people who follow these things closer than I do, you know, there's, there's a possibility of Democrats regaining control of the house, but it's fairly unlikely that they're going to regain control of the Senate in this, in this midterm election. And so the position that they would be in come 2019, if they were so lucky, would be that they could start impeachment, but the Senate is the judge of that. And so it would ultimately be unsuccessful. Unless, of course, you know, Mitch McConnell decided to go scorched earth. And I think that that's somewhat less than likely. However, what you just spelled out here is if X, Y and Z happens, there will be a civil war. Now, in my study of Jewish, destruction of white societies, it seems to me like that would not be there worse outcome. I mean, you know, when, I'm sorry, when the trusted flaggers trying to do ill to white people, what, what they love to do best is to get us to fight one another. And it seems to me like an American civil war would be like sort of a fantastic way to accomplish that. If you, if you can't get us to go to war with Russia, then getting us to go to war internally would sort of be the next best bet. Don't you think? Yeah, but it also polarizes the country like in the case of the Ukraine, you know, when the, when they did a coup d'état against Yannickovich, what happened? Well, the people that like Yannickovich broke away and created their own country using force and people generic. Which one? Yannickovich. Oh, whatever, but anyway, yeah, the people, the Russian, the Russian speakers that that voted for him that elected him in a fair and democratic election. They just broke away and created their own country. The problem in the United States having a civil war from the oligarchs and the Jews, the Jewish plutocracy point of view is that it would be the end of liberalism. So liberalism is actually a more effective tool of controlling people than good old fashioned authoritarianism in the, you know, in like the North Korean sense, because liberalism gives people the illusion of freedom even when they don't have it. So once that illusions gone, suddenly people will see you, you know, the system for what it is the system, they'll see the ugly Yenta with the makeup off and they're not going to like what they see. I don't think they want to risk that. But then again, liberalism in global homo is dying worldwide. I mean, that's why you know, we saw today that they call them the Brazilian Donald Trump. He's very like a like a populist, like an old school, like strong man. And they tried to assassinate him. And if you think it was just that little fucking mystery me guy that tried to assassinate him, think again, that was obviously coordinated by the establishment in Brazil, because this is following a massive purge by Facebook and other social media companies against his campaign. And then they looked down millions of accounts in Brazil supporting this man. So this is clearly election meddling that's pouring into just good old fashioned assassination. So liberalism is dying worldwide. A civil war. I don't think our government would survive it. That's that's kind of the idea, right? I mean, what I'm looking at what what it seems to me is you're counting on these people to behave in what you perceive to be a rational way. And it seems to me that they're doing all these catastrophically destructive things, which in some cases, you know, help us out long term, however much they might diminish us in the immediate, right? And so, you know, I don't think it's at all outside the realm of possibility or even likelihood that, you know, Democrats take control of the House and try to impeach Trump fail and then use that, you know, in 2020 as something to run on. Yeah, we tried to get rid of them. Let's get rid of them during the election, right? Or, you know, we need we need a reput, we need a Democrat Senate in case he wins the election, right? And they would do it. I like everything that they've done is, you know, playing chicken with these people, it turns out is exceedingly dangerous, right? I mean, I don't see I haven't seen these people blink once. I disagree. I think the overreach, the very precedent of shutting down some, you know, it's basically a circus in four wars. The precedent of shutting that down in front of the eyes of millions of people in the way that they did it. So overt, I think that's a sign of desperation and fear. I think our rulers are afraid of us, like really, really afraid. And I think that some of the stuff, yeah, like I was saying this on on gab when there was someone trying to, you know, like, like say this and that. What I was saying is that listen, we've already won the information more. We've already won the consciousness of the public. What's lacking is connecting that to political will. We don't have a political vehicle for this consciousness. So what the elites are doing to the people of America right now is they're trying to use violence, wrongful imprisonment and censorship to prevent the connection of the popular consciousness with the political will. And if you look at any society, any regime, any late stage government that tries to do this, it always blows up in their face. So if they try to impeach Trump, which I predict they're going to try, they're going to do like a symbolic attempted impeachment, probably by next year. It's going to fail. And you're probably right. They're going to run on that in 2020 and Trump is going to beat them again. He's going to come out of that stronger than before. That's my my prediction here. I'm not exactly miss Cleo, but you know, it's just like a scientific hypothesis. Do you see no value in keeping the House of Representatives in Republican hands seeing that on the horizon? I actually after seeing what a Republican judiciary Republican executive office and a Republican Congress have been doing the last three years to two since 2016 after seeing that I actually don't see the value. But things when it comes to free speech stuff are worse now than they were under Obama. And that's because it's not because Obama matters or the Republican Congress matters. It's because we're talking and people are listening and it doesn't matter if you're living in revolutionary France or King George's America or Adolf Hitler's Third Reich or 2018 America under the Republican party. Any time the people enough of the people start to become self aware and start to question the system and whether the system needs to go. You're always going to get the same exact reaction. Olgaarks will use violence to shut the people down. Well, but but what we when you talk about the free speech stuff, we're seeing that happen in the private sector, right. There's not the Republican party doing that. The Republican party isn't cracking down on speech. The these are private sector companies run by enemies of the Republican party and sure it took them until Alex Jones got censored to say something about it. But then you had Donald Trump go out to a campaign rally and say we're not going to allow this to happen in Jeff Sessions open up an investigation and then and then you know Republican senators grilling a dorsi in Sandberg. Well, there's a few of them doing that, but right. And how many Democrats are doing it and how many Democrats? Oh, you're totally right. Now there is a couple of Republicans that were doing their job. The problem is the vast majority of them weren't. I mean, the point I was making is that it makes no difference. Like you said, this is done by the private sector. These are private Jewish capitalists that are reengineering our society and taking our destroying the Constitution. And the Republican party is sitting there with their dicks in their hands refusing to do anything because one, the real reason because they're bribed their plutocrats, they're corrupt. And to the fake reason they give is some kind of lofty markets bullshit, where somehow Jack Dorsey says, yes, Twitter is the public square. And then you get people like Mark Rubio going out there saying Twitter isn't the public square. I mean, half of the Republicans were going along with the nonsense about the public. With the nonsense about Russia and foreign interference. I mean, you saw that too, right? Like, yeah, like they just don't care these guys. Well, don't get me wrong. I don't think that Marco Rubio is on our side. Right. I mean, everybody already knows that that. So let's start with something that I think everyone of us would agree with. Oh my shoes. Right. Everybody knows who runs. Wow, that's beautiful. Well, everybody knows who Marco Rubio is. Right. And I don't I don't suspect that Marco Rubio individually is going to do anything to help us. But that's not the point that I'm getting at. Right. If if the Republican party is in power, then your primary Marco Rubio and get Marco Rubio out there, out of there. If the Democrat party is in power, then this is no longer becomes a question of what the private sector does. Right. This becomes, you know, if the Democrat party is in power, then Andrew Torba making a competing platform does nothing to help us because then the federal government is going to come after us for our words. Well, I disagree. I think the private sector is doing its job in trying to shut down gab. You got the media for roging it with propaganda. They're constantly attacking it into fame and gab and the platform with propaganda and Andrew Torba personally to their attacking gab when it comes to their domain host, they're attacking it with their payment processors. It's actually a matter of time in my opinion, unless we come up with some novel solutions. It's a matter of time if we keep relying on any Silicon Valley company that, you know, these last little little islands of free speech are taken away. But, you know, back to the thing about the Republicans, I actually, if you can primary the vast majority of Republicans and replace them with like mega people that want to actually execute the agenda that Donald Trump ran on. And people voted for and elected them on. I totally agree. Yeah, I would be down with that Republican party. You know, I know James Alsup ran as a conservative as a GOP guy. I would have voted for him, of course. What I'm what I'm also saying, though, is that the people in Congress now, some of them that aren't going to get primaried. Those guys are possibly worse than nothing because they they low people to sleep into thinking, oh, the Republicans got my back. And then when you actually need them to do something, they don't do diddily shit. And again, to quote Tucker Carlson, what's the point of voting for them? The point of voting for them is, okay, so you say like, okay, James Alsup, you would have voted for him. Well, you say James Alsup gets into the house of representatives. Well, James Alsup ain't going to be able to do nothing in the house of representatives if he's in a minority party. And so like for anything James Alsup wants to do to have any impact, he has to be in the in the governing majority. And so even if some of the people that James Alsup has in his party suck, James Alsup is more powerful. If those sucky Republicans are empowered, don't you get that? Well, the Republicans are in power now. And I've seen no movement on Steve King's immigration bill. I've seen no movement on the raise act, no movement on Stephen Miller's proposals, which he put out there in a press conference. Calling on Congress to act, no movement. And this is the Republican controlled Congress. Right, but it's a Republican controlled Congress with what 51 votes in the Senate, right? It's not 60. So I get it that McConnell should have gone nuclear a long time ago on legislation. He should have done that sadly. It didn't happen. I'm confident I am exceedingly confident that we're a lot better off with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court than we would be with anybody that Hillary Clinton would have picked or any or even anybody that a a a Democrat Senate would confirm with Donald Trump as president. Right. And so like the party makeup of the of the government is a profoundly important thing. And so like the fact that they haven't done a bunch of things that you want in the year and change that Donald Trump has been president of the United States doesn't diminish the mechanics of this thing. You know what I'm saying? So like it and by the way, the party is also waiting to find out if Donald Trump has been successful in changing culture too. So like all these people, when Donald Trump got elected, a lot of the Republican party, even good meeting people thought like, okay, this is kind of a fluke. This is going to be a disaster. We're going to get voted out of office. Maybe if we oppose him, we can survive the next election. Right. This is what's always at the top of these guys minds sadly. And so if if Donald Trump is successful in keeping his majorities at this November, which is coming up real fast, everybody remember that. If he's successful in keeping Republican majorities, I suspect that elements of the Republican party, which were hesitant to embrace him is because is in part because they've still got they lick their finger and wait and fit a window blow, which which happens this November. And so like when the win blows this November, if if people come out and they vote Republican and they maintain control, it's a measure of success for the president. And then they have a lot of incentive to get on board with him, right. The basic point I'm making is that the people in the Republican party in Washington, the pool of people that Trump has to appoint to different offices are scum. And those people are not loyal to the American people and they are just as bad in my opinion, many of these people are just as bad as Democrats in most issues, the ones we care about at least. So what I think Donald Trump should do is he should fire everyone that's working for him, except some of the generals because he needs those guys to stave off a military coup. But other than that, he should fire everyone else and start appointing people that actually voted for him. None