 Can I make Luke Ford here want to talk more about Nick Fuentes possibly being charged with sedition? I've never heard of anyone being charged with sedition. It happened fairly rarely in the United States. I don't have any strong opinions, which means I'm a terrible guru, and I'm a terrible pundit. I'm not gonna lose sleep at night if Nick Fuentes gets convicted of sedition. I'm not gonna lose sleep at night if he doesn't get convicted of sedition. I think that what happened on January 6th was terrible. I want the people involved prosecuted just as I want Black Lives Matter and Antifa terrorists prosecuted. On the other hand, I think it felt shorter than insurrection or a coup. On the other hand, I think it was more than a joke. So it was midway between a joke and a coup, which means it was serious. And I certainly didn't like the police getting beaten down and a lot of the violence and just bad behavior and the defecation. Very opposed to the defecation, the criminal amounts of defecation on the January 6th. But let's get back to Richard Spencer did this on his Twitter space about four or five days ago. To keep their powder dry, which he kind of was. He needed that decisive, outrageous, working for free online energy. This is Richard Spencer in a self-serving analysis that the alt-right was absolutely essential to Donald Trump getting elected. I think it's a case without any evidence that the alt-right brought him in 2016. And that morphed into and was also kind of replaced by even bigger and even crazier online movements like QAnon, like what MAGA had descended into certainly by 2019 and 2020. And Nicholas Fuentes was a part of that. So in 2018, I tweeted out, I think I foresee a construction of a kind of neo alt-right that is going to be very important in Donald Trump's campaign in 2020. In the sense that it's going to pick up on a lot of the energy, the frog energy of 2016, the chaos, the craziness, the silliness. I didn't think there was much frog energy or alt-right energy. The alt-right had been smashed by 2016. So no, I don't think the alt-right was a key part of Donald Trump's campaign in 2020. I think that's silly. Et cetera. But it's going to not be led by someone like me who has his own agenda. I have my own agenda. I thought in 2016, I was obviously taken in by Trump, but I am not here to be anyone's cheerleader. Yeah, Richard Spencer is not here to be anyone's cheerleader. He is out for himself. And so Richard Spencer attached himself to the Trump train because he thought that was good for Richard Spencer. And then he thought it was good for Richard Spencer to detach from the Trump train. Richard Spencer does not appear to have any values higher than Richard Spencer. Now, if he at one point in the future comes to have values higher than himself in his own career, in his own fame, then he may be possibly become a source for good in the world. But as his primary agenda is himself and his own advancement and his own fame, coupled with his friend elections for debauchery and excess, I don't see much good happening in Richard Spencer's life until he gets over. His own can support what I care about and my ideas then in the promotion of myself to be brutally frank. Then I will. Right. So at core, Richard Spencer is about promoting himself. Now, some people can promote themselves and be level-headed and emotionally sober. So I think 50, 60% of the population can promote themselves, have their own well-being as a number one agenda, and still be sober. Richard Spencer, however, due to genetics, imprinting whatever, I don't expect he's going to be able to keep a sober head while he makes himself his number one agenda. Support it. If it's just a toxic, nonsense movement, then I'm not going to support it. I'm going to criticize it. I'm going to call it out. Well, Nicholas Fuentes was the type of person who could command an organic online movement. I mean, I don't think any of his support is fake. I think he has really genuine support coming from his live streams. You can see that in the super chats. You can see that in the fervency that people support him. So he had a real organic base of people, young people, non-voters to a large degree. But people who identified with him saw him as a kind of reflection of themselves, were caught up in the energy, felt like they were winning. And then once the 2020 election went south, in their view, were mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. Nicholas Fuentes was there very early on in the stop-the-seal movement. So early on, it wasn't Donald Trump out front in this. It wasn't even Lin Wood early on or Sidney Powell. Early on, it was Alex Jones, Ali Akbar, Ali Alexander and Nicholas Fuentes riding around in humvees, talking about the election being stolen, ginning up interest. And that gruyper army that he had accumulated, that he led, was the kind of vanguard of this movement. They were out front of it before the boomers came along. Very similar dynamic was at place with the QAnon movement. So QAnon originated on 4chan and it went to 8chan, all that kind of stuff. This is a place of absolute craziness, trolling, white supremacy, horrifying pornography, et cetera, for the 4chan culture and 8chan culture. By 2018, it was the QDrops were disseminated through major figures like Jerome Corsi and Alex Jones to an audience of Gen X and boomers, people who would never in a million years go on 4chan. Okay, this is what Richard Spencer says is unambiguously a crime. This is Fuentes speaking out on January 6, Richard tweets, is unambiguously a crime. The very least Fuentes is disrupting a government activity. The whole event has been declared in his direction by prosecutors. They were treated as such. If Nick Fuentes lived more in reality, he wouldn't be in this trouble. The idea that Nick Fuentes and company are going to put Donald Trump back in office after he lost the 2020 election is ludicrous. So when do you get humiliated? You get humiliated when you lose touch with reality. And Fuentes may be cruising for a lot worse than just humiliation, but he's clearly lost touch with reality here. Their confidence is absolutely essential if you're going to become a successful pundit or live streamer or guru. Alright, so Nicholas Fuentes has the confidence he has the charisma what he does not have is a reality. So the confidence that he has in just stating that he's going to help, you know, he's going to bring Donald Trump back for another term is compelling. It's also bat crazy. And so I think one thing that holds me back is a live streamer about many of the most controversial issues. I don't have a strong opinion. I don't know. And I'm not sure whether or not Nick Fuentes should be convicted of sedition. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think the January 6 Capitol Hill riots were bad and should be prosecuted according to the law. I don't think they were a full on coup or an insurrection, but they had elements of the coup or an insurrection. So it's much more compelling to watch someone who is dead sure about what they're saying has absolute confidence, sees things clearly in black and white. Alright, that that makes for compelling viewing. It also tends to detach one from reality. And people we all tend to start believing the things that we say. And so I believe that Nick Fuentes believed what he was saying there, even though it was absolutely bat crazy. So that's the downside of having confidence and stating your opinion so forthrightly and clearly on these issues that you start believing what you say and you start believing the things that you hear from your audience and you get audience capture where you so enjoy the applause and the, hey, bro, right? Like, do I have the inner strength to ever go up against Leponius Maximus Meridius? I mean, we've got we've got such a bond, I think that I've been captured by by his charisma. Dennis says in the chat, remember how Nick after January 6 went on Twitter said he never entered the building and that people who claim to have spotted him were mistaken? Well, he did not enter the building. So he was making that announcement from outside Capitol Hill. And it says, I don't like Nick, I find it hilarious if you received a life sentence. Spiritual mama says, I give this to Richard Spencer, at least he can reflect on his own behavior somewhat. Yeah, Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes operate in two very different genres. So Richard Spencer speaks like a graduate student. And Nick Fuentes speaks like someone who didn't go to college. I don't know Nick went to college, but that's not how he speaks. He's he's a he's a gifted communicator. But the gift and the power that Nick and, you know, virtually every syndicated radio talk show host has that that absolute conviction behind their words. It's largely purchased at the price of sanity and reality. And so you can leave sanity and reality for a while. But in the end, reality always wins. They were getting the drops and they were getting the interpretations, they were interpreting themselves. And it became a self sustaining online movement, it became kind of bigger than Q itself, or you know, who is QQ is the the whole army of people who are consuming the drops talking about them every day live streaming commenting, sending in super chats, wearing a t-shirt telling their friends, going and talking to people on Facebook groups, etc, etc, etc. So you need a candidate like Trump needs that online energy in order to succeed. He can get that from dedicated people who are never really going to leave him. Nicholas Fuentes has criticized Trump, you know, for sometimes for good reason, you know, just to be totally fair here. At the end of the day, he's never really going to leave Trump. There's a kind of Fuentes two step going on where Trump will, you know, he'll do tax cuts, he'll fail at immigration reform, he'll fail at this, he'll fail at that, he'll say something stupid, and you can kind of lash out at him and say, oh, you know, Blondled Bumps for, you know, Orange Man Bad or Yang Gang 2019, etc. You can kind of lash out at him. But at the end of the day, you circle the wagons and you'll go to bat for him and you will stick with him till the end. There were clearly people who could not command this kind of online energy, who went to saw in Fuentes a, you know, a kind of energy that they wanted to tap into. Yeah, so Nick Fuentes has a lot of energy and why does he have a lot of energy? Because he's on the same page as his audience, right? He's not bringing 10,000 people to his point of view. He is articulating what much of, you know, Trump's supporters believe or wish they could articulate what they, he articulates what many young Trump supporters feel, right? And so because he's on the same page as his audience, that's a tremendous source of energy. And so when I come on here and let's say I'm arguing with every single person in the chat, that is not a source of energy for me. All right? It takes, it takes, it'll strike, it takes energy, it takes, it takes something to go up against every single person in your audience. And Nick doesn't have to do that. Right? Nick is in tune with his audience, his audience is in tune with him. And so they have this reciprocal rhythm going, going on where Nick thrusts his point of view out there and his audience, you know, arches, they're back to receive Nick's thrust. And then his audience thrusts back at Nick and Nick arches his back to receive his audience. And so it's a source of energy and enthusiasm and they keep building and building themselves up. And on the face of it, that's, that's a wonderful thing. Right? You're getting energy, you're getting enthusiasm, you're getting strength. But yeah, it takes a lot of beef organ supplements for that kind of energy. The problem is, if the energy and the strength is leading you to do wrong things, it would be better to be weak and dispirited. Yeah, I fight with my audience constantly. And it's not as much of a, it's not as much of a source of energy. On the other hand, a lot of people would be better off with less energy and less strength because then they do less damage. If the, if the Capitol Hill rioters had less strength and less energy, they probably wouldn't have overrun Capitol Hill. Luckily, Leponius is here. I can, I can feed off his energy. And that says, yeah, I know Nick didn't enter Capitol Hill, but it's hypocritical to cheer on the January 6 Capitol Hill riots and then pretend to be all innocent. Virtual mama says Britney from politically provoked has been captured by her audience by the wing that's yeah. So I suspect that the politically provoked crew so that they can get the biggest audience by feeding the most rabid wing bats politically provoked is like a third rate ripoff from the kill stream and kill stream already sucks as Dennis. So Nick will be questioned in person or he will be questioned. It might be over zoom. I don't think he's going to be speaking in front of Congress. Yeah, maybe he's on the Alex Jones bone broth. Britney is, is a fine, fine young woman Ralph. Not so much harsh, but, but true. Jim Bowden says, good morning, Luke. At law, there was no instruction might wear the essential legal elements required to be contemporaneously present. Well, we will see if people get charged with insurrection. Well, he won't be able to fly there. So remember when Nick Fuentes protested the mask mandate on an airlines and I think he got kicked off the flight because he was fighting back on a mask mandate. So maybe he got kicked off and put on no fly list because of carrying on about mask mandates. I was just telling everybody we're doing a press conference at five o'clock PM at the Sheridan hotel across the street. I'll be giving my most unchanged speech ever. I'm on the Twitter. I have nothing to lose. So Nick Fuentes, he aims at an audience around 105 IQ level and Richard Spencer's audience is around the 120 IQ level. So Nick Fuentes, Mike Enoch, they're talking to the like the 105 IQ level. So this is going to be the most that's not a criticism. I mean, Tucker Carlson is probably talking to the 100 IQ level racist. Should we try to walk in? Okay, so I don't think there are a lot of doctors, neurosurgeons, high powered lawyers, even powerful accountants, they're joining Nick. You look up organizations like Women for Trump or Women for America first. Some of these were kind of former tea party organizations. They are the ones that are renting out space who are seemingly, from an outside perspective, collaborating with Fuentes, knowing that they can't command a group or army, they can't command an army of teenagers and people in the early 20s, edgy, very online, you know, incels, they can't tap into that energy, but Nicholas Fuentes can and they want to work with him. So I was always curious about the very large Bitcoin donation, which I think was like $200,000 or something like that, which Nicholas Fuentes got in the fall or winter of 2020. I heard about it, as a lot of other people did, it seemingly came from this mysterious French donor. I have always been rather skeptical of that. It just strikes me as hard to believe that a French nationalist would donate something to call America first. I mean, that's just my impression. I might be wrong about that. My sense was that it was really this person also has committed suicide who did this. And let's take a look at the chat. It's a pity there isn't a somewhat neutral blood sports channel. Didn't Trump get some of the blame for January 6? Absolutely. I think he gets a substantial amount of the blame. White boy, summer optics. Come on, Mr. Ford. Spencer's a blowhard. Maybe, but he's a grad student type of blowhard. And he speaks in an elevated intellectual way. Nick Fuentes is much more entertainment and visceral mob style communication. Bell says, Richard Spencer's meltdown has the same spouting effect as Nick Fuentes on January 6. Both guys are overwhelmed and they keep going versus being still and thinking. Wall Street Journal reports that Alex Jones was eating the rebels in the crowd, eating things on before he reached the area. Dead Jones encouraged people not to enter the building. So he had great instincts. Also, he knew he'd be held to account and see he was paid