of those people that are being staffed in his cabinet probably voted for maybe one or two did, but do you really think like that guy, Rinsey Prebus, who's his former chief of staff, you think that guy voted for Trump? No. You think Larry Cudlow, even all these all these snakes and serpents that are all around him, man promised to drain the swamp and yet he's the loneliest man in Washington. So he needs to basically purge the entire Republican party, all these think tank creatures that are that have found their way into his administration and then go the New York Times bragging about how they're subverting our country's president and his agenda. He's get rid of those people. I don't care about that Republican party. That Republican party does not represent our interest in any way. We need to have he needs to go to every state where there's actual Trump fans that's outside of Washington DC. You're not going to find any Trump fans within a hundred miles within 10 miles of Washington DC. Okay, so he needs to go find people that are Trump fans. There's plenty of skilled engineers and intellectuals and all types of people and appoint them to offices so that they can actually put his agenda in a place. That seems like a reasonable request. And the more power he amasses, the better a position he's going to be in to do that. I mean, Donald Trump is a force of his own, you know, that is distinct from the Republican party establishment, of course. And so it and it's a new phenomenon in this country, at least recently. Right. And so it's not like it's not like there's a bunch of pre vetted people already to go and occupy these positions. And of course, when you're when you're in the position that Donald Trump is that you're opposed by some of the most powerful people in the world. You know, assigning people to positions on the on the request of people like Ryan's previous, you know, is probably a prudent administrative act. When you're and as and look, look at what's happening in the Republican primaries leading leading up to the midterms. Okay. Just about everybody that Donald Trump has endorsed in a primary has won. He's a kingmaker in the Republican party. He's got now when you do approval polling within the party. He's 90 plus percent approval within the Republican party. The Democrats hate him, of course. But within the party, he's got 90 plus percent approval. And his his primary picks are going on to win their primaries. Now, if those people go win the general elections, then those people are now in the House of Representatives. They're building up a power base and shockingly enough like this doesn't happen right away. I mean, the guy hasn't the guy has not been in office for two years, right? So like, you know, I understand that we're like in the sort of the late stages of a thing and we're in kind of a hurry and everything that he hasn't done, which I which he could have done is a major disappointment to me and whatnot. But like, you know, the things that your the things that you're outlining as problems are things that can only be solved. If the Republican party maintains control of the federal government, if they lose control of the federal government, he'll never have the opportunity to to change these things. Well, as I see it right now, Republican or Democrat, the only power he has to change anything is executive orders. And that's not dependent on Congress. The only things that he's done that are good, like getting out of the TPP and, you know, the immigration bands, stuff like that. Those things are done via executive executive order. And I think he ought to put an executive order on the table to regulate social media as well. GOP or Democrat, the Congress is not. This is the problem of capitalism that I have is that ever since the 1970s, when neoliberalism really took off and these these corporate monopolies, these capitalist monopolies really started to become powerful through globalization. And since that's happened, Congress's and parliaments are just novelties. They don't have any power over these entities. The entities have power over them. I mean, look at Congress. Do you think the men and women of Congress are the best our country can offer or even our race can offer? No, they're not even in the bottom 10%. They're the bottom of the barrel, most corrupt scum in America, Republican and Democrat. There's a few exceptions like Steve King. You know, I even like the Democrat Joe Manchin a little bit. But the vast majority of these people are career centrators that don't give a flying fuck about us because the new normal and neoliberalism is liberal technocracy, a liberal consensus. That means that democracy had died a long time ago, in my opinion. You see us in Europe too, by the way. Well, but you know, my understanding of like European politics is like when they when they when they have their parliamentary or legislative elections, like they have to form a government or they have a a runoff election or something like that. Is that does that sound right to you guys? Well, it depends on the country, but yeah. But like they they require a governing majority otherwise they have to go back to the polls. You know, yeah, I know that the France definitely does that. Right. We don't do this in the United States. And in my opinion, it's catastrophically destructive. Like I I used to look at that system and say like, well, what the hell? Why don't you just take what you have? And I'm realizing why is that if you don't have one party or or a coalition party in control of the government, then the government can't function. But that's the constitution of the United States. It's the way that it works. And so short of getting three four to the state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment. That's what we're stuck with. And if you want things to get done, like you're complaining about things not happening fast enough. And that is that is, don't get me wrong. Again, somebody in the chat said, dude, the GOP isn't the Patriots that can't well thinks they are. This is not what I think. Right. Like I'm just talking about the mechanics of how the government works without a governing majority. You can't do things. And so if there are things that you want done and there's somebody at the top of this thing that you think might want to do them, well, then his party has to be in control of the government. That's just the physics of the thing. In my opinion, the only alternative to that. And maybe that's what you want is like is the complete breakdown of order and martial conflict. And again, like, don't get me wrong. I realize that that might be better than some of our alternatives. I mean, that might be the second best thing that we could do even. But again, after having seen what it looks like when order breaks down last year, I'm so incredibly averse to that. I mean, without the Republican party and power, we have the Democrats of power. And then, and then we're, and then we're on a collusion cross. But I think it's exceedingly unwise to think that the Democratic party will take any degree of power or even just, you know, obstruct the president with a majority in the house, even if they don't control the government. Like all the things that you're complaining about Trump not doing are certainly not going to get done with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. If they take control of the Senate, they will definitely impeach him. And, you know, and we'll be and we'll be looking at all of these other problems. It's not that I, it's not that I think that. I mean, what are you seeing as the alternative solution? I guess is what I'm saying here, because if you're talking about, OK, well, it's the media. It's the billionaires. It's this and it's that. Well, you can't, you can't expropriate the property of the billionaires, except through government force or insurrection. Those are the only two choices that you have to do that. You can't take over the media unless you're going to go right andy lack a check or storm the building. Unless, of course, there were a Republican party starts, you know, or, or, well, who cares what party unless the federal government goes in and starts regulating these institutions. It's government force or private sector forces the only way that we're going to deal with this. And if we want it to be, if we don't want it to be private sector violence, then it would seem to me that we need a governing majority. Well, I think that power comes from the populace. So Trump really blew it in not I think Trump keeps them hot with his little, you know, he does his little tours. Am I, is my a mic on? Yeah. OK. So he does his little tours and his little events regos every state and has rallies still, which is great. But what he needs to do is he needs to do like, you know, America today is demographically almost a third world country. So in a third world country, you got to do politics, third world style. He needs to get a million red hats to go to Washington DC and pressure the government to do his agenda. He's not going to get it talking to Paul Ryan. It's never going to happen. And, you know, if there was a time to do that, that time is quickly vanishing the elections in 2018 of history is proven correctly. The Democrats will at least win the house, possibly not, but, you know, the point is that all that he had the Republicans had all the government and they didn't do anything. So he needs to activate the people. He needs to get people power. I'll tell you why that works. So in Italy, we see there's some action being taken on the immigration problem there. Now, the oligarch that traditionally runs Italy as pre as a kingmaker is a burloscony. So what happened was that after the murder of that girl and then the retaliation by Luca Triani, we shot a bunch of people that set off a gunpowder there. Thousands of fascists were were were swarming the streets of Rome and all the major cities in Italy. The government was afraid. So by showing that kind of popular power in the street protest power, the government was formed was with the people burloscone and his people were basically forced to give the population some concessions. And that's how we got this five star movement and league coalition government. I predict that in Germany right now with these undying protests with thousands and thousands of people out in the streets, you're going to get some concessions in Germany too. In the United States without a populist, some kind of populist movement united behind a leader. Trump has the power. He has the hearts and minds of the people. He needs to activate them to come out in the street and say we are Trump fans. You know, I mean, how look at Erdogan in Turkey. He had a military coup chasing him in his airplane. He had to leave the country. And what did he do? He went on his little I think he did like a Paris coper, some shit where he told all of his all of his supporters to come out in the street and resist the coup. That's exactly what they did and he came back a king. So the point I'm making here is that without some kind of power or or some kind of mass movement that is active and flexes its bicep, you're never going to get anything from the government. It's not our government. Our government sees us as their enemy. So, and when I say us, I'm not even talking about any particular racialist view or anything. I'm talking about just the average American people average white American, you know, the government sees them as the enemy. So the point I'm making is that without activating showing that these people are ready to fight for the rights and fight for their for the agenda that they voted for, you're never going to get anything from this government except maybe like a symbolic thing. I I'm predicting right now that this Jeff Sessions investigation on the social media companies. Nothing's going to come out of that. They're going to be talking about it until the midterms to activate the basic old vote. And then when that's done, they're not going to do did we shit. That's my prediction. I could be very wrong, but I don't have too much faith in that now on the other hand, I do think that Trump could personally intervene with an executive order of some sorts or with something like that and do something about the social media companies, but I don't have any trusted rod Rosenstein's Department of Justice. Well, look, you know, the existing Republican party is pretty unlikely to pass Paul Nealins shall not censor legislation. I'll go ahead and grant you that. But you know, it's only Donald Trump can issue an executive order and say Facebook, you're no longer allowed to ban people for saying nigger, right? It's just not going to happen. So, but what what are the options? You know, Jeff Sessions is looking at the social media issue as an antitrust problem and that's a good idea. I would say that perhaps Trump could issue an executive order. You know, there was Paul Nealins came up with and I think and I think Matt gets actually filed to complaints with the Federal Elections Commission against against Twitter. Because they're censoring one side of the conversation and that's they're talking about that being an in kind contribution to the Democrat party. And so like those those are things that can absolutely happen. But of course, if Democrats take control, then none of those things are going to happen because Democrats benefit from the censorship, right? Right. Right. And Republicans don't care because they're not being you know, but like Republicans are doing this right now. And when you said before like, do Republicans have control the government? Well, they don't get they had they had a bad. Majority in the Senate, they need 60 votes. That's the mechanics of the thing, right? And not all of our guys are in not not everybody in the Republican party is our guys. Yeah, fine. Makes perfect sense. But what we just went through is Donald Trump becoming a kingmaker in Republican primaries. Right. It had it doesn't happen very fast. Right. And so these are all the things that are in the process of happening now, you said without a mass movement to show these people that we're willing to fight. Okay, I can grant some legitimacy to that. We attempted to show that last August. And what happened was Jacob Goodwin got a decade in prison. Alex Raymo's got six years. I spent the hundred and seven days in jail without bond or probable cause and lost a year of my life. I have all in the verge of bankruptcy as a result. And and Daniel Borden still has yet to be sentenced Richard Prince didn't got four years and then, you know, after, you know, the T W P decided to defend themselves who as a walked into a Richard Spencer event. You know, half the movement through them under the bus and people stopped going out into the streets for the most part. No, no, I totally, I totally agree, but that that is a separate issue. But yeah, no, I, I, you're saying without a mass movement. Well, we don't have a mass movement. Okay. And so what, what are the options that we have? Because at my opinion, and maybe maybe you see it differently than me, I feel like we're on a very short timeline here. I think we're in a very late stages of something very bad. And so I'm looking at what can we do at each step of the way to buy ourselves as much time as possible. You know what I'm saying? Somebody, somebody said in the in the chat before that I'm not taking demographics into consideration. Maybe you should listen to a radical agenda. I have no idea where these people fucking hurt my name. If they think I'm not considering demographics. You want to, if you could turn about demographics, if the Republicans are not in control, then the immigration is certainly not going to be restricted in a slightest bit. All of these things absolutely hinge on Republican control of the federal government. And, and there's no other way for it to happen because we do not have the power that you just illustrated for us to do it in any other fashion. No, I completely, real quick guys, this is a really good conversation and I hope we can get back to it. There's been some super chats piling up for about an hour and I want to, I want to make sure the people are getting hurt from the vicious for $10. I've been doing good work with the GDL. I believe he's referring to the Goyom defense league. What are your thoughts on the GDL? I answered a question on this earlier during the news show on Heal Turn News. I frankly don't know enough about them in order to give, to give an informed opinion on that. Do you guys have thoughts on the Goyom defense? I don't know what that is honestly. I'm sorry. What was that? The Goyom defense league, the GDL. I mean, the name is good, but I don't know what the name. I hope somebody redskins me on that because I would be interested in hard work about them lately. From Dan Mann, I appreciate you Dan Mann for $2. Can't well, are you going to throw us some Austrian economics striker, Redney Mises or Rothbard lately? For me personally, I think that if you have a free market environment that all sorts of wonderful things can happen, we just don't. I haven't found those ideas particularly useful as of yet. We're in a position where all of the levers of power are being turned in a particular direction. We need to wield those powers in the opposite direction. The theories of how markets fulfill demands better than centrally planned economies. I just don't find that to be particularly useful at present. My view is the a lot of libertarian stuff promoted specifically to young white men as an acceptable alternative to the GDL left is up. Well, it's very convenient. It makes you stop challenging the powerful for power because you just identify as an individual in Lalla land that only cares about, you know, the libertarian principles which are all individualistic. Any, any, I'll just be frank here. This is my main argument for socialism in not the Marxist sense, but the general sense. People and folk that take care of each other will always replace those that don't and we're seeing that right now. There you go. From Mike Baxter for $5 GTK RWN could not agree more from Levov Michigan for $10. Thank you very much. Quickly becoming the best deep dive on the alt-right kudos to all involved. Well, thank you very much from alt-right puppy for $10. I agree with Striker on third positionism, but with Richard Spencer and can't well against free speech. It has never existed. It's just an excuse enemies can use to spread propaganda and undermine those power. Thank you again for that from Bash Hill Billy for $2. Hail Hill, Thurne Hill, Striker. Thanks, boys, for all the great work you do. Also Striker, you should debate Caleb Moutven from RT at the point. He's one of the few remaining tanky leftists. I'm sure it'd be a better debate than meeting the Bronx real quick. I would love to have that guy on. If anybody has contact information, please feel free to DM it to on Twitter or send it to us. We were supposed to have Jason Unru earlier this week. He backed out unfortunately. So if you're if you're available to talk to him on Twitter, please please inform him that we're still looking forward to his appearance on your turn. What do you got Eric? Do you want to say anything on that? Well, RT has like the only leftist that are like the way RT works. It's like a dumping ground for leftists that get purged by Jews. So you know, if you're a leftist who's against the war in Syria and against intervention in Syria, you get dumped onto RT. You get brigade by antifa. I mean, it's a myth that antifa only comes after us. They come after other leftists too. Like Jason Unru was being brigade by antifa perpetually. So I would love to talk to him and really show him what's going on with some of this stuff. And I think he knows on some level. Fair play. Fair play. From Gory Grunt for five dollars, given the thing, not the belly dedicated to trauma. I hope whoever it is that they're doing well. Thank you very much for the five dollars. Gory from Feshecy D. Sinistra for one dollar. Thank you very much. He'll hear you'll turn. He'll strike her. Thanks, Goyce. Broly, good work. You do also striker should do. Oh wait, did I read that he donated again? Oh, okay. Exactly. Thank you very much again. From Richard Dewey for ten dollars. Thank you very much. You guys run a hell of a show. Can Vince come on with can't well keep the shows edgy one for eight a. I like that number. We took that. We're supposed to having Vince on in the future. I think tonight we're probably going to be set with these two gentlemen to very fine gentlemen. But with thought and I know Vince was watching earlier. Big fan and go ahead and like and subscribe his channel if you aren't already. That's the red elephants on YouTube. From curious viewers for one dollar and one cent. If demographics are changing that means that within 20 years. Moment people will be minorities who vote for hate speech laws and gun control. How are we gain control of the establishment with 20 years before we reach the minority threshold. Thank you very much for the question. Oh, I'll throw it to the channel to the panel to answer before we do that. If you want to donate to the program stream labs.com slash you'll turn one. We do take PayPal. It's got Stripe, which is a credit card processor. So if you want to donate, please feel free. That's how you do that. If you if you can support Chris over at Chris can well. Com Christopher can't well. Don't worry. I probably change that in the link. But yeah, if you guys want to feel free to answer that one. Otherwise, I've got a question for you. How do we take over the establishment within 20 years? The way that we take over the establishment within 20 years is we defeat the Democrat party and and we keep them out of power at all costs. And then with the Democrat threat subsided, then we can forward internetian conflict in the Republican party and we do that their primaries. Here you go. Eric, you want to respond? Well, I wanted to kind of respond to, I mean, obviously Chris had a very unique experience to say the least with the shaw, you know, he was the martyr. He was the one that was picked out and tortured by Zog after being framed. So I definitely understand where he's coming from. But what I will say is is this. So the problem of state system and financial and just general political repression is what comes whenever you escalate. So the mere election of Donald Trump was an escalation. That's why our civil liberties and our rights and our free speech is being eroded so quickly in the last two years. I mean, the monumental jump. I mean, you would you could say anything on Twitter two years ago. You go from that to even banning Alex Jones to banning. They fucking banned God free, Elflick forgot six. That was a fucking satire account. I did not know that that's funny. I fucking even banned him. Okay, they de-platformed him. So that kind of rapid supersonic shift in political repression comes after escalation. Like if people didn't want that, they shouldn't have elected Donald Trump. They had to have known that there would have been a response and we're getting it now. Charlottesville was another escalation. There are probably close to 2000 open, a lot of them open national socialists, just all most of them white nationals, a lot of them just free speech activists. Marching in the street and defeating all of the traditional barriers that are put in front of these types of rallies, i.e. the communist paramilitary groups tried to stop the Charlottesville marchers, how they always do. And they got absolutely crushed, physically defeated. The police behave very poorly. There was a lot of people that, you know, so the point I'm making is that Charlottesville is an escalation. So you get the first escalation with Trump, then you get the Charlottesville escalation, taking it up a couple of notches up. Of course, the repression will be equal or no, it won't be equal. The system then escalates one more to put you down. So Charlottesville was an act of revolution. That was an act of national revolution that was permitted. It wasn't no one went there with any intent of illegal activity. All that is nonsense. There's plenty of footage showing that that it was all almost all of the violence was self defense or not even existed like in canton's case, he never even did anything. But the point I'm making is that anytime the closer you get to parrots like playing a video game, right. The more levels you go into the game, the harder it becomes. I mean, I used to remember playing this game. Goals and goblins. You ever play that game? Really old Nintendo game. I know I sound like a bug man right now, but yeah, no, so goals and goblins was this really fucking hard game. It gets to a point where it's like impossible to play it. And I personally never beat it. So the point I'm making is that that's how politics is. Okay, it's impossible to win without lots of sacrifices. It's going to get worse. The closer you get to the prize, that's all I know. I'm not saying I'm not endorsing anything at the moment. I'm still thinking about the blueprint to, you know, that that's good. Like a political angle should be taken, but yeah, that lesson remains. Well, I mean, first things first, let me clarify. I did pepper spray a guy, you know, and that was done and that was done in self defense. That wasn't what I was prosecuted for. And so, but to the strategic point, yeah, like, okay, Donald Trump gets elected. That's a huge escalation that the people have spoken and the permanent Washington trusted flagger class. It decides, okay, we're going to we're going to have to do something to prevent this from being effective at its purpose. And then, okay, Charlottesville, huge escalation, fine. I'm reminded of what Richard Spencer said that Antifa is winning because they're willing to go farther than anybody else. Right. And that happened immediately after Michigan. When the movement turned on the TWP and there was like, okay, everybody, you know, stay off the streets. Now, I'll grant this to the people who had that advocacy. Like as we approach the midterm elections, Antifa looks like fools in the public eye. Right. I mean, they're going, they're like, oh, there's no Nazis for us to attack. We'll go attack the government and the police and and and people who want to go have a prayer group, you know. And that makes them look like assholes. And so we as a movement. We failed, we failed in our game. We lost playing chicken with Antifa, right. So we back down because of whatever reasons that people had and Antifa won playing chicken in the street. But that granted us, in my mind, anyway, a political advantage. And so, all right, use what we have, which is that, you know, the Republican seemed to be, you know, looking pretty good, you know, history tells us that the party out of power, you know, we'll take the house and then in the midterm election that doesn't always happen, but it's usually the case. But there's this extraordinary circumstance of they refuse to condemn the violence of masked anarchists who are setting shit on fire and attacking people. And so, you know, that that seems to be a tool in our possession. And so since we don't have the, the will or the manpower or the men and munitions, what have you to do this in an extra political fashion. You know, the political option that we do have is partisanship, right. And that doesn't solve all of our problems, of course. But as I sort of illustrated prior, you know, it puts us on that path. I'm not hearing, maybe I'm missing something. But I just want to say I'm not seeing a path here in what you're saying, I guess. Okay, I'm not, I'm not, I didn't mention extra legal anything. I'm not saying do anything illegal. I'm saying you're political. I didn't say, okay, yeah. So, yeah. But it's, yeah, I think that, you know, I come from a left wing background. So I've seen the power of having a street movement, a protest movement that has the public square. But we don't have that. We try to do that. We got attacked and jailed. I understand. Yeah. But like that's how it always goes. I'm not, you know, I know that that's a problem. But, um, no, I, I agree on, on a lot of what you're saying. Yeah. But the problem