with important money, $500,000 for the event. Scott Adams says, Nick Fuentes has great persuasion skills. I've been asked to rate Nick Fuentes persuasion skills high. Very high. Now, Nick Fuentes is very controversial. I'm not going to be the one to endorse anything he says. That's for him. He can defend himself as much as he wants. But on the narrow question of whether he's capable, yes, he is. And he's very capable. So if you think that he's a bad force in the world, you should be afraid because he's very capable. And if you think he's entertaining and useful, well, good for you. Yeah, Nick Fuentes isn't changing a lot of minds. He is giving energy and direction to people who are already thinking along the lines that he is. Vision of that is that it was a kind of payoff of some kind for services rendered by Fuentes. Fuentes did what needed to be done. This wasn't just trolling. This wasn't just live streaming for the lulls and to be based. This was playing an integral part in a major GOP strategy to take back the election of 2020. He was an integral, decisive, indispensable part in that. And I think that's good analysis there. That's solid. And you have to ultimately pay people when they're doing a service like that. So that's just my outside view. I don't have any direct evidence for that. I would stress that. That's just simply my view. God knows that Ali Akbar, Ali Alexander, generated tons of funds by jumping on stop the steal really early and fundraising off it privately. That is my sense that that payment was a kind of payoff. I might very well be wrong about that. And it was a genuine gift that just so happened to occur at that time. I'm skeptical and it's very clear that the J6 committee is skeptical. They mentioned that in their press release. And they seem to think that money was changing hands in a quid pro quo fashion. This for that. You get your your online army behind, stop the steal, you get paid off. Now I think that Fuentes, and this is owing to his youth in many ways, was taken for a ride in all of this. I will say this and I say this absolutely truthfully and absolutely genuinely. I feel sorry for Fuentes. I don't like Nicholas Fuentes personally. I don't like Nicholas Fuentes ideologically. Okay, so we've got some new stories out this week about Nick Fuentes. His one white nationalist, Nick Fuentes, opinioned by January 6 committee suggested killing legislators days before riot. Oh man, you can't even hear it. Come on, man. Come on, man. Man, didn't you hear that dangerous rhetoric? What are we going to do to them? Oh man, that was a really bad clip. So as the House Select Committee for January 6 moves to compile testimony for Nick Fuentes, they could start by asking him how he floated the idea of killing legislators just days before the storming of the Capitol. What can you and I do to a state legislator besides kill them? Fuentes says, although we should not do that. I'm not advising that. I mean, what else can you do right? Well, he didn't in suggest killing legislators, making the point that you can't force legislators to do things. And there was a Christian intellectual who argued that because politicians no longer fear violence, they become more irresponsible. That was a European Christian intellectual in the late last half of the 19th century. Kevin Michael Grace told me about that quote. For the most part. But, and I think that whole kind of ironic, troll-ish attitude is just, it can be funny on occasion. It's ultimately toxic. But I do feel sorry for him because I don't think he was the mastermind in this. I think he was an actor in someone else's play. He was a pawn on the board. There were big, you know, institutions in conservatism Inc. that wanted to take advantage of the griper. And the chat says, I used to be a neocommunist and I saw Nick Fuentes kissing that cap boy and I became a paleocon. That says, Richard Spencer just regurgitates Schmittian and Nietzschean talking points. You're better off reading them yourself. And Abel says, Scott Adams, the deal book guy seems to have blown it. He's become dull, slow talking. It's already rich. He could have been big. He had a hot young girlfriend who distracted him. And didn't Andy Nowicki get a visit from the FBI for being an insult? First, and the energy that he created in an organic fashion. They wanted to tap into that lightning, that electricity that he created. And at the end of the day, it's people like Fuentes who are going to be the fall guy when the shit hits the fan. It's Fuentes who was out there who everyone's looking to who's holding a megaphone boldly declaring, this is great that you stopped the accounting of the votes. Go in there right now. Go do more of it. We're not leaving here until Donald Trump is president. Now, was this ever going to be successful? No. But is that kind of language sedition? Yes. And so you have a lot of people, longtime institutions, the boomers that, you know, Fuentes rages against, that were using him for their own ends. And then he is going to face some sort of consequences that maybe they will not because he became the face of this thing. And in that sense, though I'm not a Fuentes fan, I do genuinely feel sorry for him. But it's just a bigger lesson, a cautionary tale about getting involved in these toxic movements. It's, you know, and here I think one does have to be ideologically principled and serious about what you really want. If you're just doing things, you're trying to please your crowd, you're just kind of going with the flow and you're, you know, preaching to the choir, you're, you're, you know, trying to tap into these bigger forces, you can sometimes get burned really bad. I am interested in promotion of my own ideas and principles. If someone like Trump is, you know, encouraging that, then that's great. If it's just this toxic, stupid Trump movement, then I have no interest because that type of movement is actually damaging me and damaging my ideals. And there's no question that, you know, I became a household name, the spotlight was on me for a time, but I too have been damaged by my association with this political fanaticism. It is what it is. Um, damaged by his association with political fanaticism, Richard Spencer is damaged due to his own behavior and his own language. He doesn't, doesn't need any, any damage from, from other people. I mean, he's done a pretty good job himself. I am coming back here every fucking weekend of I have to, like, this is never over. I went, they fucking lose. That's how the world fucking works. Little fucking kites. They get ruled by people like me, little fucking auctions. I fucking, my ancestors, fucking is sleight of pieces of fucking shit. I rule the fucking world. Those pieces of shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and they'll face like mine, looking down at them. That's how the fucking world works. We are going to destroy this fucking- Okay, so Nick Fuentes believes he's on a no fly list. Maybe it was because of his own behavior vis-a-vis mask. I don't know exactly, but Ian Miles Trunks says Nick Fuentes is an on a no fly list. He was likely just banned by an airline for getting verbally abusive toward their staff in December. Here's Nick, December 4th, 2020. I think about to get kicked off my flight to Pennsylvania because my mask isn't covering my nose. Yep, just got kicked off. He's the best. I never refused to wear the mask, but the flight attendant had the plane go back to the gate and had me removed because of my attitude, power trip. I got up and looked him in the eyes and said, hey, F you. He replied, enjoy your time in Chicago. And I said, yeah, eat. So that must feel good for Nick. And I'm sure he's got plenty of fanboys applauding that. It's also the type of behavior that can get you permanently banned from flying. You know, I don't have regrets so much as I try to learn things and try to do things differently in the future. I don't know if Fuentes is going to get that chance because Fuentes kept going. He put his chips on the table. He said that the election was fraudulent. We aren't leaving here until Donald Trump is president. He won by landslide, et cetera. And at some point, like that's fun. And the question from the chat has Richard Spencer ever addressed that audio? Yes, he has. And he says that he was upset because Charlottesville had not turned out the way that he had hoped. And he played it as one of his exhibits at Charlottesville. So I'll play some Richard Spencer talking about Charlottesville. Do on some live stream to your fans who are going to send you super chats. You go and do that in real life. It doesn't matter how buffoonish you are. It doesn't matter that you're waving a kekestani flag and that you're all kind of silly kids. That is going to be treated as sedition by the state. It's very serious stuff. And I don't think Fuentes will get out of this without a conviction, to be honest. And I thought that for about a year. And I think that that is happening right now. Alrighty. That is, those are my thoughts just okay. Let's get Richard here speaking about Charlottesville. Mr. Richard Spencer, you're here. Hello, sir. Hey, Ralph. How are you doing? I'm doing good, man. How you doing? Well, I had a great Thanksgiving and about to get on the road again and crazy month of October to put it mildly, but or crazy month in November rather to put it mildly. But yeah, I'm good. Going to survive now. Let's just address it at the top of the show now, because I don't know how much you can talk about it or not. What I had for Thanksgiving. Just what did you have on your plate, Richard? The fact that the Cowboys are kind of sucking right now. That's another like really big issue for me. Yeah. Dallas actually was watching a little bit of the game before we came over. See if they take out the saints tonight. Now, of course, I was referring to the little shindig they had there at Charlottesville, the trial. Now, I know you can't talk. You can't go into specifics. Perhaps it's up to you, whatever you want to say. Of course, I won't stop you. But you have your own, your own interest though. So of course, I won't stop you if you want to go into it further. But I figured I'd let you talk about here at the top and, you know, I can't stop other folks for bringing it up, but we'll just let you address it here. And then you can So being honest and open and forthright with people and just noticing reality, right? You start hurting people. They will give you cues to stop doing that. So demand of your word be open, be forthright, obey the law, what sorts of things you can do to reach your chances. Tell them no comment. I'll be as objective as possible. I mean, first off, I object to objective in the sense that I'm not going to say anything that's that might affect anything in the future, but I'll just talk about stuff that is in the public domain. I'll replay this. Let me get this out and then I'll replay all the TTS for sure. And we won't stop any, but I want to let him speak on this clearly at the top. Yeah. I'll talk about stuff that's in the public domain and I will, you know, talk about general feelings and things like that, but I do want to be careful as you understand. I don't want to, because I think we might have to do this again. So I had a fool for a client. I was acting on my own behalf. I don't regret that actually in the slightest. I learned quite a bit about the legal system for one thing. Secondly, I don't think the outcome indicates that I did a poor job. I went up to bat a number. Yeah, I learned a lot about the legal system too. For example, you can be forced to turn over a source. And so one may not want to do that and then to avoid that one may need to settle a lawsuit. For times of classic examination, I struck out a few times. I grounded out to second a few times. I hit a few singles. So it just was what it was. I don't really think that paying a hundred thousand dollars to someone to reach the same outcome would have been a good idea. But anyway, it was fascinating. And I think the other aspect of just representing yourself, you get to speak directly to the jury. And so look, the outcome itself, I saw a lot of headlines that were like, neo-nazis destroyed forever, they owe 25 million to the plaintiffs. And I'm not just saying this, I don't want to spin this and be like, we won or whatever. No, we didn't win. It was a horrible, going to trial, whether it's divorce, whether it's a civil trial, certainly a criminal trial. I've never been in a criminal trial. It's basically they are looking up your skirt. I mean, you are laid bare and you can't hide anything and people are pointing out. A lawsuit is one version of a confrontation or a fight. And you never know what's going to happen when you get into a fight. You may push someone and they punch you back. You may barely brush someone walking down the street here in Los Angeles and they may turn around and lay you out. You may accidentally step on someone's foot and they turn around and stab you. So when you get into a confrontation, things can escalate. And the ideal is to try to get through life having as good of a possible relations with other people and showing up to Charlottesville and see Kyling and being intoxicated like Richard Spencer was on that day is not a good idea. You're imperfections. And particularly in this trial where we were going up against very powerful law firms and very intelligent people. They are obviously... Yeah. So in large part, thanks to Richard Spencer's antics, the opposition to the alt-right is 1,000 times more intelligent, more organized and more capable than those who support the alt-right. I have my best interests at heart, but they are intelligent and skillful. And the exhibit list that they amassed was tremendous. But it was what it was. You have to be able to face something like that. Now, a lot of you saw that headlines of like, oh, neo-Nazis blown apart or whatever. That's not really what happened. So the big things that the plaintiffs were going after were sections 1985 and 1986 of US code 142. It's known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. And the jury was deadlocked on the two big issues for everyone. And I would remind you that one of the aspects of this is that they're charging a malign conspiracy effectively. So they were lumping me and with James Fields. I have never met James Fields or communicated with James Fields in my life. They are... Chris Cantwell was there. Jason Kessler is, of course, the chief organizer, all sorts of people. They're lumping us all together. And then all sorts of these organizations that I had no connection to. Lumping us all together and basically claiming that it was one big thing. Now, they failed in 1984, 1985, or at least it was deadlocked. So that means that that could be filed again. The complaint could be filed again. Now, in terms of Virginia law, they found against me in terms of a conspiracy, which is just a very simple concept. They were kind of... I certainly agreed to take part in the Charlottesville rally. I did not agree to take part in any kind of bad behavior. They also found against me in terms of a kind of Virginia state law of racial animosity, basically. And I, as you can imagine, will contest that in various ways. The plaintiffs themselves who were also witnesses testified that I did not harm them. And they were certainly given a chance to say otherwise. They either didn't remember me. They didn't recognize me. Or in the case of Elizabeth Sines, the chief plaintiff, she testified that she saw me, she recognized me, and I did nothing to her. I did not scream at her. I did not address her. I basically, it's kind of embarrassing. I went up to the top of the stairs and tried to give a speech, but there was no, there was no, the battery was out on the microphone. So I was like, this is an historic victory and no one is listening to. I've seen that happen to cover in these rounds. I said, that's the downside at lying yourself with a group that's simply not very competent and highly likely to be intoxicated in real life. Yeah. Yeah. And then she said, I walked off. So that is, you know, I'm not going to quite say what I'm going to do. That will be in the public domain afterwards, but that strikes me as a bit dubious. The next counts involve James Fields. Now the problem with James Fields is he did not participate in this civil action. He, I think James Fields is in a very bad place from what I understand. And he has pled guilty to criminal charges and it is, there's no, there's no hope really. So he, those are the, the last three charges were against him in particular for the car accident. Now, in terms of plaintiffs, again, there was, it was a kind of mixed bag. I mean, there were people who were directly injured by James Fields in the car incident on August 12, 2017. I do truly understand their position seeking relief. Again, those same people testified that they didn't see me. They didn't recognize me, et cetera. Interestingly, nothing was awarded to Elizabeth signs, the first person, the first plaintiff, signs v. Kessler. And nothing was awarded also to a rather dubious minister named Whistleway or something like that. So the whole thing is a mixed bag of an outcome. And I do think these things are important. I mean, it's not just, you know, for, I mean, it's important to me personally, obviously, but I do think it is important. And in a way, the plaintiffs have, or the plaintiff's counsel rather have, have won in the sense that the threat of a lawsuit like this hangs over the head of anyone doing any action like this. These types of lawsuits aren't being used against BLM. I, if you use the logic of the plaintiffs, you could easily make an argument that there are some, you know, Marxist theorist, the Richard Spencer of the BLM who are coming up with all these, you know, ideas and they are inspiring people to go protest, but really that protest is just a, an excuse to go loot or riot or beat up people. And I just want to play a little bit more from Richard Spencer's Twitter space about four days ago. It's about three more minutes of this, and we'll return to Richard on the Charlottesville trial. We've got the conversation started. We have about four people who made requests, so I'll let you guys in. And you can ask me questions. So go to Cominista Fashista. You are up first. So you have to unmute your mind. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Opethville Cityen, Opethville, you are up. Can you hear me, Richard? Yes, I can. I distinctly recall that time you and Nick got into a giant argument on a live stream. Do you feel like you have ended up on the better side of the tracks after this, this amazing occurrence here? Well, yeah, I don't really want to dance on anyone's grave. Are you talking about a 2017? I mean, yeah, it was a long time ago, but I always just found that to be a bit funny. Yeah, well, I mean, I think for a long time, I mean, look, for a long time, I was flying high as Mr. Alt-Right and, you know, notorious, whatever. Then I started feeling a lot of pressure that I really wasn't prepared to fight off, where there was, you know, there were a lot of media stories that were ultimately kind of glowing. You know, even if they said, oh, he's a bad character or whatever, they were ultimately kind of pumping me up. Particularly after Charlottesville. I mean, that was a real turning point. These stories were nasty. The stories were trying to tear me down, the deplatforming, particularly from payment processors. Okay, so why were the stories nasty? Richard is talking as though the media nasty stories about him just came out of the blue. They came out as a result of bad choices by Richard Spencer, such as deciding to publicly align the Alt-Right with Nazism, right? A bad move in an Anglo country. But Richard talks about this as though these things just happened to him and he was just minding his own business. Also just from the web, that was a really serious issue. It's much less of an issue for me now, as I have made it very clear that I'm interested, you know, in ideological, philosophical discussion. I'm not. Yeah, he's interested in ideological and philosophical discussion, but he wants to use C. Kyle and all sorts of Nazi terminology and scream insane things. But he's interested in a philosophical discussion. Doing activism. And so that hasn't harmed me. But I mean, Nick was also flying high. Nick was never really in the situation that I was in in 2016 to 2017. Yeah, that's because he didn't make as bad choices. He didn't publicly align himself with Nazism and go around screaming C. Kyle and the like, and try to have people affirm him as a furor. Because he was new. Not because he was new, but because he had better judgment. Yeah, Nick Fuentes, a guy but 15, 18 years younger than Richard Spencer, consistently showed better judgment than Richard prior to the January 6th debacle. Nick also had a more organic fan base than I did because Nick question from the chat is aligning with communism, a good move in an Anglo country is about 30 times more socially acceptable compared to aligning with Nazism in an Anglo country represents his people. He kind of plays to his crowd. He preaches to the choir in a way that I never did and never would and never could. And so he was kind of flying high in the movement. I mean, I think he was clearly the most, you know, popular alt-right or dissident right figure for some time. And but, you know, again, you, if you're just doing live streams, that's one thing. But he went out there in what is the most toxic, mendacious movement that I have ever seen in my life. And that is to stop the steel queuing on Trump 2020 nonsense. Really more toxic and mendacious than what Richard was peddling. I mean, both have toxicity and mendaciousness levels off the charts. And he put his chips down. And I think he almost had to, in a way. And he's going to get burned by it. So yeah, there is a certain irony to that. I don't want to stress it too much. There's also an irony in the fact that so much of Nick's rise came after Charlottesville with the kind of optics war, the optics war that was played by, you know, some people's not necessarily Nick, but some people with some of the worst possible optics like weave and Andrew Anglin and so on, that was basically tearing down, tearing apart the movement, tearing, certainly tearing down me. And the optics war didn't tear down the movement. Richard's taking a very superficial analysis here. The optics war was a reflection of the low quality of the people in the movement. When you have high quality people in a movement, there's no need to have optics wars. You only have optics wars when you're dealing with a bunch of degenerate, anti-social types. So the optics war was a reflection of the poor caliber of the people in the movement, the general anti-social orientation of the people in the movement. It didn't take otherwise saintly figures and turn them into losers. Basically saying that this is how pragmatic we are. Like you guys are a bunch of thugs and losers. We are the real pragmatists who are going to take power by trusting in Trump and looking like conservatives and talking like conservatives and waving flags, etc, etc. Well that ended up in J-Sex. That's where that path went. So there is like a tremendous amount of irony in all this. Even I noticed that Patrick Casey as well was subpoenaed. So he's been dragged into this and he was the ultimate just nasty optics war kid. And he even threw Nick under the bus after J-Sex. So it was, yeah. Yeah, you get a lot of anti-social people and they're not able to work with each other very long. So ever since Trump's election, the alt-right turned far more of their enmity on each other rather than against the left. Always playing that game. I don't know what has happened to Patrick or where he is at this point, but again, he's going to face something. I didn't know he was involved with J-Sex at all. I didn't see any pictures of him there, but apparently he was there. He's pretty easy to miss and forget because he's just such a dork. But apparently he was there according to this memo. So yeah, it has ended up very bad for them. I guess he's a dork because he's not sleeping with women in the movement left and right. I hear Nick and Richard in Happy Days back in 2017. I think in a way it's almost redundant to say that you're a white nationalist. We know that the word nation almost implicitly talks about ethnicity. And so I think if I call myself a nationalist, it's almost implicit in that word that it's well, you know, America does have a heritage of being a European country. So, but that's really how I see myself. You are a racial identitarian. Is it your first approximation that Nick's view does not contradict your view? What Nick just said, I would not contradict at all. And I wish there were more conservatives like Nick as opposed to conservatives who get excited by Bibby Netanyahu. I think we would have to in some way affirm that identity as real. So I think I'm in agreement there. Yeah. I mean, I agree with everything Nick just said. Even if we stopped all immigration tomorrow because the country is in terms of births, less than 50 percent white already, things are already destined to be very different to say the least. It's a very simple task for how to change that in terms of we could very easily identify which variables have to change to reverse that situation. You have the native born population or the white population. You have the foreign born population. You have to get one of these numbers to increase, one of these numbers to go down. It's very simple to identify those variables and to identify ways to make one go up and one go down. It's a lot more difficult to actually pursue that. But I don't think there's really a big difference. I think me and Richard. Yeah. So from an outside perspective, there's no meaningful difference between Nick Wanta as a Richard Spencer. I think there's a lot less difference than people might think. I think it's going to take a radical vision. We have to be thinking outside the box, not in the way that conservative Inc. is doing. So I think there's some overlap. Maybe we disagree about how long America has to go or what the solution is. But generally, we agree on the problem. So there you go, Nick. Thank you. This is beautiful. I'm loving what I'm hearing. But it's true though, but it's true. The new world will be written along the lines of ethnicity and race. It's not going to be about ideology and ideas and all that for very long. And the 2% African allows me to say the n-word. So I really have the best of all. Well, sometimes race is the primary factor in identity. And sometimes it's religion. And sometimes it's geography. And sometimes it's profession. And human identity is complicated. So often, race, number one. Other times, religion, number one factor. Other times, profession. People want to be with other people in the same profession or social class. So race is sometimes important for identity, sometimes less important. Left and right. You could make that argument. You could use this as a weapon against really any movement. Now, I think the movement they wanted to use it against was the alt-right of 2017. They certainly would want to use it against any kind of radical right-wing type movement as just a threat of we are going to put you through hell. And it is hell. It's absolute hell. I mean, you talk about... Yeah, but it's hell that's not imposed without reason. If he was more thoughtful and introspective, he could list off 15 things that he did to precipitate this hell, not just for himself, but for other people. That would be a particularly useful commentary. Lifting up the kimono, looking up someone's skirt. I mean, if it is a... I do not... Okay, people don't walk around just lifting up anybody's kimono, right? You have to have done things to precipitate such opposition that they are invested in lifting up your kimono. So you can say things in a way that is more socially acceptable, that is able to be heard by more people. But you can say things in an inflammatory way that will make 95% of people hate you. Richard is frequently chosen to take the angle of, let me say something, that 95% of people in America are going to absolutely hate if they hear it. So that then attracts blowback. Not wish this upon anyone. Outside of people who send mean super chats, I do wish it upon them. Speaking of mean super chats, we have a couple here, I'll play them. I'm glad you weighed in more than I thought actually. And I see here, we played a video, I guess, and you said it wasn't a win, but we played a video. And a lot of the media attention after the verdict was again Nazi smashed, ruined, and never again. Holly says, I've come to realize there are way too many spurts in the so-called right. Basically, 99% of the people in the chat should be ignored, they're destructive, and too dumb to realize or care. This type of stuff. And then we watched a... I want to say I think it was Charlotte, North Carolina, I believe, local reporter there, not Charlottesville. But I guess she was at the trial and she was a legal analyst. And she gave her take on it. And her take was they lost big, was her take. And it was like the only one I saw saying this, by the way. But she went through very thoroughly and explained why she believed that, that they had spent $25 million and all this money or whatever much they spent. And this is what they got as a result. And it wasn't exactly a resounding victory, though. It wasn't. I mean, when you... I don't want to declare victory by any stretch. But at the same time, could you maybe say, we lost the game, but we were down by three in the fourth quarter? I think that's kind of fair, a moral victory. In terms of the plaintiffs, look, these... Look, the plaintiffs' counsel, I mean, look, these guys are going after me, whatever they hate me, and they want to destroy me, maybe. I don't know what's in their hearts and minds. But they are intelligent people. They are highly skilled people. They are at the top of their game. They could reasonably expect... Right. So one dentist who hates you is probably going to be far more effective in damaging you than 100 high school dropouts, right? And as opposed to one dentist on your side, he's going to be far more effective than having 100 high school dropouts on your side. Richard Spencer, by publicly aligning himself with Nazism, he's much more likely to reach the skinhead dropouts than he is to reach a dentist or an accountant. A slam dunk to use another sports metaphor. They could reasonably expect just blowing people away. And in terms of the people who didn't participate, they just made everything... They made everything worse for me and the other defendants who did participate, they got dunked. And what did you do to make things worse for you, Richard, and for others? That's when you'll know that Richard has turned things around and attained some maturity and is not pathologically driven to destruction when he starts introspecting about, oh, the things that he did wrong that hurt himself and other people. I don't know. When something's this asymmetric and it ends up in a kind of murky situation, yeah, I think I tweeted out that report as well. And I thought, yeah, wow, this is someone, this is fair. I mean, they raised a hell of a lot of money to set a major precedent. They did not set that precedent. The jury was deadlocked. That was what it was really all about, too. Like you said... 8.485 or 8.586, that's the case. And those were not decided upon. All right. Now, what about... Now, obviously you have some critics and some people that you would say didn't like you, as we've seen. We knew that already, though. But what do you say about... To that person who said that about you there, let me get back to the comment. Why would anybody care? They don't like you now. How does it affect them, I guess? You know what I mean? Like, what is the reason to... Okay, let's see. We've got Duvod. Duvod, long time, no talk. See what's going on with brother Duvod. How are you, Duvod? Hey, Rupert, show him one second, Luke. Yep, yep, no worries. And, you know, again, I don't... There's no one who I've lost. I don't feel like I have anything at stake with them. I don't feel like I'm part of the same movement as them. I do think that they also represent the right or the right better than I did. Welcome back to America. Thank you. Thank you. How you been, Duvod? Brooker