is that, you know, increasingly, this is looking like the only option. That's all I'm saying. Um, and I think also that there's, it doesn't just have to be like we can have a populist movement that isn't just for like, you know, people that are Nazis or whatever. There can be a populist movement that unites many different factions in the United States, which I think is what unite the right try to do. Actually. Um, and, uh, yeah, like that's like one idea that I have. As for the antifa. Yeah, they look terrible. But they have the majority of Americans, if they could, would crush antifa themselves. That's not just us. That's even baby boomer flag waivers that are constantly being told by their TV that antifa are the World War Two soldiers storming Normandy. I see them for themselves. I, I, I think I, I don't know if you, if you've seen this, Chris, but a, uh, Huffington Post journalist named Andy Campbell, who's a J. Dale left this in a liar. He went to Charlottesville on the eve of unite the right to, and he interviewed locals there, people that actually saw what transpired in August 2017. And the locals, he was, he was dismayed because he admitted that the locals were far more afraid of antifa than they were of any Nazi. And he was really angry about that. Of course, no one wrote a piece about that because that's an inconvenient, an inconvenient truth. But, um, the vast majority of Americans already hate antifa. Um, the problem is that they have institutional support. And they also have a lot of journals out there. They're doing propaganda for them. Like, for example, I always hear, uh, you know, the, the journal, the troll journalists on, on Twitter going, oh, antifa's never killed no one. That's a lie. That's a total blatant lie. Um, just in 2007, there was a, a fellow named James Morrison in New Jersey. And he was a military veteran who went to a, uh, to, to a punk rock club. And he was why he, he went to see some, uh, some, some, some metal show or something. And he was wearing a t-shirt with a Confederate flag on it. Some antifas that were at this concert came out and they beat him to death. They murdered him in cold blood over wearing a Confederate flag patch. Um, there's various other cases of this sort that, uh, there's a, uh, on, on, on Gab, I have this pin to actually, as my top thing, it's a rolling stone article about it's, uh, uh, uh, an antifa anti racist group from the metal scene and the punk scene that would, it was basically, uh, going around murdering people across the country for like a decade. So yeah, they're liars. Yeah. Not, not to mention Black Lives Matter has, you know, more has killed more cops than, than, than antifa has killed. I'm sorry, then, uh, then, then, um, then Adam Waffen has total body count, right? Yeah. And the way they, the way they count so-called white supremacist murders, I've actually looked at the, uh, at the way they collect this data. So what they do oftentimes is they'll take like a, you know, like, like a prison gang that happens to use like a swastika tattoo. And then that prison gang will like kill someone in a bank robbery and they'll chalk that the SPL see will chalk it up as, you know, white supremacist ideological murder. Right. You know, I mean, there's another case to school shootings. Yeah. Now I know I call that posting. You know, if, if there's some, uh, one point O's out there, uh, you'll probably remember the band bound for glory. It's a big like RAC band from back in the day. The lead singer from bound for glory, the first lead singer they had was murdered. He was literally killed by sharp. Like, you know, the guys that were getting beat up by Rufio in, uh, in Portland. That, that same group of, of, uh, communist antifus skinheads, they got the lead singer of bound for glory. They, they ambushed him. They kneeled him and they shot him with an SKS rifle execution style. Um, the, the people that did that got off with like a couple of years because the prosecutor supported them. So, um, you know, this, this has been happening for years. Um, I think the reason they haven't killed someone yet in at a rally. I know for a fact that there have been antifa members who have murdered people in the last two years. But I'm not sure how political that is, but regardless. Um, what I will say is that, yeah, they've been doing this shit forever. It's a terrorist group. Yeah. And, and not to mention how, you know, how many unsolved murders are actually attributable to them. You know, there was a guy up here, uh, his name escapes me at the moment. But not too far from where I sit right now. It was a guy who founded like a white power prison gang in New Hampshire, who got assassinated in the, in the parking lot of a Chinese restaurant. Um, you know, less than an hour from where I sit, which gave me nervous, uh, you know, as I was coming home, right? And so, you know, I'm certain that these people are, doing all sorts of things that, uh, they don't want credit for, right? And so there's certainly an exceedingly dangerous group of the violent communist extremists. Yeah. Well, if I could, I think I want to kind of redirect the conversation, because we can go about antifa for a while and believe me, we can talk shit on them all night long. I'm all about that. But I really wanted to kind of dig into some of the fundamental disagreements you guys may have on policy. That's all right. Yeah, sure. Okay. So, um, Dan Mann brought up a little bit about the, uh, the OSH economics. Now, I understand that, you know, you've certainly evolved since, uh, since I started listening to you, Chris. But how would you guys feel? I'll just, I'll just put this out. There's a problem. And I want to hear how each of you would solve it. Um, the Bernie Rose maker relatively valid criticism about the inequality of wealth, just in a pure structural term with the, with the very top echelon controlling any such a disproportionate amount that it's negatively impacted the economy. If you're anywhere outside of the top, one or two percent, I, percentiles of the economy, you haven't seen any real wage growth in the past 40 years and real wealth of the middle class has significantly declined, especially in the past few years. So, what, how would you address the problem of wealth inequality in a society? I'll go with you first, Chris. I don't, I don't view wealth inequality as a problem. I, I think that's a feature, not a bug. Um, you know, the, the fact that there were Jews at the top of our, I'm sorry, trusted flaggers at the top of our economy, screwing things up. You know, that's a problem worth solving. And that, that goes back to sort of what I was saying about the free speech thing, which if you control who's here, you don't have to worry so much about what they're doing. But, you know, I am of the opinion that in a, in a healthy homogenous white society anyway, resources flow where to where they belong, according to a certain natural order. And so a guy who, you know, I don't know, it picks up trash for a living is not entitled to the same things as a guy who commands a real estate empire. And so the, I don't, I don't, I don't view any necessity for, you know, any so-called repair of wealth inequality. Now, that said, if I believe that there's a great deal of stuff going on where, where people are becoming enrichment, and becoming enriched unjustly, and that's certainly a thing worth addressing. But that, I view that as a separate question from, from wealth inequality. I don't want equality. I think equality is a destructive chaotic and, and horrific force that would grind everything that we value to a, to a halt. Okay, so I mean, I, I'm not, obviously, I'm not for a full equality on anything, but I will say this. Let's just use those two examples. So you got a real estate speculator versus a garbage man. For a fundamental practical point of view, the garbage man is what keeps our streets tidy, keeps vermin and, and, and roaches away disease at bay. That's a very important social contribution. We need garbage men. Do we really need people sitting around waiting on empty houses for the price to go up and down and speculating on that? Is that really a more, a, a bigger contribution to society than someone that actually does a productive job like a garbage man in your opinion? Well, what I would say is that I don't think that's what a real estate empire is. I don't think that for the most part, they're just waiting for prices to go up and down, right? They're, they're, in many cases, renting these places to garbage men who, who can't come up with a down payment for a place and then, and thus need to rent a place as opposed to buying one. I don't view, you know, wealthy people as this parasitic class who are sitting around waiting for some way to gyp the public. That's, that's not my understanding of, of how people use wealth. When somebody has money, they're, they're generally interested in acquiring more of it. And, and in order to do that, they need to meet the needs of other people in the marketplace. And so, you know, whether real estate is the best example or not is another question. Now, does the garbage man himself prevents garbage from piling up on our streets? No. There's somebody who runs the trash removal and that person tells people who could not do this by themselves. Here's a truck. Here's how to drive it. These are the places where you need to go pick this up and I'm going to pay you. And the, and the person who organizes that is probably a pretty wealthy person in most instances. Well, you know, that is, that is the case at certain points in certain places, right? And, you know, I'm all for, you know, government policy weeding out corruption or whatever, right? If somebody's going and picking up garbage routes by, by assassinating his competitors, and that's a, that's a reason for the government to step in, right? But like, you know, the garbage man does not keep our streets clean. The person who has the intellect and the managerial skills in the, in the accumulation of capital to, to form a trash removal company and to manage the staff of a trash removal company, he is the one who has a lot of money. He is the one who is ultimately keeping our streets clean. Now, I'm not, I'm not saying that the garbage man is worthless. I'm just saying that he's not entitled to the same rewards. Okay, so most sanitation in the United States is done by the government. In fact, that's kind of a universal thing. I mean, I don't know how it is, you know, in other, maybe there's some exception out there. So, you're not a company that can be for the contracts? Here I pay for private trash pickup. And, and in a lot of places, like the government is sort of like, has some responsibility for it. But in, I think in actually probably most jurisdictions, these are not actually government companies, they're private companies, which are contracted by the government when the government deals with your trash collection, which is not the case in all places. Okay, we can pick a better example if you want. If we want to talk about a gal who waits tables versus a guy who runs a major internet service provider. Internet services, at least presently, a private sector venture, although it enjoys certain benefits as a utility, and we can argue about whether that should be the case. But, you know, the guy who manages the internet service provider probably has a pretty high IQ, probably has some pretty good managerial skills is probably going to college, probably understands a lot. And he is probably entitled to more rewards than a teenager who brings you your BLT, right? Oh, well, see, the problem is there was that sometimes I give your credit because you're not like most libertarians are very pedantic, but you're giving like a very, you know, you're giving your side of the story without being pedantic. I, I like that. And understand I'm not trying to make a, I'm not trying to advocate for anarcho capitalism here, right? I'm trying to, I'm trying to talk about realistic economic situations in the world that we live in. I don't have a whole lot of use for trying to go and whole Rothbardian thing with you. Okay, good. Because that stuff really, really, you know, it's just a hair splitting competition with that. But, you know, okay, so I, I, I, I think that, you know, I've never argued that, you know, waitress and an engineer should be making the same amount of money. The argument I make is that the waitress, you know, maybe, maybe that's like kind of like a, that, that should be a summer job, even though there's a lot of people that are doing this stuff full time and a lot of them are people that have skills that are just unemployed as there's no work because our industry has been hollowed out. And so, you know, I think that's like a lot of people that, you know, maybe in 1988, they had a union job making $25 an hour in 1988 money. And now they're working waiting tables for, you know, a lot less in 2018 money. So there's that problem. But regardless, in an ideal society, yeah, waiting tables would be something kids do, you know, college kids and stuff like that. Yeah, they obviously shouldn't be making, you know, the same amount of money as an engineer or a doctorate like that. What I would say though is that, you know, my view is that everyone that contributes something productive to society, everyone that's willing to work, everyone that's willing to go out there and do that, has is entitled to a living wage in the sense of enough, they make enough money where they can, you know, find shelter, food, just the basics. And I would actually go one further and say this should be for bread-winning men with families. So I think every bread-winning man with a family has a right to a job and not just that, they have a right to a living wage and not just that, but a family wage. So I don't agree that capitalists are this kind of saintly class of people because in traditional Aryan societies, the merchant has always been considered by every one of these civilizations from India to even Wilhelm, the first Germany, the bottom of the barrel. So merchants and middlemen are in a lot of ways parasitical. I'm not saying they're always, they don't sometimes have a role to play, but I think that they're overcompensated. I think that productive people should be compensated more than parasitical people. I think some behavior like user-inspectulation should just be out right outlawed. Well, let's, all right, let's do user-inspectulation then. I mean, I will acknowledge before we even get into this that something like the Federal Reserve is, is, is, is userious in a fashion that warrants outlaw. Okay. You're, you're creating money out of thin air, people are compelled by law to use it, et cetera, et cetera. When we talk about user, we don't pretend that I'm defending that. However, interest is sort of an important part of an economy. So, being able to borrow money is an important function for entrepreneurs. And if it is, forgive me if I, I'm not trying to destroy you, I don't know if this is what you're advocating. But like if, if people go, I hear people advocating things like banning interest. And so, nobody's going to have any incentive to lend you money if they can't get paid for it. Okay. And so, I think that interest is a really important part of an economy. Now, if, let me just let you respond to that before I go into anything else. Okay. So, the question of debt and interest is, is very socially destructive. I'll, I'll tell you why. Because throughout history, from Venice to 21st century America, whenever credit of that sort of that high interest loan credit is unleashed on a population, prices of everything become unaffordable. Certainly, certain economists have actually traced this where you'll notice that it's usually in times of declining wages. For example, late 1970s America to the present day, that when wages stagnate, user is unleashed. That's where we get the credit card becoming normalized in every household. So, the point I'm making is that the need for userry on the level that we have in America and that we have in certain epoches in Western history is usually just the banking class. And to a lesser degree, the capitalist class, because they depend on the banking class, ripping off workers, it's the stop workers from writing due to low wages because they're hungry or because they can't afford anything. So, basically, yeah, the userry high interest loan stuff like that. Now, what I would propose in its place would be something like what the Nazis had, which was social credit. So, you go in a joint venture in the Islamic world actually has something similar. You go in a joint venture with ideas that look good and you take the risk. And yet, you have a fee, a fee and interest are two different things. Fees don't compound. Interest does. So, what happens is that in the current situation where there's a capitalist deflation, like the libertarian arguments that has been proven, not only wrong, is that if you flood the money supply with quant of easing, which just three nations, three major banks in the world have done in the last few years, they poured 12 trillion. And yet inflation has been very moderate. So, what happens is that when you introduce the userry, the compound interest system, you create a paradigm where people that take these loans out can never pay them back. So, it's just a perpetual debt. Well, I don't think that's good for society. Well, I don't think that's good for society. Well, I don't think it's good for society either, but at the same time, what you're discussing here is exactly the system that I condemned at the outset of the conversation. Right. So, if you have the federal reserve is out there, creating money out of thin air without regards for production. And all of that money is issued at interest. Then necessarily the origin of the debt always has more debt than money to pay it back. And so, defaults are inevitable. It's the whole entire point of the thing, which is, you know, the reason the libertarians have been screaming about it for years. And sadly, that's, you know, that's kind of one of those things that I do wish people would listen to libertarians about. Right. The central banking system is a problem. And so, the quantitative easing that has happened. All right. It hasn't caused prices to go absolutely through the roof. But prices have, you know, important things have increased over time. And of course, not all of that money has been unleashed into the market either. Right. And so, we do have these problems. But I don't think the problem that we have at present is actually high interest rates. The problem that we have is actually artificially lower interest rates, creating debt that should not otherwise be taken. You know, interest in a market economy is the price of money and it's based on how much money has been saved in that economic entity. You know, whether it's a nation or whatever, right. So like, you know, if interest rates in the United States are as low as they are, you know, the federal reserve is going to height it up, you know, fractions of a point. But I forget the exact numbers. But I mean, most people don't have $5,000 in the bank right now. So interest rates should be through the damn roof right now. And that would discourage people from borrowing and encourage people to save. And since we have a federal reserve keeping our interest rates artificially low, granted if you have a credit card, it's it's through the roof, right. It's a big scam. I would I would go so far as to say that credit card debt inches towards that that that line of outlawable userry. But like, you know, what we have is art of artificially low interest rates discouraging saving and encouraging borrowing, which is creating the debt trap that you're becoming frustrated with. And that is a result of that that federal reserve system. Well, the issue I have with the with the libertarian argument is that like, you know, the federal reserve is a private entity controlled by private capital since, you know, private bankers. So endowed with government powers, right. I mean, the reason that federal reserve notes have value above all else is that they're accepted in payment of taxes, right. So the federal reserve has the unique privilege to create the coin of the land at will. And it goes to private entities. And that is not a problem with interest. That's that's a problem with the monetary system, right. Well, I would say I would disagree because well, I don't think that fiat currency is in and of itself the problem. I think the problem is that the government doesn't completely control the central bank that every dollar should have to be, you know, basically the government should be voting on these things rather than begging some Jew bankers to give them more money. So that is, you know, because I would assume that I don't want to strum any either, but I would assume that you would support like a gold standard or something like that, right. Well, let me say, you know, what I actually support is competing currencies ultimately, right. But like I'm not necessarily religiously adherent to that, right. I mean, I've got in my window up right here, I've got finance going. I'm all into the cryptocurrency markets. I don't necessarily needed to be attached to a physical commodity. But I think that there's a there's a lot of good reasons to be concerned about expansion of the money supply. And that is something that should be dealt with through some measure. Okay. So all right, I've actually heard some pretty convincing arguments against the gold standard and let's just, you know, I can I can understand that. Let's just say that, okay, instead of the private Federal Reserve, it's the Treasury issuing Treasury notes with that, would that sit better with you. Well, the thing is that I'm challenging the very concept that the money supply, the printing in the money supply, the the injecting money into the money supply causes inflation to begin with. I it does to a small extent, but it's planned the government's planning this. So they're keeping the inflation down through various measures. And the libertarian, that's why libertarians every, you know, every libertarian magazine like a bright was it. Lou Rockwell and all these other things like that, they're always saying that dollars about to collapse the inflation. You're about to go to the store with a with a wheelbarrow to buy bread and you know, a wheelbarrow full of dollars of buy bread. And it never happens because the inflation isn't there. It's very, very, if you were to peg the amount of money that has been pumped into the money supply to the inflation, the libertarian theory gets blown out because it's just not there. Well, well, I would, well, let me first start by agreeing with you that the libertarians have been screaming about the collapse of the dollar and letting people down in the process. And you know, a lot of that comes from people like, you know, Peter Schiff, who are just trying to sell you gold, right. That that's a pretty common theme with those people and it's not really worthy of a great deal of consideration at this point. However, I would do so far as to say that I think it's foolish to think that the number of monetary units in circulation has nothing to do with prices, right. I mean, let's just imagine for a second, take, take it out of dollars, right. And, and all the price controls that the government does to try to, to try to cover up their crimes. You know, just let's just say that the Bitcoin dev team decided that 21 million Bitcoins in circulation was far too low. And, and what we now need is to double the number of Bitcoins in circulation. Something tells me that's not going to cause the price of Bitcoin to go through the roof, right. Well, the price of Bitcoin has been going really, really high and really, really low based entirely on speculation and excitement, frankly. So like, you know, I have my own views on Bitcoin. So I think, of course, expanding the money supply on any currency supply is going to have an effect. I'm saying though that it's not the main effect. I see more like speculation on our currency has far more of an impact on it from what I'm seeing. But what I'm saying includes Bitcoin. But what you're talking about is what what price is an exchange rates become. And I don't doubt that there's, I mean, an infinite number of factors that go into price is an exchange rates. I won't dispute that with you, right. That's obvious. Yeah. If you, if you, if you triple the money supply, but, um, but everybody really wants, you know, you know, name your commodity, then, you know, but nobody wants a commodity. Even the price of that commodity is not going to go up, right. I mean, there's a lot of things that go into prices. And I don't, I don't dispute that. Um, the, the, the direct, you know, okay, well, for every dollar, the federal reserve prints, you know, prices are going to go up that much. I don't think that's the argument that libertarians are making and, and, and again, I'm not trying to defend libertarianism today. But like the money supply has an impact on prices. And yeah, you know, speculation and that sort of thing, obviously, and just simple market demand, fads, what people do in the media, if it's prices, you know, the price of your product will go up. If you spend a whole bunch of money on advertising, and that is completely disconnected from the money supply. But. I mean, that's a good price too. I mean, that's another element of it is that. The fundamental disagreement I have libertarian, libertarian economics is that the idea that it's some kind of like, you know, some kind of complex science or whatever, when it's really, you know, when a stock gets pumped up. And oftentimes it's because one of the big investors like the Jew Bloomberg in Bloomberg news is they're hawking it. So in a sense, that is, isn't that a form of economic planning to. Well, I mean, we all do some form of economic planning, you know, whether whether it's done by a central authority, whether it's done through government force, whether it's done through, you know, whatever, or whether it's people who got rich unjustly or whether it's, you know, Jewish manipulate whatever it is. I mean, a lot of a lot of things impact prices. You know, I think, again, not trying to defend libertarianism, but the case that libertarians are making is not that. As the money supply increases all prices increase directly proportional to it. What they're saying is that the increase the increase in the monetary money supply is is what inflation is defined as and price increases are the symptom of it. And government price controls and manipulations of things like the consumer price index or the producer price index are things that the government does to hide the crime of perpetually increasing the money supply. They say like there's a great thing I watched years ago. Chris Martins the crash course, I think it was. And he went over things that they do to like the consumer price index. So they have a thing called like if, if, if, all right. So if one price goes up, they make the assumption that people will just go to another product. So if the price they they would measure inflation by a basket of goods. And so if the price of that basket of goods goes up, then they would say, rightly, well, what else impacted these prices or whatever. That they'll say things like, all right. So the price of salmon went up. And because the price of salmon went up, people will go to another product. And therefore, instead of having salmon in our shopping cart, we'll put hot dogs there. And then we'll say that inflation has not increased, which justifies additional increase of the money supply. So these are, you know, manipulations that are being done to our perceptions of inflation. But the increase in the money supply does have, does put upward pressure on prices. And I again, I agree with you completely that there's an infinite number of other factors, but it's, it's kind of hard to deny that increasing the money supply puts upward pressure on prices. Oh, of course, but I was just arguing against the idea that it's like the main factor, especially since I think there's a lot of trickery going on with