Shim. So, what have you been working on? We haven't spoken for, what, six weeks? I think the last time we talked on a stream. Yeah, I spoke to you briefly in Australia. But, yeah, I'm running my eBay business. You're doing my research, still my weekly stream with Church of Entropy. But, you know, nothing major, nothing necessarily, you know, worth mentioning that may be interested to your audience. You know, I've done some interviews. I've been on some shows. I've still been doing Charles Moskowitz weekly. And what did you think about what happened in Texas where a rabbi and three congregants was taken hostage by Muslim terrorists, apparently, wanting one of his favorite Muslim terrorists? To be released from prison. And it turned out that the rabbi had let the guy in because he looked cold. The rabbi talked about all the security training he'd done. But I don't think there's much security training for Jewish organizations that says, oh, if people look cold, then just invite them in. Yeah. I mean, maybe if you want to talk about that, we look at it too separately. You know, was this rabbi incompetent, somewhat to say what the story that he tried to give over of what happened? And maybe he was trying to, you know, how I might read what happened versus the larger scene of possibly a call like rising anti-Semitism and versus global military action. You know, saying that, you know, is Israel and the U.S. in the state of war with maybe Pakistan? And, you know, that, you know, there is some larger geopolitical strategy in a lot of these debates, like with kind of like neocons and, you know, did America go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan as a favor to the Jews or for our own national interest? And, you know, like this old school, like this guy was probably just mentally disturbed. But if it was an old school, like PLO terrorist type action where, you know, the goal was some sort of prisoner or hostage exchange and is it directly related to U.S. foreign policy? Like, of course, we're at war with those people. We've aged war with those people for decades. We've imprisoned their people. And like, of course, you know, they're going to do things like this in order to try to get their, you know, prisoners released. And of course, they're going to target the Jewish community because, you know, Israel and the, you know, the Israel lobby or the Jewish lobby was one of the biggest forces that pushed for these wars in the Middle East. So I thought it was pretty, you know, interesting, all the different angles, like let alone, you know, we talked about basic synagogue security, like, you know, was this rabbi incompetent? Yeah. So certainly parts of the Jewish community supported the, say, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But overall, Jews in America were far less supportive of these invasions than the average American. And there's a growing left-wing pacifist strand in Jewish organizations that's strongly opposed to international war. But one thing that disturbs me about these synagogue attacks is that every time you get one, I think you're more likely to have others in the future because this news gets out there. And then more and more people think, oh, you know, I should do that. You know, that inspires me. So do you think we're seeing the beginning of a trend of a spate of synagogue attacks? Yeah. I mean, God forbid, Jews are logical targets. So, you know, to some extent, this man was correct that by targeting a synagogue, that he'd be more likely to have his demands met, that he got the ear of the governor and, you know, President Biden himself, you know, like 200 special forces came outside. That as the rabbi put it, that this man thought that Americans value the lives of Jews more than other people. And so he held Jews hostage because, you know, Americans defy those cemented country that values Jews more than other people. And yeah, I don't know if that's how you word it or agree with that. But to some extent, it's logical. And to some extent, he proved his point by how much attention has been given this, like, relatively to, you know, I'm not sure how often hostages situation take place. But I think there's, you know, like here in Metro Detroit, there's been a few hostage situations that I don't think garnered national attention. And in terms of, you know, the president, the governor, national media, you're during the time. And if you had a specific political goal, as like a, as a prisoner exchange, that like, yes, it's more likely that these things are going to keep on continuing. The FBI and the experts all say that it's continuing to happen. I think possibly also the response that the Jewish community gives might backfire and might actually cause this stuff to continue. Because if we look at ourselves as just individuals, as opposed to a collective, but Jewish collective action probably causes a collective reaction, as opposed to saying this was an individual, like initially when they said it was an anti-Semitic act, it was an act of international terrorism that had a political purpose. And the targets happened to be individual Jews. But when we react to it as a target, you know, the Jewish community, that causes possibly more likely to continue and saying that we are a collective. And in there, I don't know if that makes sense to you. And, you know, even, you know, I've said that if we acted individualistically and said this was just an individual crime against a Jew, that we don't need special laws for anti-Semitism or censorship or any of these things, all we need is law and order. Like I don't care how much people hate, they could hate me all they want as long as there's a trustworthiness of law and order that if someone breaks the law, they're going to be violated. And that's not the, you know, the major direction of the Jewish community. Right. And after every time you get one of these events, security just massively ramps up in Jewish life. So it's amazing to me that there are synagogues without an armed security guard on Shabbos. And we have to pay for it. I'm saying like, obviously, like even this Senate, there's only three people there. And this Senate guy even had a grant. So then it's like, now the government has to pay for armed security versus, you know, saying like, Luke, you got to carry a gun. You know, like, like, you know, you're the, you're the convert. Like you're going to carry the gun. Or like, duvid, you're the half Jew. You know, saying we're going to choose you to carry the gun versus we're going to hire armed security, which is expensive. And maybe a lot of synagogues have money, but, you know, actually that was part of the grants. I think there was $180 million in one of these recent spending packages that was specific towards security in New York and, you know, various things. So it's a double-edged sword where it points out like, no, I mean, America is a file of submitted country. America extends significant amount of governmental resources specifically to protecting the Jewish community. And then the outcome of action like this is that the government has to become even more file of submitted can spend even extra resources of money to defend the Jewish community, which goes into the anti-Semitic tropes and this man's claims that, you know, that Americans value the lives of Jews more than it's a non-Jewish citizens. Well, also the disproportionate amount of hate crimes have been aimed at Jews. So therefore, that's why the Homeland Security Funds are allocated according to the statistics of which groups are the most likely to be victimized by hate crimes. So when I was growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist, there were never any armed guards at church. You didn't get attacks at Seventh-day Adventist facilities, but you get proportionally huge amount of attacks, hate crime attacks at Jewish facilities, as opposed to, say, Seventh-day Adventist ones or high temples. So Jews continue to be in the spotlight focus of attention for so much of this anti-social, criminal, rage-filled behavior. Like they may be mentally unbalanced, yet why is it that they're so often choosing Jews? So even the mentally unbalanced, they have a kind of logic that they're operating on. I think this guy was trying to get attention for his cause. And in his demented mind, he still realized that he'd probably get more attention by going after a synagogue and a rabbi than if he'd gone after a Seventh-Eleven. Yeah, I'm saying that whether it's anti-Semitic or not, there is a reality to that factor to say that international terrorist actions against the United States are more likely to target the Jewish community. So if you're not just talking about internally hate crimes in America, like African-Americans or white or white supremacists, but specifically Islamic, that they're most likely to target the Jewish community. And new Islamic people in the U.S. that want to do something against the United States disproportionately are likely to attack the Jewish community. And you could argue with the logic of anti-Semites or international terrorist organizations or be like a self-hating Jew and say like it's our fault. It's related to Israel and the wars in the Middle East and these various things. But from a law enforcement aspect, you say like, no, the Jews are unquestionably more likely to be targeted. And how should we go about that? Should the U.S. government specifically expend extra efforts to defend the Jewish community? And then that causes more fracture within the Jewish community because most American Jews are assimilated. So the organizational Jews, Jews that go to Jewish places, Federation JCCs, synagogues represent probably less than 25% of American Jews. So the 75% of American Jews that aren't really affiliated with a larger Jewish community that don't go to Jewish institutes become even less likely to go to Jewish institutes that like, okay, maybe someone's going to go to synagogue, but if they have to go past a security checkpoint or if it makes them, everyone's like, no, we are more likely to be targets, that that causes the further faction and divide between the larger assimilated Jewish community and the established, I don't know, called segregated or Jews that are involved in Jewish institutes. Now, one thing that surprises me is the number of, like, left wing Jews say, guns have no place in synagogue. There is a capacity on the left of Jewish life saying to say, oh, guns that belong in a synagogue, that we shouldn't be armed to protect ourselves, find it hard to stand that point of view. It's armed men with guns who are the most likely to be safe in the synagogue. Any thoughts on this right spread left wing Jewish perspective, no armed men and no guns in synagogue? Well, yeah, I'm missing the majority political position of the Jewish community in America who's largely gun control and guns are less popular among Jews than our non-Jewish counterparts. Although, you know, that's just statistically that and maybe Jews and relatively safe suburbs don't face that much danger that, you know, if you go to a good public school, if they still exist or, you know, integrated secular private schools, you don't need armed security. You're more nervous about, like, you know, the Republican that has guns than being a victim of crime. So if that's circumstantial, like, if you're in LA, you said, like, crime happens all the time or, you know, just the crime statistics, and you're looking like, no, we need security, we need guns to keep us safe. But I say, no, I mean, the majority of Jews live in relatively safe suburban places and don't need guns to keep us safe. Don't need guns, armed security at our institutes. And it makes our institutes less interesting or less safe to have people, you know, with guns there. That if you saw a change in that, that would be, you know, a huge blow to the Jewish community to say that we can't feel safe except with guns. And obviously New York City, the largest amount of Jews live in, I don't know about LA, but, you know, Chicago and New York City, where guns are legal, that there's severe gun restrictions. And, you know, just like Eric Adams right now in May or one of his first things is an initiative to get rid of illegal guns. So I would assume that the majority of the American Jewish community is not going to, you know, take Republican stances on guns, but it's going to be pushing for gun control. I mean, is LA has, I think, the second or third largest Jewish community in the United States? I think you do have gun restriction? I mean, we have some gun control laws. And yes, Jews generally are for gun control, but every major Jewish institution has armed guards in the same way in Europe and Australia. So if you want to get a synagogue for the first time in Australia, you need to register in advance. And so America is increasingly becoming armed. American Jewish institutions are becoming like those in Europe with armed guards. Now, do you have armed guards when you get to shoreland in Detroit? Would you want armed guards? Do you feel safer with or without armed guards? Well, I mean, the local young Israel for a while had actually retired police officers through the Federation, and they're very expensive. So I mean, I showed you that video of the God forbid that transsexual who was filming outside of Chabad and got shot by kind of like a rent a cop. So if you're talking about like a retired police officer that's doing security for a synagogue that might charge like $100 an hour, and so you might feel pretty safe if you had relatively high-level security, someone that's former police officers that have a connection they could call work together with the police versus like a $12 an hour rent a cop, so to say. And so I'm not sure, but when I was in Brooklyn, none of the Jewish institutes I went to had armed security. And even in Manhattan, I don't think any Jewish institutes, I mean, having a gun permit is very difficult in New York. There were some people that had concealed weapons permits, but basically no Jewish institute in New York City has armed security because gun control is that strong. You're not expecting an attacker in New York City to have a gun and if there's a big event, you would have police that were armed. And in Detroit, if you had a big event, you would probably actually have the police. But I would probably feel less safe with armed security if they weren't high-level security because guns are dangerous. Security doesn't really know what they're doing. How do they know who's a regular, who's not? And even if you're going to arm Jews, just looking at my congregation, who do I trust with a gun? I don't know, I might feel safer with no one with a gun than people with guns. And then like you're saying, this is a new synagogue that has budgetary concerns. If you want high-level security, it's going to cost you $1,000 every Sabbath. And most synagogue can afford $1,000 every Sabbath. And if you cut costs and have cheap security, that is just someone with only a high school education that's getting paid $10 an hour to stand there, I don't know. I might feel safer without them. And who have you been arguing with? Have you gotten into it with Charles Mosquitz or anybody else over the past few weeks? Yeah, every Thursday with Charles. So we argue he actually helped book Ryan Dawson. He's going to be on his show Wednesday without me. I had the debate with Cultural Thug, who I guess was an old viewer of your show. I'm not sure if that was when Euron Australia unpolitically provoked. And I think that was before I booked you. I was on T-Jump, who was kind of like E-Atheist. So it was just the pure belief in God versus atheism. And the Church of Entropy, we basically steer clear of politics. So it's mostly theology, mysticism, spirituality. So Charles Mosquitz, we argue this basically every week, like anti-Semitism, what we should do about it, Israeli politics. But I don't know if you agree with my sentiment. You could be on the right. And you keep on, like we argued about the charatom and that bad things are going to happen and the charatom are going to change direction. And I totally like, I don't think the charatom are ever going to change direction. Like God forbid, people could start