inflation, because personally, and from what I've seen, inflation in and of itself isn't a bad thing, right. Because think of it this way, right. You take a loan out. And if you have inflation, supposedly your wages are supposed to go up, at least in a national economy, not in neoliberalism or, you know, open borders, economic. So what happens is that if you have inflation, you're able to pay off your debts easier, so on and so on. And I think that is healthy for an economy. Only only only if wages rise with inflation. And right. And that's my argument for government intervention when I say, hey, this is my socialism where we need to make sure. I mean, because there's inflation going on now under the present capitalists. I know like people that believe in libertarian say it's not real capitalism, so on so on. But you know, we hit at least agree that it's, I'll use the chance. Okay, it's more of a market economy than not. And so what we're seeing is that we are seeing prices, lurching upwards. And yet we're not seeing wages rise. And the reason for that is because of the way capitalism has evolved. Now, me and Mike, you know, we're talking about that book by Carol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, which is basically a history of capitalism. This guy isn't political. It's just like he's trying to do like an objective history of capitalism. So anyway, the point he's making is that what, you know, eventually capitalism reaches this crescendo where it becomes finance capitalism. And when you have those circumstances, what do you have? Well, I mean, I see there's this, there's this really autistic guy that's always doing like the and cap thing and the chat and he's, and he keeps writing over and over. That it's all about productivity. Well, in the United States, the problem is that the way capitalism has evolved here is that, you know, we basically have an economy structured like Switzerland, except it's a country with 360 million people. So the largest industry at our economy is financial instruments, it's speculation. People bringing money and making money out of money. And that is something that I think is causing some of the stagnating wages. Well, I'm sorry if I interrupted you, but I just go so far as I think that largely what has been causing stagnating wages in the United States has been immigration. I mean, immediately, you know, Donald Trump becomes president of the United States. The wall isn't even built. Immigration policy hasn't even been significantly changed. And now unemployment is down and we have more jobs than people to fill them. And that necessarily puts upward pressure on the price of labor. And so, you know, this is, this is why they've been trying to create the country. They want to have this, you know, well, it's, it's again, the guy's been president for less than two years and these, these policies that changes in them take, take time to, you know, to filter through. So, the unemployment is down. That's true. Now the real unemployment, you know, we can just take a shot in the dark on what that is, but the unemployment has gone down for sure on some level, but wages haven't gone up. And that's the problem. So like, you know, the labor market is tighter. According to market theory, a tighter labor pool. Immediately triggers a process where wages start to rise, you to increase demand. And that's just not happening right now. Well, it hasn't happened yet. Right. Again, you know, and believe me, I'm not, I'm not one who's saying that it's, it's worth waiting around until the end of time for the government to fix our problems. Right. But I would go so far as to say that, you know, we've had, you know, eight years of bush, eight years of Obama. Things were pretty damn screwed up. And now we've got unemployment below 5%. I agree with you that that's not the real unemployment numbers, but, you know, take the statistics that we have. And that with full employment, there's upward pressure on wages, which, you know, is, which is likely to start putting upward pressure on the, you know, any of the other things I thought was interesting. Tucker Carlson has been advocating a Bernie Sanders policy, which, which is something that I too frequently get on board with. But, you know, he says things like, okay, Amazon has all these employees who are collecting welfare. And, and Bernie Sanders wants to go and tax Amazon for the, the cost of the welfare, Amazon's employees collect. Well, I'll tell you what, that had put some upward pressure on wages, right? Because part of the part of the economic incentives that we have is that, well, you don't have to pay your employees enough to eat because the government will feed them. So if the government will feed your employees, why would you? Right. People are going to, people don't pay more than they have to. You know, and so when you, when you structure economic incentives in such a fashion that people can pay artificially low prices for things, you can't really expect them to do otherwise. I don't, you know, don't get me wrong. I try to be a good tip or whatever, but, but generally speaking, I don't pay more for something that I have to. And so when, when we have all these things structured this way, those things put downward pressure on wages and these things are worth fixing, but it's worth looking at, I think, you're trying to think things through in terms of like, well, what is, what is causing this? What is causing the phenomenon that we're, that we're seeing? Why are wages low? And organizing economic policy in an effort to solve those problems is not something that I'm particularly a verse two. But when we say things like, well, the government has to step in and make sure that everybody who meets the standard that I set has a living wage to be determined by whatever I deem the satisfactory standard of living. You know, if the government just comes in and said, you know, start to hiking minimum wages, for example, in my understanding of it, my, my witnessing of economic affairs does not seem that, you know, raising minimum wage has been particularly helpful in increasing people's happiness and quality of life. This is something that they do to gain votes because they scam voters who don't think things out three steps, you know. And so, the argument I would make when it comes to the, I think a lot of market conservatives, I'm not saying you, but a lot of conservatives, liberal conservatives, that what they do is they say, hey, you're always complaining about capitalism, look at how cheap things are at Walmart. Right. But if you're a working class or middle class American, those savings that you have when you go to Walmart once every two weeks or whatever, you end up paying for them on tax day, because we in the United States have pretty high taxes compared to some of the, you know, most social democratic nations in Europe. And yet we don't get shit in return in Europe, if you know, in Europe and France, for example, they pay a little more on average than we do in terms of taxes. And yet they get national health care, they get free universities, they get all kinds of good stuff, they get a month of guaranteed paid vacation. We don't have any of that in this country. And yet we pay a shitload of taxes. And that's because in part, of course, we were subsidizing other races too. But a big part of that is also because companies like you were saying Walmart, they pay their workers shit wages because they, they pass on the cost of labor, which is to provide a living wage to the taxpayer to the, so ironically, in a more social system, we would probably, we would probably pay less taxes and get more in return because we would just have, we just make these companies, you know, like Bernie Sanders' proposition is, have them pay us back for their cost of labor. Yeah. Well, I mean, and maybe it, we're throwing around terms like libertarians, socialist system, you know, conservatives, maybe those terms have become sadly distorted through political language over the years. But like, let's just say, for example, if we're seeing a situation where welfare payments are being used to subsidize the workforce of large corporations, then what's that, what that's doing is actually putting downward pressure on wages. And that does not seem to be conducive to the happiness and well-being of the society. It would seem to me, okay, fine, if we're going to have these systems, then fine, tax the employers, all right. But one of the things that I think that Bernie's missing on this is that, well, that's going to certainly provide a disincentive to hire those people, right? And maybe the thing to do is to not make those things available to people. And then you stop subsidizing the workforces of these corporations, and then you don't need all this layer of bureaucracy in between shuffling paper around and hiring a bunch of, you know, sub, you know, useless people to do it to man up bureaucracy. Okay, so what I would argue here is that this is another fundamental problem in capitalism that, I mean, the reason why it's also hard to increase wages in the American workforce is that retail is the top sector of employment. And when it comes to retail, it's actually pretty hard to calculate like what an hour of retail work is worth, right? So like, it's very hard to know even what to pay your employees in some cases. Of course, the capitalist will always pay the least possible. It's normal, whatever. But even if yeah, it's hard to calculate that. And so why is pay more than they have to? Well, what I'm arguing for here is that the fundamental problem is the way the economy is structured itself. Why is retail the number one employer? Why isn't it manufacturing industry, chemicals, things like things that that actually are productive and you can actually kind of engage what, what, how to produce and the reason for that is the eternal sin of capitalism, which is globalization. Because in capitalism, I'm assuming again, I don't want a strong menu, but I'm assuming you, you will recognize that capitalism is predicated on the theory of perpetual growth. And in order to do that, of course, we know growth inside of a country is finite. And ultimately, it's finite globally, but regardless. In the middle of that, you have capitalist going abroad for looking for new markets, cheaper labor. Literally, like, and this is just a natural, this is something that actually even predates Jews. I mean Cecil Rhodes kind of behave in this fashion. And a lot of this is inevitable in capitalism because of the sheer mobility of capital now. Now you don't, you're not trapped in your country to invest. You can actually move capital over the computer now. So these are fundamental problems that are more or less making capitalism obsolete, especially if you're a nationalist, it's not reconcilable. Well, well, you unpacked a few things there. Let me try to go through it. Why is, why is retail the number one employment market? Well, if we think of retail as instead of like a dirty word, we just think of it as distribution. Well, then it makes a lot more sense. I mean, getting products into the into the hands of people who want them is sort of an important market function. And I, and that would require a certain amount of manpower that might out outstrip other markets in terms of what it is. Now, I don't know if retail is the dominant sector in all economies. I think that manufacturing has been diminished in the United States due to things like NAFTA, which, you know, regardless of the name is not actual free trade. I think everybody probably understands that by now. So there's that. And I think that the trade agreements that Donald Trump is working on are already beginning to bring manufacturing back to the United States. And who knows maybe, maybe manufacturing chemical or otherwise could begin to gain on retail in terms of employment sectors. As far as, you know, again, these, these terms have been convoluted over time. So I'm not going to try to make a defensive capitalism per se. But one of the things you mentioned is that capitalism is based on perpetual growth. Now, I'm sure that everybody who's into money would always love to see that the numbers in their bank account increase in perpetuity. That's obviously not always possible. I suspect that the perpetual growth delusion that we suffer from stems from the monetary system and and to things like social security. So the monetary system loans money into existence at interest. It is impossible to replace the money because there's always more debt in the system than money in the system. And so the money supply has to perpetually expand. And in order to cover up the crime of monetary expansion. You know, it has to be done somewhat in tune with production. And so, but it isn't. Right. And then we have things like social security, which are making promises to people which are foundationally not capable of being kept as things stand. And so there is there is where you I suspect that that's where the the fallacy of perpetual growth is coming from. That these things are things that things that you and I would both probably want to do away with. Well, you put the thing is that earlier in the conversation, you kind of you kind of asserted that like I think you said, you know, rich people. They want to get richer. So that was kind of like what you said about wealth and equality. So like isn't that the pursuit of perpetual growth. Well, everybody wants to get richer. I mean, that's something that everybody wants to do with whatever they, whether it's capitalism or not, everybody wants more, right. I mean, that's not a feat. That's not a unique feature of some artificial economic system, right. That that was kind of, yeah, that was my counterpoint. But I mean, but you're saying that this is a feature of capitalism. And I think that what we're discussing in that sense is that that's a feature of the human condition that everybody just always wants more. Now, that's not always possible. And since it's not always possible, what we have is since our since our economic system in the United States depends upon perpetual growth, thanks to things like social security and the monetary system. Then the government ends up doing all sorts of catastrophically destructive things in order to spur economic growth. And that is, and that is catastrophic. And then when we have recessions, it creates these catastrophic consequences, right. Because the system cannot abide a, an even temporary loss of increase in production. And so those, you know, whether whether we want to call that capitalism or not again, I don't know how to defend terms, just those. To me to be problems that are separate from the desire to increase one's holdings. And so like the fact that people desire to increase their holdings is going to exist. If you have a socialist system, a communist is everybody wants more one way or the other. Now, if we're talking about somebody who, I mean, it seems to me you're complaint is perhaps people who make money with money, right. Like money, making money that seems pretty diverse to me. Not just that. I'm talking about even people, I'm even talking about the big industrialists of 19th century America, most weren't Jewish. But a lot of them, I mean, they weren't as extreme. They weren't, they weren't as racially hostile as us are to whites now. But these people were also very pro immigration. They were very pro globalization, very pro foreign intervention. Why? Well, because they wanted to make more money. So the point I'm making is that we need to have some kind of, some kind of limitation, some kind of social system that puts a check on that kind of stuff, puts a check on the accumulation of capital in the hands of single people or cabals. Because when, when, if, if we are accepting that humans that have a lot of money always want more, which I would actually push back against, I think that's actually a sign of a, of a social or racial degradation, because it hasn't been a universal truth. I mean, you know, the Jews in the middle ages had a lot of money. But the Gentiles preferred to build cathedrals and do art and poetry and things like the Renaissance. So guess what? The Jews had a lot of money, but they were still stuck in the ghetto. Did you still have a lot of money? But this time they're ruling us. Why? Because we've become degenerated on an organic and spiritual level. So I would definitely push back on the, on the idea that materialism is something universal or organic. But on the other hand, if you have a capitalist system that, you know, has basically the ideology of profit over everything and puts us in perpetual competition. Why wouldn't a billionaire industrial, so Gentile one? Why wouldn't he want to crank open the borders? Why wouldn't he want globalization and NAFTA and things like that? If it makes him wealthier? Well, yeah, of course he would. Right. And that's, and that's one of the reasons I'm not an advocate of open borders. Right. So, and again, is that capitalism always leads to it? That's what I was making. All right. You know, again, I'm not here to defend terms like capitalism. Right. So I, but, but, but again, like, all right. That the fact that people always want to have more is not synonymous with they prioritize that above all things. I can tell you that I certainly would like to have more money than I have now. And I could have probably accomplished that goal by not sacrificing a whole lot of things last year. Right. So like, you know, people have priorities, but all else being equal. Generally, people prefer to have more money than less. I mean, I think that that's a pretty basic feature of the human condition. Would you agree with me about that much? Well, I actually wouldn't agree. There's what's the actual profit motive for, you know, just the soldier doing his duty or a nun going into a convent and praying for people's salvation or there are so many people that are motivated by things that aren't money. And, you know, if you believe in karma, which I'm not saying you have to be a Buddhist, right. But if you believe in that stuff, you know that, you know, to get something you've got to give something. Well, I personally believe that the vast majority of people would rather have more time to spend with their friends and family than more money if they could choose. Well, but you're again, you're talking about priorities and I don't disagree with you. Right. I mean, if a guy could make a million dollars a year and never see his family, I imagine there's a lot of men who would turn down the million dollars. I'm not disagreeing with that. I mean, but different people prioritize things and it's, you know, subjective value, right. And so, you know, I don't doubt that there are men who go into the military and forget how much money they make. They die for their country. They're putting their country above their bank account. They're putting their country above their pulse. I don't doubt that people prioritize things differently. What the question that I asked you was all else being equal to people prefer to have more money or less. All else being equal doesn't exist. The point I'm making here though is that the point my point against capitalism from not even an economic perspective, but a cultural racial or civilizational one is that we want the people I want in charge of my country are those men willing to die for the country. I want those men that put their family before money that put their community before money. Those are the people I want in charge of things. If you have capitalism, it often ends up in plutocracy where those select men that would choose the million dollars over their friends and family are the ones that rise to the top and end up controlling everything. And that's how we get to the shitty situation we're in now. That's my critique. Again, I'm not here to defend capitalism per se. I'm just trying to discuss ideas and solve problems. So, when you have a situation where the government is for sale, of course, yeah, then the shitty is people end up in control of that. We've been watching that for our entire lives. I don't dispute that. It's why I'm not a big fan of democracy, right? So, on that point, real quick, we've been getting some capitalism piling up in the tip jar. And I would do remiss if I didn't go for it. Yeah, we're going to do that. Every time there goes to me up with a nice little transition for that. For for NATO pro for $2. Thank you very much sir. When are you going to get David the artist on heal to know we at do we the the artist on the other? I'm not sure who you're referring to as a rule, the more autistic you are. I mean, sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad. We do try to do colon shows on the regular tomorrow on heal term news. We will be doing. We'll be doing open line Fridays. So please feel free to call and then as far as future colon shows, I'm sure there will be one we typically do them around the weekend or so. From Dr. Mangle did nothing wrong for $5. You're absolutely right. And I agree. Thank you for the $5. Can't well is key new Hampshire a nice place to live 93.6% white and the income in no sales tax cheap houses. What's the downside to cold fat women? And don't don't think of people behind it. Hey, is that everybody knows where I live? That's fine. The what do you call key new Hampshire is a pretty nice place to live. I'm a it's it's not the best place in New Hampshire to live. But well, depending on what you want, right? But New Hampshire is a beautiful place and the cost of living is maybe it's not as low as some places in the country, but it's certainly a lot lower than where I came from in New York. And depending on who you listen to 93 to 96% white. But you know, the the opioid epidemic has certainly hit this place. My car has been broken into three times in keen. And that's unfortunate. But like I would certainly say if you're at a place where you have high taxes and gun control and, you know, urban youth, screwing up your city. This is a nice place to flee to if you're into that sort of thing. I'll finish reading the super turbo quick. Any 1433 people moving there or is it becoming all SGWs and libertarians like Ian that sucked it for the NAS games. You know, I, I there are people in New Hampshire more than most might imagine who are sympathetic to the things we're doing. I've actually I put my it's okay to be white bumper sticker on my car and even just driving around keen. I've got a few compliments on that. I don't have a whole bunch of people moving here in my name. There are people who have inquired about it. And I say to them, look, I'm in I'm in pretty dire straits myself. You can't rely on me. This is a nice place to live. If you want to move here on your own accord, then go ahead and do it. What I'd like to do and I'm and I'm working towards if I can get myself out of this financial hole. You know, I would like to start businesses and offer people jobs at which point I'm certain that people would move here pretty rapidly. But I have I have a pretty lonely existence in New Hampshire if I'm honest with you. I'm sure enough, Chris from curiously yours for one dollar and two cents for their two than here, they're two cents are I look forward to rewatching this is the first of my participated. A fantastic show so far. Be sure to expect many more when the faking dollars in the future. Thank you very much. Curious years. I look forward to you watching us in the future from a nightmare maniac for nine dollars. Striker will use to salvation. Helvick tree. Helvick tree brother. From a clean is the award at four ten dollars 18 year old Aussie working one year currently out of work after fucking out my leg with an angle grinder Jesus man. I'm sorry. Oh, I was doing immigration officials used to measure people's noses to see if they were too Jewish. Bring back the white Australia policy. Coons are. God. I don't think I love about the Australian people is that their humor is just always top notch. From Octavian Caesar for five dollars. Thank you very much. I can Hey Chris still in time to buy her for that air mattress. I would appreciate another crack at debating single part and our versus herums with you again. I don't know what you trying to sell an air mattress. I don't want to do it's it's we got nineteen minutes of this stream left. I'm not doing polygamy. From Apple for the for twenty dollars. Thank you very much apple for much appreciated thoughts on establishing a white nationalist foot holding the arm in the firearms. I think that's a. If somebody wants to go get into the eighty percent lower business or some other firearms or firearms accessory thing. If you if you can do it competitively have at it and if you can inject ideas to it in the process fantastic. Here you go. Hell yeah from a Natsok mountain here for two dollars. Thank you very much. Garbage man garbage man contributes infinitely more to society than a landlord health striker. I'd follow you hell and back. You'll see me on the front lines once I'm out of law school. Right. I just I agree. Thank you. Get that law to Greek get in there. That's what we need more of. I love that name from go. I'm a lawyer one fucking dollar much appreciated keep in mind you're also dealing with the petro dollar which exports inflation to the rest of the world under the force of the United States military. Good point. You're not wrong from vigilant. Patriot for fourteen eighty eight. Thank you very much sir. Hey, our people gentlemen. What are your thoughts about the US Balkanizing in the future? What is your opinion on the white race grouping in the Pacific Northwest of the United States gain influence and local power until the collapse. Then post politics aka white separatism. You guys want to go? I've I've long been of the opinion that the United States cannot stand as a contiguous system of government. We have to split. If if nothing else along party lines ethnic lines probably makes a lot more sense. Pacific Northwest. I mean I haven't spent much time out there to say I moved to New Hampshire as part of a political migration which has failed and I think this is a fine thing for us to hijack. I don't like it. I like my thing about the Pacific Northwest I don't like the idea of Balkanizing the United States I love the I love America too much to want to see it to break up but I do really like my bleach the football coach out in Washington state so if the Pacific Northwest wants to get me on board I want to see that guy is fear and then maybe I'll think about it. Well what when I think about the Balkanization thing is that on the one hand so there's two options on one hand we have to make some political compromises and fight for the whole pie or on the other hand we do what every other declining empire does which is create a bunch of little states within the empire so yeah it's probably going to be on across rate based on race so so I mean that's how it always happens right so I think actually the the third model could be like the model of the Soviet Union where they had in the Russian Empire is just this big blank empire that said Russia and they instead created a bunch of ethno states in Russia that were united as a well confederation the so we can't do that. So there's that option too so there's a lot of options to think about but I think history is going to push us push us in a direction first and then we're going to have to make the decisions then yeah. There you go from Loki Vova hope you're doing well buddy I always good to see it for 2488 much appreciated shekels for the number one nice guy third position to show on 2% to had a firm column yes sir Akmidina has gotten trouble recently for saying the Chinese execute billionaires and we should learn from their from other cultures just wanted to make this a bunch of trick again. They also have a really good policy on dealing with Muslims I was reading the other day on the news channel about they do these concentration camps for Muslims I'm sorry reeducation centers where they force into drink booze and eat bacon saying Chinese patriotic so I'm not saying that I think that the Chinese do a whole lot of things right but I think that we should learn from other cultures sometimes well in the case