dying horrible things. We're not going to change direction. And I think in general, also, with the American liberal Jewish community, most people are just going to double down on what they're doing already. And if bad things, if the strategy doesn't work, it doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to adapt to different strategies. So I'd say the majority leftist opinion of American Jews that they're going to double down on gun control, double down on censorship, double down on big government. And probably not the measures that right-wing Jews are going to double down on. So if you're a right-wing Jew, you're going to double down on guns, you're going to double down on security. You might double down on Israel. I just heard the, not to change the subject, but that Israel in the papers, like thinking about, God forbid, taking in 75,000 Ukrainian Jews that what would happen if Russia goes to war with the Ukraine and the situation for Jews became untenable. And there had to be an exodus of that they estimated 75,000 Ukrainian Jews. And so Israel actually right now is preparing for that. So something like Zionism, that like, no, I think I don't think the mainstream American left community is going to double down on Zionism, but probably like the people you know are going to double down on Zionism. Now you half identify as Serady. Is that fair? You're like kind of one foot in, one foot out. Well, I was basically Serady, but because I'm a Bolsheva and Seradism doesn't really exist where I am at. It's kind of ridiculous to call myself Serady. And I guess I'm just like a Bolsheva of Serady leanings. But if I was in New York and Israel, I would probably be identifying with Serady. And I went to Serady schools and I learned under Serady rabbis. But now 15 years in Detroit, even to, and I'm not really that connected with the mainstream Black Hat Orthodox community, which isn't really quite Serady, but if there was anything Serady, it'd be the Black Hat Orthodox community. So it's hard to call myself Serady like that. So whether Donald Trump is president or Joe Biden is president, either way, does it notice any effect on your life? No, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference that you're practically, you know, like if the tax rates change a little bit, it makes a difference in the narrative and what people talk about. But to me, that's kind of just like sports. Because I've been dressing as a Hasidic Jew for so many years. I'm used to, you know, like kind of crazy people, like even maybe like this terrorist that believe in crazy things about the Jews and just kind of blur it out and talk about, you know, like I said, like Adam Green, like one out of four of the people I talked to in Detroit, you know, basically have opinions like that and aren't scared to express it. If, you know, someone comes up to an Orthodox Jew and says something to them, you'll have a lot of phylocemitism, but it's a lot of beliefs like that. So, but like the narrative is a little bit different if Trump's in office than Biden, but a practical difference in terms of like making my living day-to-day work or policy. Like, no, I don't think it makes any difference. I mean, do you? No, that is any real life difference. Now, what about COVID? You think you agree that makes a difference in the general narrative and discussions that you have with people? Right, it's kind of like sports. Yeah, it's a rhetorical difference. That's a great analogy. It is like sports. Now, what about COVID? Have you ever caught COVID? I think I'd know. I'm still hunkering down. I still basically wear a mask anytime I'm around people. Even like when I'm around my parents, just me and them, I usually have my mask on, especially with case count. So, thank God I haven't caught it. I don't plan on catching it. And basically, I haven't been vaccinated. So, if something came up, like a really good shittic opportunity or some pernus opportunity or travel opportunity, I would probably get an anti-vaccination like that. But I don't have a big need to be around people. So, I haven't got vaccinated. I haven't got it. And I'm just going to keep on managing my properties and doing my eBay business. And I feel relatively safe from COVID. And did you have any reaction to the January 6 committee now? Nick Fuentes has been subpoenaed. So, about 600, 700 people have been arrested and charged. How serious did you view the January 6 Capitol Hill riot? And what kind of implications do you think this will have for people who supported that kind of behavior? Well, I think the large segments of former patriotic America, kind of like Bush supporting America, right wing America has lost faith in the country. I've lost faith in the country, kind of like Richard Spencer was saying the other day. I don't think America can be saved. You know, it's the decline of empire. What exactly is going to happen? I don't know. So, that there'll be a certain segment of the, I think you're like a racial rule, 80, 20, that 20% of the people will support violence. And 20% of the people who support violence might actually use violence. And you know, however you want to give some sort of statistical heuristic on that, like Black Lives Matters or any sort of activism, that I wouldn't be surprised. You know, just like the Jewish community is saying, the government can't keep us safe. You know, we need to arm ourselves and protect ourselves. And that probably tens of millions of people across America feel like that. And it could be something leading to future, you know, attempts to overthrow the US government, God forbid. I'm not sure the way the US government is going about it. Me and Charles were kind of arguing, Charles is, I'm not, Charles is a big moralizer and like, you know, like insisting that this is bad and convincing people what's good and bad is or who the good guys and bad guys are. So I'm not really a big moralizer. And I'm not really, you know, don't think my opinion on who the good guys or bad guys are a matter. But you're talking about, you know, this action in Texas that this man was not on a no fly list saying that, like a lot of the people that were on your show that you talked to are more likely to be on a no fly list than someone like this man who held up the synagogue and had known connections to Islamic extremists. And I was just saying that's my understanding of the US system. It's the spoil system. District attorney is a, you know, elected position. President gets to appoint the attorney general. And there's a somewhat discretion in who they investigate. So, you know, when the Bush administration through Trump was very suspicious of Muslim people and used the government agencies to investigate people from Islamic countries that it's the spoil system. And if the Biden-Harris administration, and you know, I think more and more so it's going to be President Harris any day, it's going to change that. And now currently is using the government to, you know, white nationalism or, you know, Trump movements. And that's my understanding just how the US system works. It's the spoil system. I mean, is that you're understanding of how the US political system works and that the elections have consequences. And that's just how it works is that. Yeah, yeah, I'd largely agree with you. So I myself between the two polls, one poll says nothing matters. Doesn't matter who's elected president or who wins an election. And another perspective that has, you know, life and death importance. And I would say elections have moderate importance. And what are the side effects of elections? Is that it changes the focus for criminal prosecution? Well, I think that doesn't matter to me directly either. I'm saying, okay, whether the government agencies are going after, you know, white nationalists or various sorts or Islamists, doesn't make that much of a difference to me. But I was saying that the government factually now is using its resources to go after, you know, whites. But I don't think that has a practical day-to-day implication. I mean, besides that me and you have maybe spoken to some of these people on the internet, like, you know, that may now be on a no-fly list. And, you know, the likelihood of an Islamist that would no longer be investigated by the government and might conduct some sort of anti-Semitic terror or the likelihood that some, you know, white extremist that previously would have tried to do something harmful to the Jewish community, but now the government is going to protect us. I don't think either one of those are all that likely, or at least in the immediate situation that, but it's just the direction of the larger policy in America. And what about the bill staying free in marijuana? Have you talked to it? No, thank God. I smoked a little over Soka, so about like a month and a half before, two months before Soka, I didn't use any. I used a little bit over Soka, and then I haven't used it all. And what I had left in my supplies, I finished on Soka. So I think I'll probably, you know, God willing, I'll never use it again the rest of my life. You know, like with COVID-19, maybe if I was in a social situation that people were using, I'm not sure, but, you know, as it is now, I don't plan on using it again. And, you know, like I'm already middle age, so I could see, I don't want to, you know, detriment my health. And, you know, so when I was younger, maybe the health detriments were more minimal. But, you know, also, you know, a chance of getting married, having up a family, or taking my life more seriously. I don't want to be, you know, smoking pot the rest of my life. So it was a good time to quit. And what about mushrooms? Have you ever done mushrooms, or is that something that interests you? No, I tried them once, like 15 years ago. And I don't think I'll ever try them again. It was an experience, like, you know, mental experience. I'm not necessarily upset that I tried it. Nothing bad happened, you know, to me for trying it. But I have no intention of trying that again, or any drug really. You know, I'd use cocaine, you know, regularly for even more than a year, you know, in my 20s. But I don't plan on using any drugs ever again. You know, there were certain reasons I used them. When I was younger, it was probably a larger mistake. I'd probably be better if I hadn't. But it was the situation I was in. And, you know, a lot of the experiences and things I did, like party promoting, or just being familiar with party culture, or what's really going on in Manhattan and various things, I probably wouldn't have been able to experience that without using drugs. Okay, and what are the effects of being offered? How do you feel? I feel better. I feel more healthy. I feel like I study more. My concentration's higher. You know, my ability, I've went back to studying things like mathematics, and my ability to work with, like, equations, and abstract symbols has increased the amount of time I read or concentrate, has, you know, definitely increased. There was a period where maybe, you know, weed made me less irritable, or, you know, like did an appeasement to getting angry. But I think, generally, I'm not such an angry person. And I don't think there's a big difference that, you know, maybe if I was in public or had like a public spasm of somebody, that, you know, weed would have some sort of effect in appeasing that. But I think I could overcome, I'm not, you know, that angry of a person. And if I did have problems with anger, I don't think I need a weed to overcome it. Can you hold down the show for a couple of minutes, maybe talk about books you've been reading while I take a quick break? Yeah, sure. So I actually have a guest on my program tonight, 11 o'clock from India, expert on Vedic science and cosmology that may not be too interesting to your audience. So let me talk about the Texas situation, why I think this rabbi incompetent is a strong word. But, you know, from what the rabbi says, I looked, Collieville is a new suburban development that's like 98% white. And from the rabbi's story, like this guy spent like a week in a homeless shelter. This guy came on foot to the synagogue in an area where like there are no people on foot. Like, you know, it's a suburb that's built for cars. It's a 98% white area. And also just the interest of reform is kind of dead. So it's interesting that this is a new reform congregation built in the last few decades in a new suburb that's largely white and possibly also the connection that reform is somewhat of an assimilation to white, that reformed Judaism is the best way that American Jews have assimilated into white culture. But from the rabbi's story, the guy comes to, and you know, give the rabbi the benefit of the doubt, but just in terms of security, the guy comes to the door and has bags with him and asks if the rabbi takes in homeless people. And then he asked the rabbi, the rabbi asked him like basic questions, like who are you and where do you come from? And the guy couldn't give a clear answer. And so the rabbi, you know, like in the story, he says, like he says, well, he gave answers that didn't make sense, but that's not so strange. So I'm thinking, well, yeah, that is kind of strange, like a simple question. And I know I've done security in place that, I'm not like officially like a security guard, but even the downtown synagogue, like working with the liberal Jews there, it was tough to work with some people. And just the basic question, like who are you and where do you come from, that if this guy couldn't answer the question and he had bags with him, I would have kept an eye on him. And I remember in the downtown synagogue a few times, we had someone like that. And I was like, you know, like, I don't know who this guy is, his story doesn't add up, keep an eye on him. And kind of like the liberal Jews there looked at me as like, I think there's something wrong with you, not with him. And so I could picture this rabbi being, you know, kind of like that where, but they say like, it has to be incompetence. Like the guy came in in a suburban area where everyone's with cars, it's a 98% white area, and you can't give a clear answer to the question of who are you and where are you from. And so with that, like just basic security, you're gonna let him in, you're gonna say like, well, keep an eye on him. You know, tell someone there to be like, well, you know, I want to be a nice guy and feed this guy, he might be homeless or need help. But you know, like his story didn't add up, keep an eye on him. And you know, so like in the local young Israel, like there's no way or like an orthodont, they wouldn't have let him in or someone would have kept an eye on him. So, you know, just kind of the incompetence that he let the guy in who was clearly out of place, like a suburban place where like everybody's in car and everybody's largely white, and you have this Middle Eastern guy homeless on foot when there's like, you know, no homeless shelter for miles. And then he can't even answer a simple question, like who are you and where are you from? And then he doesn't even have like one of the other guys like, okay, we'll let you in, but like keep an eye on him. So like I had to say like this guy was incompetent and then he said he took the ADL training and I was like, the ADL training must be worthless. And then even violence, like I've had some training in martial arts and like, I think I would have been able to disarm this guy. Like he might have shot me, God forbid the guns, the guns are very good weapon, but like 10 hours, I think I would have taken this guy's gun. Like, like there's no way like 10 hours, just one guy with a handgun that like in like, like he didn't tie him up or anything, you know, like God forbid if he was a real terrorist or something, he would have tied them up. But like, no, I don't think, I mean, call the rabbi a hero. Like God forbid you're a judge of favor, but no, I think he wasn't competent. Yeah, hang on, hang on. Yeah, so Orthodox Jews in general have much less much fewer scruples about excluding people, right? So the liberal, this was a reform synagogue. So the reform much more welcoming like to the homeless, how he needs to be called, needs to, you know, he's called, he needs to get