of China though the Chinese Muslims are from my understanding racially Chinese so what they do is they do with communism does which is they standardize all the people they take their old the they take the old traditions and standardize them into this one atheist insect. Well you would actually be wrong specifically on the racial issue because most of the Chinese most of the Muslims in China are wiggers. Oh really I like to call it wiggers yes so they're a Turkic people. I have more than a couple of past students in all Chinese but I understand but my point is there was that yeah what I will say though about um I'm a dino jade is uh there's actually I know of people have seen this there's actually a video of him shaking hands with David Duke and it's really funny. I wonder who could get a word in edge wasn't that conversation it would have been funny to watch from curiously yours for $2.04 I like this I'm liking this is funny. Many people would be stuck renting without userry to a degree especially in the current system so without it they waste money versus investing in equity credit cards are needed for loans today so actual savings versus loan and the average is your credit score how do we change this? Well what libertarians kind of get right is that well at least some I've seen they they only think it's bad if if it's the government giving the loans out if it's private people giving the loans out it has de facto the same effect on the economy but uh regardless of that yeah I mean the reason things like housing or so expensive is specifically because of the userry. The mortgaging system if if you if you regulate that or better yet replace it with a social credit like the Nazis did buying a home becomes far more affordable. Another thing too is people need to start thinking more simply like I mean this is this is a problem that we've had in the age of um in the age of of a materialism is that the materialism is that a lot of people would rather have a new car than a second child and that isn't normal in my opinion that is something that's definitely socialized within this liberal liberal capitalist democracy um because you know what you can't take your your car with you when you die but if you have children you end up you end up at least living you end up living forever as long as they have children so you have in mortality you know if if if you die your car gets sold to some auction house or something or you know so you're some some some nephew inherits it and trades it in to buy some heroin or something but if you have kids then you stay around. Yeah but your daughter could end up burning coal so I'm going to get buried in Cadillac. If I could push back on that a little bit um you know when the government issues loans or when the government interferes in the loan industry it does not do so indiscriminately so Eric brought up rightly that that the reason for um you know housing prices going through the roof is because um is because of the is because of something that's being done with the mortgage industry but of course that is happening as a result of government policy to encourage home ownership and that is uh that's what led to the 2008 financial crisis right they're like all right you have to you have to lend money to high risk blacks because you're racist for only for for lending disproportionately to white people right as the government said to the banking industry and then shockingly enough that led to massive amounts of defaults which uh which you know basically collapse the state of the state of the state of the state. Basically collapse the system and and resulted in all of these bailouts look at college the government gives out student loans which are not dischargable through bankruptcy and then every asshole in the country thinks he's going to make a million dollars by taking a gender studies class right and now you have all these people who are bankrupted now um I would go so far as to say that that there's no market incentive to do insane things like that that is entirely the result of government policy. Nobody who's interested in getting a return on their investment would lend money to some to some welfare recipient to buy a home nobody who wanted to get a return on their investment would would lend somebody with an 85 IQ money to go to college much less if they're going to take some stupid asshole class like gender studies that's a result of government policy and that's a huge difference between what the market would do and what government policy does. Oh well I would uh I would disagree that no one would lend uh no one would lend money to a person who's who's about to do something that's a lost cause that happens all the time and that's part of the problem with the userry system because uh the way things are structured now these uh banks take I mean we we know I agree with you that the uh the racial issue just compounds the problem significantly. But you know we did have problems like this in the 1920s that led to the 1930s with uh userry and debt and there was far less government regulation on banking back then and giving loans back then there are now right. All right guys I'm going to put a pen in this conversation just so we can finish knocking out the super chats since we are in a bit of a okay. I'm getting tired of you. Oh yeah I totally understand uh from what's your penis buckle for $20. No. I am part of a union and the upper echelon of the union leadership I'm sorry and the upper echelon of leadership that is paused up I'm working on becoming a union representative but as a long term goal move up in the ranks any advice on how to get a position where I have influence that can help the movement. Yeah no getting getting up top in a union would be great because then you have uh you know you have a position where you have a a significant part of society to fight the system so my view is that the reason that a lot of union representatives are paused is because unions in of themselves are novelty nowadays that's why you know since the 1970s with all the globalization you know. After the 70s if you have a union and you threaten your employer with a strike they're just going to close down the factory and move it elsewhere before that it was impossible so unions were actually relevant now they're relevant but the point of making is that. What unions work as now is as part of the democratic party so what happens is that they have to appoint like transvestites that just graduate from college never work a day in their lives as your union rep so that's the problem there's nothing wrong with the union in of itself this is that in the structural capitals and we have now the way things are working now unions are uh very weak and so basically are at a disadvantage. And so they have to suck up to the political establishment and by the way uh the CEO of whatever multinational corporation you are unionized that that guy is probably all paused up to yeah there you go not wrong from uh from David New York for five dollars. Chris I want a hot girl but with her down there so she has to have a nice blush I know a girl on Facebook and have her number but she never responded I called her and listened to her ignore my call. I know this because I listened through her front door. Well I'm just going to go ahead and say that that is certainly something that David New York would say but I know that it's not David New York because he spent money fraud. And from Alfred Hosechall for ten dollars, Hail striker, Hail Cantwell, Hail Healt turn, Hail the North Korean rice bowl gang. Rice bowl I could dig it I could dig it. I'm adjusting my uh my uh Nehru suit right now. Oh Jesus. Yeah. Well thank you everybody so much for coming out tonight. Everybody who like the stream who watch the stream who shared the stream and especially thank you so much to everybody who donated. I want to say a big thank you to both Eric and Chris for being kind enough to show up here tonight. This was you know I mean I used to listen to you know both of you guys long before I did this kind of stuff and being able to put together this kind of conversation. I got a lot out of it and I hope everyone else out there did too. We really good topics in that economics discussion. I mean I can't think of a better debate on economics. I've heard even in a professional format made a long time so I just want to say thank you both so much. Why don't you both go ahead and let people know where they can find your work and how they can support you. Well I'll start off I'll say I thoroughly enjoyed this as well. I've been waiting for a long time to uh to have this conversation with Eric. We sort of uh we we we chatted a little bit about having you on the radical agenda didn't get her long to around to it. We're going to have to do that in the near future. So thank you Eric for being on I I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation too. And I hope the audience did as well. You can find me at chrisvercantwell.com because I am the fucking uh I I have suffered more censorship than child pornography. It seems and so you the only play you're going to find me on YouTube is if somebody um um you know rips my stuff and uploads it there or if I'm invited on a pogrom like this one. And so as a glad to be here but chrisvercantwell.com get on my mail-ling list uh you know when they when they take something down then at least I can send you an email chrisvercantwell.com slash subscribe. You can fork over shackles if you do the Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies thing. Crypto chrisvercantwell.com slash donate working on getting a credit card process of a radical agenda errors Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays from five to seven PM Eastern time you can always listen to chrisvercantwell.com slash live. I have open phones so if there's something you want to ask me. Just call into the show and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Okay and I'm going to let air chilling just a minute but there was just a thing that came through and uh my jaw is kind of on the floor for a couple of reasons um from Paul Neeland for $158.90. Great stream best I've heard in a while agree with Campwell that we need to keep the house GOP as much as it pains me to say that to keep out of water wood chipper nationalism hashtag shall not censor have me on some time. I think it will has my number. Yeah you're going to you can't go wrong having Paul Neeland on a whole. Oh my god I would love to have you on Mr. Neeland that would be and as you and as you're seeing he's a generous guy thank you very much. He donated another $158.90 good stream God bless you guys have me on some time. Campwell has my numbers yeah uh yeah this is how capitalism works Paul me. Yeah we have three guys. I'm ready a plutocracy. When people really are nibbers. Oh he'll pull me in. That is great. That is great. Hold on let me yeah yeah so let me just end this by saying it was a pleasurable conversation. It was really a good conversation because Chris is the first libertarian that isn't totally pedantic. He was actually making good points that you know like common sense points that I don't agree with him but I can definitely see some of the perspective where he's coming from. And he wasn't going off in little math equations and splitting hairs and all that you know some of you little birds out there. If if you guys really want people to take you seriously you should learn how to debate like a camp wall over here. But perhaps you know yeah so there's that but off anyway. Yeah so you can find me on strike and Mike it's on TRS. Right stuff up is yeah. You're buying me on gab. Yeah so that's about it. Again thank you all so much. Yeah Mr. Neal and I'll get in touch with you. Thank you again everybody for showing up. Thank you so much to the producer who is the most patient god damn man on earth and the best producer on this side of YouTube. We've got a great song for you. I think you guys might know what it is. Why don't you play us out Mr. Jones. What kind of seat. I'm sure people's lives are in big here. Irish don't play stuff like that. I don't want to hear you going. I just want you to win for sweet nothing in my year. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I'm sure you guys will love me. I got no issue with visibility. No, everything's pre-cheating. he came just did a little circle around right here. It's beautiful. I think I got some gas to go check out the Olympic. And hey I want the gorgeous of that Orca with a, you know, the mama Orca with a baby. Oh and I go see y'all guys. Hey, you guys, I might get my little orange. I want to know what's in the weather is going to be like in Olympics. Your my window and it looks pretty good over there. Get Yeah This is probably like jail time for life huh? I would hope it is for a guy like me. We're going to wait and we'll chuck it up back. Maybe I'll agree to the year a little bit with the hire up. Hey, you think if I land it specifically, I'm not going to give you a job as a pilot? You know, I think you'll give you a job of doing anything you think you could pull this up. Yeah, right. Now I'm a white guy for a guy like me. Now I'm a white guy. He just needs some help controlling his aircraft. Very good. I'll be in the middle of the map. I'll jump up to the video game before I feel like I need to be what you think? Like 5,000 feet at least to be able to pull this barrel off. No, you can do that with these things. If you were to do it, how would you do it? Hey, finally guys, can this thing do a back flip? You think you're coming to land it like a safe kind of banner? I think I'm trying to do a barrel roll and it goes good. That goes down and it's all the night. Alright, I don't know. I don't know. I don't want it. I was kind of hoping that was going to be it. Good night everybody. We'll see you probably sometime this weekend with a show. But we will see you tomorrow at 3pm HealturnNews, YouTube.com slash HealturnNews. 1,48 Gang Gang. I love you fucking guys. Hail victory, hail straker, hail our people. Fuck yes. See you next time. Have a great night. I love you all.