warmed up, but Orthodox Jews in general, Orthodox synagogues in general, have much less compunction about excluding people. Well, just like an incompetence, you're saying like if someone comes into synagogue and can't answer a simple question, like who are you and where are you from? I mean, I could say like Luke, like, okay, you could be embarrassed to go into a synagogue and you're like, okay, like I'm a convert, I'm from another country, I've been kicked out of synagogues before, but like a simple question, like who are you and where are you from? Like you can't even answer that question in a place where like, you're like, why would this guy be coming? And I'm just like to expect the guy who's going to have a gun or commit a terrorist act, but it should have, you know, send a thing to like keep an eye on this guy, have someone in the synagogue, like keep an eye on this guy, like I don't know who he is and he couldn't even tell me who he was. Well, once you let them in, once you let them in, it's a big problem, even keeping an eye is, you don't let someone in like that. And the rabbi claimed his training saved his life, but what about the training to be so suspicious of some weird guy with a British accent that isn't Jewish? Absolutely. And in general, I think Orthodox Jews have much less compunction about excluding, I think if you talk to Orthodox Jews, like what's the point of kosher or what's the purpose of kosher or what's one of the benefits of kosher? And that is it excludes non-Jews and increases your contact with Jews. If you're keeping kosher, it restricts your ability to eat with non-Jews and it increases your likelihood of eating with Jews. So the whole system of Orthodox Judaism, in large part revolves around excluding people who aren't Orthodox Jews so that you can have a safe and holy community. Well, I mean, because like I've done security, saying like we don't really, like you don't really kick people out of synagogues, like even homeless people, even non-Jews that come into a synagogue and saying like, no, I was their line of defense. Like I was the half Jew and like they would have sat the guy next to me. And so it's like God forbid if he attacked, like I would have been the first line of defense. Well, once you let him in the door, I mean letting someone in the door who you don't know who he is and who clearly doesn't belong. I mean, even keeping an eye on him, it's often just too late. Once you let the guy in the door, that was just a major mistake. Well, I mean, maybe you don't have a background in violence or martial arts. Yeah, I do. And you don't allow people in the door that you don't know who they are at a Jewish institution. Keeping an eye on them is not nearly as good as excluding them from your synagogue in the first place. Well, I was saying that you could sit them in a place. I think that you can't necessarily always exclude people even by law. Yeah, so a synagogue can exclude anyone. Well, maybe in the current security, but I'm saying like, no, I mean, we let crazy people, like I've been in synagogues, we let crazy people in. And it's like, we sat them where there was an eye on them. And like, okay, in New York, there wasn't likely that someone would have a gun or even in Detroit, like people have guns, homeless people in Detroit would have guns. And it's like, no, I would have had to sit next to this guy. I would have had to sit in a place. So if it was a situation like that, you say like, no, someone would have had to have made a point to have their eye on this guy at all times. And then even the point that if he did have a gun, that there would have been someone like me that would have tried to disarm him. And it's crazy they didn't search him. Like you never let a stranger into your, you never let a stranger into a synagogue without searching the person, searching his bag. I mean, the guy brought a gun into the synagogue. I mean, that's crazy that they didn't search him. No, I mean, I mean, you can't all, and God forbid, like I said, like I knew cocaine dealers and like regular, not talking synagogue, but like dangerous people, party promotion, you can't always get away with searching people. And so if you have people that are good at violence, you basically have to have someone who's good at violence with the eye on the person, that if the person acts up, that the person who's good at violence is going to be able to immediately handle something. Even think like a porn set or something, or like a party in LA, not talking like a synagogue. You sometimes got to let people in. Like sometimes you can frisk and search people, but you can't always search. And just saying that whatever the case is of how it should have been done, like certainly this rabbi wasn't competent in that sense. And whatever security he training he had was largely worthless from, you know, just from what he himself said, that he couldn't even give a, you know, just like he admitted that he let the guy in, that he had bags with him. Like he came on, that the guy had bags with him. Like he clearly could have had a weapon. And then he, you know, said he put his back to him. That he gave a story that didn't add up. I mean, there's so many different points where you say, okay, just don't let the guy in. But once you let the guy in, and he tells you a story that doesn't make sense, he can't even explain like who the hell he is and where the hell is he from. You know, that'd be pretty weird. If you're a local synagogue, you decide to let the guy in. They're like, who are you? Where are you from? Okay, yeah, you made that point. But another thing I know- And then putting your back to him. And then the third point, to take your eye off the guy. You know, so it's like, there's three levels of security breaches. Letting him in, you'll fail, you're recognizing his story doesn't add up and then not keeping your eye on him. Okay. I'm going to move on. Good to see you and talk to you again, Duvid. Any final words for this evening? Yeah, welcome back. Good to have you back. Or did you want to talk briefly about this kind of like base takes politically provoked, like, you know, thing possibly doxing and drama? Or I don't know if you followed that. Yeah, I saw a little bit. So some drama between base takes and politically provoked. I don't have any strong opinion, but how about you? Well, I'm not moralizing on it. But I thought it was interesting and kind of, you know, like one thing that Norvin would come back, like I think base takes stream for months with OV. And then OV and Norvin would kind of come back as stars where they're on politically provoked and they're like some of the most popular guests. And base takes wants to come on and be part of it. And they're worried that he's a doxer. And from their perspective, like doxing goes over the line that, you know, even if, you know, Norvin and OV are Nazis calling for horrible things about Jews, that at least they're not doxers. And whether Mike is a doxer or not is unclear, but there was that speculation. And then he kind of becomes like a born-again anti-Semitism, like he's crusading against them because they're platforming anti-Semite. So it seemed a little, I guess unclear. I'm not sure if that was your read. If it was kind of like, is base takes like secretly on the payroll, the ADL, or was he just kind of burnt that, you know, here it is, he spent all this time talking with Norvin and OV. And then they're kind of like brought back into the limelight and he's being excluded. So it was a little bit interesting and then politically provoked, are they're kind of doing what, you know, Kevin Michael Grace used to accuse you of doing, you know, we kept online to talk about Richard Spencer, that like narrow casting, where they're getting an audience because they're taught, because they've narrowcasted themselves and, you know, that they don't necessarily have a whole bunch of substance, but by platforming or taking this specific view that they've been able to create a little niche, maybe make some money for that. And, you know, obviously they're going to promote themselves as being fair and equal, platforming everybody. But in reality, they're probably doing what's in their own self-interest. So like, you know, Luke, you may have been more honest about that, like you do what makes you happy, or, you know, for your program. But like, yeah, it makes sense to me that they're going to say that they're a neutral, fair platform that just has debates, but at the same time have some kind of cold, calculated benefit situation. But I thought that was a little bit random because it was all people formally on your show. And I guess, you know, I booked you for that show, and then you had that guy, the, you know, the Oxford PhD student the other day on. You know, so I thought that was a little bit interesting. And maybe you agree that doxing goes across the line, that even like you're a Jew, you're worried about the security of Jews. But like, you know, Northern or OV, however despicable their ideas might be, that doxing crosses the line. And even if base takes rejects, that he daxed that there's enough question that he's a daxer. I guess those were my thoughts. I'm not sure if you had any comment. Yeah, I listened to some of base takes videos and about the falling out with politically provoked. And after about 15 minutes, I just couldn't care less about the feud. It's when you're dealing with the cesspool that politically provoked is often dealing in, in that they're trying to get the most compelling content, but it's often the most juvenile and stupid and anti-social. And so politically provoked is dealing with a lot of, you know, anti-social people. And so, you know, they're all, they're all kind of firing off each other. And after a few minutes, I thought, ah, I just don't want anything to do with all this. I don't like doxing, but I don't like much of the low IQ conversation that politically provoked is hosting as well. Yeah, I mean, so that's their karma, so to say, that someone like base takes would turn against them and become a crusader against them. I think it's ironic that it's him that did it, but I guess it's not surprising. And kind of like the honor among thieves, so to say, that, you know, that if you're going to make a hard line, like, you know, like no doxing, and like, you know, all of this is okay, but doxing, and like, I don't support doxing either. But it's hard to, you know, I don't, you can't really expect to not get doxed or that people aren't going to dox. So, but I thought that was a little bit interesting that, you know, I think politically provoked is probably one of the bigger platforms that, I mean, Richard Spencer is going to be on again this week, and they had Eric Stryker, Eric Stryker showed his face for an interview, and they had these guys from Australia, you know, big names like Thomas Sewell, and other people, I didn't even heard of them. But, you know, so I think they have became, you know, they're kind of like the new heel turn, which is ironic, they have like a half Jewish host in a black host, and like a Polish liberal. But, you know, it's kind of ironic that they're the, you know, the new base for having all these conversations. Yes, yes, they're the new blood spots. Okay, so take care, thanks for having me on, and hopefully we'll be in touch again. Yep, absolutely, take care, do it, let's go back to... They care about this, if they don't like you, if they don't care for Richard Spencer, or some of the other defendants, is there something bigger than that? I know you've talked about it already in your first answer, but what would be the reason to care about it if they didn't care about you? Right, you don't have to care about me. I mean, the fact that this case, I mean, according to the words of Roberta Kaplan herself, this was about crushing the then, you know, fledgling, all right movement. It can be used absolutely against you if you want to engage in any form of activism that is public and bold and that is going to attract people. Now, I think that Charlottesville... Guess what? You can engage in activism that is public and bold and attracts people and not get sued, right? You can engage in activism and not break the law and activism that doesn't bring down criminal and civil charges, right? But you have to use some discretion, right? You have to build an event and build a community that appeals to the best in people, not the worst, and Richard has largely appealed to the worst in people. Looking at the chat, Bell says, Dick Fuentes was speaking in live stream super chat stunt mode. Yes, he was trapped in that mode like a robot in real life. Crowds get amped up, you know, they talk big and do trouble. Yes, the internet is real life. The internet is not separate from real life. And so when you allow the overstatement and the visceral talk, the provocative talk, the compelling talk that captures an audience, right? You allow yourself to fall into that. You can't then segregate it into just one part of your life, as the perils of the personality that infects more and more of your life. It interferes with your ability to have regular conversations with regular people. So when people go online, they immediately become more compulsive, more combative, more self-centered, narcissistic, grandiose. They tend to have delusions about their own influence and power and ability. And they tend to share things that they wouldn't normally share with people face to face. They tend to get much darker, right? These are all the impulses that start flowing upon people when they go online and many people can't handle it. So many people, their online life infects and destroys their real life, right? People make some edgy tweets and they get fired, even if they think they have tenure. Richard Spencer says, 50-50 force edition charges against Nick Fuentes and conviction. Nick Fuentes is hooked on a super chat seeking stunts. Yes, the perils of the e-personality. Terrific book. He needs Luke's 12 steps morning phone calls daily. Rabbi claimed his training saved his life, but what about training to be suspicious of weird non-Jewish people who just say they want to come in and get warm? Yeah, there's no security training that would say let him in. Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes and DSP, his DSP, have personality disorders. East celebrities who live off the pay-me and we win against the enemy. Help me win the culture war sales pitch. The January 6 speakers were generally grifters. There's Art Bell and the chat says, show me a world leader who didn't have a personality disorder. These right-leaning chats with big heads are a hot sell it. Yes, there's an enormous audience for a right-wing perspective on the world that is not allowed in the mainstream media. If you can say something that's more edgy than what will be allowed on Fox News, there's an enormous audience that wants to hear what you have to say. The right needs better leaders and better gatekeepers like the social justice warriors have. They need a test for psychopathies, says the chat. Yeah, when you see a guy trying to come into your synagogue and he's dressed in homeless-looking sweatpants, and he's Middle Eastern, and obviously not from around there and not Jewish, you probably should not let the person in. Yeah, no modern orthodoxy or no orthodoxy was going to just let that guy in. So yeah, the orthodox have much less trouble about excluding people. And I noticed that many of the rabbis and synagogues who make a big deal about helping the homeless, then their congregations then often get inundated by homeless who set up camp at the synagogue. Dennis says, I have nothing against doxing free speech in the marketplace of ideas and liberal concepts that go back to enlightenment follies. Richard Spencer did the kill stream with Mr. Goal, an oddball. I hate when these guys asking questions of Richard are slow and wandering and speak too much. Luke's voice has heard saying, I want to hear Richard earlier. Never heard of Mr. Goal. Ethan Ralph looks bloated, 250 pounds and 55. There's the chat. Open the door, open the door and let them in. I don't let them in. That is security assessment. Back to Richard here speaking on Ethan Ralph. Was a disaster on many ways. I don't go out of my way to denounce Charlottesville because I find a lot of that stuff to be very poisonous. And it's a way it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There were good things about that. There were a lot of good intentions. There were good people. And I think just getting into this kind of Charlottesville obsession is absolutely wrong. But there were a lot of bad people and there were a lot of. There are good people on both sides. Yeah, when the overwhelming result of an event is horrible is effectively terminal for your cause, it seems weird to spend much time talking about the good motives of people involved. It's like talking about the good motives of the Dallas Cowboys and they got crushed by the San Francisco 49ers 10 days ago. Decisions that could have been better on the part of the organizer. And there are also things that were. How about decisions you could have made that would have been better? Right. So what's the English language version of hail our people? So Richard is walking around Sunday morning at Charlottesville drinking hard liquor and saying hail our people and effectively sing highly with people. Maybe maybe those were such good decisions. Or it could not have been foreseen and to be fair. So I think it's something that I've learned a lot from. It has absolutely affected me and so on. But in terms of the lawsuit, I mean, yeah, you want to like you hate Richard Spencer. So this is all funny or whatever. Well, I mean, that sounds like a really destructive nihilistic attitude. If this kind of precedent is set where in 1985 and 1986 are just used as this damoclesion sword holding, you know, hanging over everyone's head, you're not going to be able to do any form of activism. Maybe you don't want. Yeah. Well, those sections weren't held up. All right. He's saying you'll never be able to do any form of activism. Yeah. You can do activism with intelligence and good judgment. All right. You can do activism that appeals to people who are going to be responsible citizens, not criminally inclined. So what's consistently destroyed any chances of white nationalist gaining traction is that most of the people who are attracted to the cause are of such low quality. Two. Okay, fine. But like this is absolutely a way of using the court system as politics by other means. The court system is being used as politics by other means for hundreds and hundreds of years. All right. Whatever verdict the Charlottesville jury was going to come down was not going to affect that. You know, that is what this is about. I mean, yeah, there's a lot of technical issues. There's there's evidence. There's arguments, et cetera. But like at the end of the day, it is about using the court system as politics by other means. Like it seems like some people would. Yeah. People will fight, you know, whatever approach is effective. Right. You infuriate enough powerful, influential, affluent people. They will fight you every which way that is effective to restrict you. And so this this trial took an enormous toll on Richard Spencer. And I think all the defendants, it distracted them. And there's not a lot of introspection here about what I, Richard, did that brought about this unfortunate result care about that. But well, I definitely do understand not liking somebody enough that you would root for things like that. It's hard. Why would anyone root for Richard Spencer when he doesn't even root for himself? Right. I mean, he puts himself aggrandizement first, but he makes such terrible decisions that destroy his own welfare. So if Richard's not going to take care of himself, why would he expect other people to take care for him? They got this suicidal wish for fame, and the fame has almost killed him. And he talks about that after Hale gave. He says it almost destroyed him. Well, Richard Spencer initiated Hale Gate, but he couldn't quite handle the blowback. So maybe don't do things that you can't handle when they are publicized. Maybe speak in a way to a group that you would be all right if a recording was made public. Richard is all vengeful that someone recorded him after Charlottesville. But Richard wasn't speaking privately after Charlottesville. He was speaking to a group. So maybe don't orate to a group of more than a dozen people if you would not want this heard by the world to happen. But I would say, you know what I mean? Like I speak, I don't like to, but I would say in this case, a little short-sighted, especially since they're basically looking for ways to put us all in jail and bankrupt us all, if you want to know the truth about it. And I know a lot of people don't like what Richard's been saying the last year or two, but it doesn't stop them from trying to fuck with him either. They're not looking to put everyone in jail. They're looking to put certain people who are being particularly obnoxious in jail. You know what I mean? Like they're still trying to bankrupt them. They're still trying to fuck with them over some shit from 2017, right? It doesn't matter about any of the stuff he said about Biden or the vax or anything else. They're still fucking with this guy. And if you get in their crosshairs, they're going to fuck with you too for the rest of your life. Yeah, and look, the Biden stuff, that was not an attempt to like appeal to the plaintiffs. If it were, it didn't work in the slightest bit. Like I call things as I see them and I march to the beat of my own drummer. I think you recognize that whether you agree with me or not. So they will, if they see you as some kind of major threat, they're going to go after you. This case could have very easily been Natalie Romero v. James Fields. That is someone who was clearly injured. Now, Natalie Romero was an activist of some kind, kind of a casual one, I would say. But she was absolutely injured in the car incident and she did not deserve to be injured. That is a absolutely fair statement. That could have been the case. That is a open and shut, completely legitimate and in a way a political use of the civil court system. It wasn't that. It was basically an attempt to say that, not only was there James Fields, but Spencer's bold talk about, this is an historic victory. We're taking the streets and we're the new rights. We're going to take over that stuff led to her. Yeah, so Richard was giving speeches about how the alt-right was going to take over America. That kind of speech provokes the type of reaction that he is now complaining about. He doesn't get that the lawsuit and the tremendous opposition to him has all been engendered by his own choices, his own words, his own public speeches. His own agenda has brought about a massive backlash. Her injuries in a kind of malign conspiracy. That is a really dangerous way of arguing and that can absolutely be used in all sorts of bad ways. Now, let me see. I think there is, okay, there are a couple, DD12, this one I missed. DD12 sent $10, hopefully the retrial for those two deadlocked charges is immediately dismissed. I wish all the guys in the trial well and hope the monetary liability hasn't affected Mest with them mentally too much. Yeah, I don't want to go full feels or whatever here, but sounds like they really put you guys through the meat grinder. And this is just what we've seen since it's been publicized the last couple of months while the trial was getting ready to happen and then when it happened and now you're here after. I've been through my own legal stuff and still I am going through some stuff, not related to political activism, but I know how I can wear on you. Let's just put it that way. Oh yeah. And it's not easy. If you hurt people, people are going to retaliate. It's not necessarily going to be in the form of a lawsuit. If you're going about hurting and unnecessarily gratuitously, viciously, offending and devastating people, they are going to retaliate. It may take the form of a lawsuit. It may take the form of a punch. It may take the form of getting you fired, especially something like this that's getting everyday media attention and stuff. They're taking pictures of you outside the court, of course, stuff like that. Like, what was it like, I guess, from that perspective? Well, it wasn't quite the circus that I expected. So when I first got there, I was actually staying like an hour outside of Charlottesville because I kind of prepared for the worst. I thought it was just, you know, you would have to like burst through Antifa to get into courtroom. Then there's going to be like a replay of Charlottesville and maybe future lawsuits. It was not like that. It was not the media circus that I expected. And I think that was good. Also, you could listen into the trial, but you had to kind of actively follow a link. It was a bit like the Maxwell trial going on now. It's not really that public. I think Charlottesville also is kind of in the rearview mirror to a degree, particularly after January 6th. So that kind of lessened the burden of it, I guess, a little bit. But yeah, again, that's just to put everything into perspective. I mean, look, you go through the discovery process. You go into court. You go into court up against very tough and smart lawyers who want to defeat you. You know, they're going to dissect you and lay you bare. I mean, it's like, you know, if I could brag a little bit, look, weaker people would be crushed by it. They just couldn't take it. Normal people, what do you fear most? Your, you know, internet search history being published? Well, it wasn't quite that, but it was a lot like that actually. Your worst moments being amplified in a trial where a jury really decides your fate. It is stressful as hell. I mean, yeah. Now, what do you think about Kessler? I'm invincible. Cause I know Kessler, he's been on the show. We actually had him on the show during the trial and he had some things to say. So I'll let you, if you want to respond or say anything to him. I don't remember exactly what he said. It wasn't flattering towards you though. Oh, no, Kessler clearly hates me. You know, I don't know what to say about Kessler. My, my view of him. This guy who organized the Charlottesville protest, by the way, was credited. Right. Yeah. I mean, my, my view of him has, has shifted a lot. I mean, I never really knew him. And I, I don't think I could even say who he is. I mean, if someone asked me, what does Jason Kessler believe in? Like does he have a core view of the world? I don't think I could tell you what it is. And I think, you know, even my haters, I think they would. Okay. So Jason Kessler was the organizer of this march. You didn't look into him. You didn't do some investigation. You're saying you, you know, nothing about him, but you chose to be the headline speaker for his event. They could probably explain, you know, a little bit how I go about things, like how I think about things, whether they agree with me or not. Kessler was obsessively tweeting during the trial, which is absolutely stupid. And he was openly saying, I'm going to have to throw Spencer under the bus in order to beat the rap. I mean, that's a direct quote. I mean, you said you threw him under the bus too, or something, try to claim that. I forget what the tweet was. I have to go back and pull it up. But he was saying his argument, I mean, this is public knowledge. So I can, I can talk about it. I mean, this happened in the trial. His argument basically was that he wanted a good rally and all of these terrible people took the rally away from him. And so basically anything that happened that was good was Tim, anything that happened that was bad was Spencer working through Eli Klein. It was effectively what he was claiming. He didn't cite any evidence for this or present this when he had ample opportunity to. He just kind of said it, asserted it. And so there were these just kind of very weird situations. One of them was in cross-examination with me and I guess with Ms. Dunn who cross-examined him where he would say like, oh, in this photo, this is when the rally was taken away from me or something. It's just a very weird thing. I don't think I am liable for the injury suffered by some of the plaintiffs. That being said, it's- So I invite guests on my show and theoretically any, any day, any moment they could take the show away from me is then up to me to eject them, right? And not to, not to start events or not to start shows that I can't control. At some point, you do have to take responsibility for something. No, you shouldn't take responsibility for something that's not yours, but you have to take responsibility for what's yours. And you have to try to learn from something and say, all right, this doesn't work. That was a good decision. That was a really bad decision. We couldn't have foreseen that, but we now, we now can foresee that. You have to treat it like that. If you're treating it simply as I am innocent, I am a good person and an innocent victim, then you can't learn anything and you can't really say anything about the trial. And that is my impression of Kessler. Kessler claims that from the moment he met me, he knew that I was a narcissistic sociopath and just, you know, it's like, well, why are you inviting me to the event? Why did you as- So Richard just made a long harangu there about the importance of taking responsibility. Well, I haven't heard much responsibility taking by Richard. He was revealed a trial, actively invite the Nationalist-Socialist Alliance, or the National, I forgot what they were called, the NA, something, the National Front. Why did you actively invite them? Why were you actually walking in with them? Why did you do that if that is your view? The evidence is contradicting what you're saying. He said that I was this evil person. As I revealed in cross-examination, he invited me to attend his Charlottesville 3.0 rally in 2018. I didn't. And I don't know what to say. I didn't, it just wasn't worth it. You're talking about a lot of people here who are anti-social and unable to maintain ties with people and who, under stress, lash out at themselves and lash out at other people. The mark of maturity is how much stress you can endure without lashing out at others or yourself. Bertha, I didn't trust him, and I didn't want to do it, whatever. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, who cares? But after that event, he texted back to me, as was revealed in the trial, eat my dust, you jealous bitch. Well, this doesn't really seem like someone who wants to work with me, or wants, has my best interest at heart. This doesn't seem like someone who's really taking responsibility. It seems like so. So, whose best interest does Richard have at heart, aside from his own? And he doesn't seem so removed from reality. He clearly doesn't even have his own interests, best interests at heart. Who's best interest does Richard really have at heart? Someone who's playing a victim. And I mean, another case that was, this never happened. So, and I'm glad that it never happened, but he was talking about finding a Richard Spencer impersonator, and announcing that to Antifa, and they would all meet up at a bar, and get in a fight. Now, that's just bonkers. Now, he never did it to his credit, I guess. But, you know, it's not good, and I think at the end of the day, It's like a businessman idea there, isn't it? There are better arguments that could be made for that, for why he should not be liable, and why people should actually care about this case. There are better arguments than, you know, Richard Spencer's evil. I mean, look, I'm a whipping boy in the all right. Most of the all right hates me, or whatever. Fine, I don't care. Like, I'm not, what did they say when they go into the Survivor Show? I didn't come here to make friends. You know, I'm interested in ideas. I speak my mind. You can take it or leave it. It's up to you. But there are just better arguments that can be made. And to be honest, I feel like I didn't fully understand what Charlottesville was really about, in the sense that I had done all of these great events, Texas A&M, Auburn, where, you know, no lawsuits emerge from those. Yeah, there were scuffles. Antifa would show up. Antifa is toxic. You know, yes. But things were going well. The innovation that Kessler brought about is there right in the name. You kniked the right. It was about bringing in everyone. And he was, again, he was the point man for bringing in the National Socialist Movement and Jess Schupp. And all of these guys. Well, I understand why you would want to do that. You know, Jeff Scoop is the pronunciation. And I just did an interview with Jeff on Friday. More people. But, you know, you're changing the nature of what this is. And again, I was not informed of the stuff. I was not involved in the Discord server where the Charles O'Reilly was organized. And that was testified to by the plaintiff's own expert. And so I don't know what to say to him on some level. Right. So any Twitter chat, any Discord server, any Facebook group that you participate in, whatever goes on there, has the potential to blow up your life. So use some good discretion with whom you talk privately. And particularly when those talks are recorded in a chat. Right. Don't be going on chats where people are looking forward to committing criminal acts. It's just there are better ways of making arguments than trying to demonize someone, particularly when the facts don't back it up. You know, you can't cite any evidence for what he's saying. He's just saying it. And it didn't work. So why? You know. All right, there we go. I want to give you a chance. I know he brought you up and I saw him mentioning it. And I'm sure he'll probably come back on at some point too. So I like to get that here. The kill stream is the record. Somebody was somebody was fucking with me and sent me an email. I said, do you want it? You want to get on the record over here on my shit ball channel? No, this is the record right here, the kill stream. And that's that's what I'm interested in. All right, now let me turn this on. Let's meet the press for the alright. Yeah. So I heard that when you're in your trial, you had the Milo clip brought up. And then you kind of brought it into context. I was wondering if you could share that context with us. Sure. Well, I actually presented the Milo clip as an exhibit in my own defense. And the plaintiffs, they were like, oh, he's trying to, I forgot what they said. He's trying to immunize you to it to the jury. They did not like that. But basically the Milo clip, as you probably know, it was the I rule the fucking world and, you know, octaroons. It was me at a state of just immense frustration. And it was, you know, obviously, you should never have been put out there. It was taken, was recorded without my consent and put out there online to harm me and so on. But I did put it into context. That was not. This is the emphasis for Richard that it was recorded without his consent. He gave a public talk, right? And what he's angry at is that someone recorded it without his content consent and made a public, right? What about your own role here, Richard? Not me giving a speech urging others to go harm anyone. It was me at a point of just utter and complete frustration as the event unfolded. So, you know, I went to Charlottesville that morning with tremendous optimism. I was ready to give a speech. I was ready to, you know, see the crowd and all that kind of stuff. And the state of emergency was called at 12 noon before anyone had given any form of speech. The rally was scuttled before it even got to take place and we were forced out in the market street. Antifa and the alt-right were expelled together, forced funneled towards each other, and then chaos was unleashed on Charlottesville. I mean, it was the worst possible way for anyone to, for any municipality or state to have a safe event. And I was in a state of just deep frustration. I learned about Heather Hyer's death and I could feel that this was going to be, just have, I mean, beyond the death itself, it was just going to have a tremendous impact, a terrible impact on the movement, my own career and so on. And I was just in a state of complete and utter frustration. And that's why I descended into this bombastic rant from hell. And so, you know, you have to take that in context. I was not urging anyone to engage in violence. I was expressing extreme frustration, much like someone, you know, at halftime when you're losing a game. I was not a great athlete, by the way, but I was in mini locker rooms during halftime and when you're getting your butts kicked, you'll say things that are just totally outrageous and stupid and crazy. But you're just, you're venting frustration. And that's what I was doing. I knew that it was a disaster. And so I put it into context, I think, effectively. Now, the other aspect of- Well, he thinks he's effective in this rant. This is what he thinks is effective. Why would he think this is effective? They don't do this to me. The Charlotte law enforcement reaction, it was personal against Richard and how dare they do this to Richard. And he's proud of this rant. Mitchell, listen, he's slain us! These are the fucking shits! Shits! You're cruel! Right, so the reason this clip's important is that it is who Richard Spencer is. This is how he thinks. This is not unrepresentative of Richard. This is highly representative. And he still thinks that speech was effective. That is that I asked Kessler under oath who did it and the person who did it, according to Kessler, and I'd heard this rumor, but I'd never promoted this rumor because I didn't have evidence. But I mean, Kessler testified under oath that it was a man named Dave Riley who I don't know. Did they testify that? So I'd heard that and I know Dave Riley. And I'm- Right, so Richard's focus here is on who leaked the speech. I don't think it particularly matters. That is falling short there. All right, White Wolf, do you have anything else? By the way, I like Dave. And I'm sure he'll come back on and have his own thing to say about that. But yeah, that was okay. I would be curious. I hope you do have him on. I would be curious why you're making recordings of people without their consent and then edit- That's the source of his ire that someone recorded his rent in front of a group of people. Getting them and selectively releasing them on the internet through a- According to Kessler. Homosexual. According to Kessler, we don't- You're a homosexual. Oh my gosh. He denies it and he has- I had heard that too. I'd heard that. And I like that. And he sincerely denies it. He was talking about, oh yeah, we talked to the police and we did this. And he didn't talk to the police. And they're gonna get tough on Antifa when we do this. All of this was just- Oh, he's talking here about it. All right, well thank you, man. Appreciate it. It's not quite- Cause they want to spur people to go to the casinos, right? In Nevada. So it's not quite as liberal as it is here. Most of you made the recording and sent it to several people. He then conveniently lost his phone and never complied with some of these. He lied mostly. That's what somebody said. Oh, I didn't do that. Mostly made the recording. Made the call. He's been playing here. Yeah, that's what was just claimed, yeah. Okay. Well, maybe old Dave is off the hook. I had not heard that. I would not put it fucking fast. Who knows who- Yeah, I was going to say, like, I don't know. That's what I say. He's obviously a- And remember, Elliot Klein was Richard Spencer's lieutenant for what, a year? Two years? So Richard welcomed him into his inner circle and put him to work. Pathological liar. Well, that's- He lied to everyone about his valor, to be frank. I mean, in a way that you didn't need to. I mean, it's one thing if you actually have a military experience. Great. Richard, how come you couldn't tell that something was off with this guy? Right. But you don't need to impress me by that. I mean, I don't look down upon someone who wasn't in the military or something. And he lied about a lot of things. I mean, a lot of that came out in the trial. Just this- He would just make- Cantwell actually played a lot of these videos. I was not involved at all. So they didn't affect me, but they affected Chris. And he would play these videos where he was talking about, oh, yeah, we talked to the police and we did this. And he didn't talk to the police. And they're going to get tough on Antifa when we do this. All of this was just bullshit. It was this weird kind of sociopathic lying. And those are the primary people who hang around Richard. So why does Richard attract so many sociopaths? And I don't know. I would say this. I mean, I think I said this to a degree in the trial. I mean, it really does concern me that I was just surrounded by a bunch of weird liars. Yeah, he's concerned, but is he concerned about his own judgment and his own character? Because what does that say about Richard? And they're pathological liars in the sense that it's one thing to like embezzle money from your company or like be a con artist or something. It's another thing to lie when you don't have to. You know, I mean, I think there was a joke about Bill Clinton when he was a governor of Arkansas that he'll lie when the truth will do. You know, you don't have to lie. Just tell us the truth so that this can be effective. But he couldn't do that. And that strikes me as a pathology and not like an evil. Yeah. And what is it about you, Richard, that attracted so many pathological people? Pathological people. That's what you should think about and perhaps share about. Volmaki of alien scheme. And the fact that the alt-right attracted these people and that these people would kind of promote themselves and place the crown on their own head. So they just come out of the woodwork and say, ah. Yeah. Richard Spencer created an alt-right movement and led it in the direction of Nazism. And then he surprised that a movement in an Anglo country in the United States of America that chooses publicly to align with Nazism attracts anti-social people. And the anti-social people are going to publicly align with Nazism in the United States or in Canada or in England or in Australia or any other country that fought against the Nazis in World War II. So you shaped and directed and shoved a movement into association with Nazism, whereby only anti-social people will then publicly take part in your movement. All right. That's on you, Richard. You created this dynamic that only sociopaths and anti-social people are going to find common cause with you. I'm the new logistics coordinator. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that. Well, that was a really bad chaotic situation that should never ever be repeated. Yeah. He was your logistics coordinator. All right. He worked for you. And I have definitely learned that lesson. All right. Now, and for those who don't know, I'm mostly, it was Eli Mosley, I think. Yes. Eli Klein is, Elliot Klein is his actual name. Elliot Klein is his name. All right. Correct. Or maybe who knows? Maybe he's lying about that too. But that seems a little... Yeah. He didn't... No, it's not. I know. I'm just fucking with you. But he went there. But he was caught out lying about The New York Times, actually. He sat for a fucking interview, I believe, with The New York Times at Main Street. And we covered it on the kill stream at the time. I remember it was 2018. And we never had him on the show or anything, but he just completely self-immolated. Basically, they called him out and called out his phone about it. Well, it's uns... Yeah. Anti for a bunch of nihilists. All right. Not terribly pro-social people either. Sustainable. You can't... I'm not defending lying here, but it's one thing to lie in your taxes. It's another thing to just endlessly lie about everything. It can't work. You're gonna... You're just treading water and slowly sinking under. You're gonna drown. You can't lie about literally everything to everyone for no reason. It's just gonna implode eventually. So it's kind of like... There's a real problem about having people... For a public figure who's the subject of so much obliquy and attention and negative attention, I will give Richard credit that he does not seem to be a serial liar. That given his position, he seems to come across as reasonably honest. People with these types of pathologies, these borderline personality disorders and sociopathy surrounding everyone and taking the lead in rallies and stuff like that. Like that is just totally unworkable. And Dennis says in the chat, Richard Spencer makes fun of conservatives for being obsessed with earning the libs, but he's... He, Richard, is obsessed with earning conservatives the alt-right himself, pure slave morality. Half of Richard's tweets are like, anti-vaxxers are dumb and Macron, Emmanuel Macron is a great politician. I bet this contrarian take will make conservatives... Seed. Does Antifa have any dentists and accountants in their ranks? I would suspect not. It's just, it's scary. No, I don't know. But yeah, he did not comply with discovery. Which just means that you're gonna get fucked. I think he was in jail at some point. And, you know, yeah, believe it or not, you have to comply with shit to some degree or else you're just in default. And, you know, you can maybe do that in some circumstances, but like there's going to be a consequence. And I just feel like he never felt like there was any consequence. Another, I mean, in my opinion, and I actually said this, under oath at trial, I think Samantha Frillick is a liar. I don't think she's reformed. Now, that's the person. Now, by the way, is that the person... Kessler came on here and he came on here and alleged that you had a relationship with her, if that's the one I'm thinking about. Oh yeah, I slept with her. Yeah, okay, all right, well, that's... I slept with her hours after I met her. I mean, so I never had a relationship with her that was of any seriousness. But she, yeah, she was just a kind of clearly ambitious girl. And I wouldn't say that, by the way, if that was actually in trial. That was in her deposition. So that's why I'm saying it. I don't kiss and tell in other circumstances. I say some other things when I mention it. Yeah, I've heard some other things too. Well, but you know, who was she? Did she actually... She totally mischaracterized me in her deposition. So it wasn't testimony. I had no opportunity to cross-examine her. So she totally mischaracterized me and other things. She's now like part of some grift operation, like anti-racist activist group. So I'm not certain of other things. That's just my gut feeling. I don't think she believes in anything. I just think she's just like a she... And Leponia says, tell us why Irv Rubin was never sued by the ADL and the SPLC, Mr. Ford. Well, because they didn't see any interest in doing so, they weren't going to fundraise out of serving after going after the Jewish terrorist Irv Rubin. All right. So Richard Spencer has created a situation where there's an enormous appetite and money that is willing to fund operations to bring him and his type down. You know, little dragonfly. It's living about, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, was she ever a white nationalist? I think that's a better question. And she was... She works with... We talked about this with him too, actually. I guess she works with one of these reformed, these guys who bring people back from hate or whatever. Yeah, and look, if that's what your deal is, fair enough, okay? But that organization, I've even heard this from a lot of other people, that organization is really dubious and just seems like a grift. And so I don't buy any of that. I don't buy a reformation. I don't think there's any there there to begin with. She was probably like a similar to Eli Klein, just a liar. Yeah, plus it's like... Some people in this world, I mean, what is it? One in 30 or sociopathic? I mean, it's like, there are people in this world that don't have a core being to them. There is no there there. And they will say what you... They think you want to hear. And that is scary as fucking hell that those people are out there. You mentioned something earlier, somebody asked you a question in the Super Chat about Mikey not being released from the case or whatever happened. Is this missile granted? Yeah. And you said that the arguments they used in that dismissal, they weren't... Did the judge use? Yeah. Did the judge used? Well, the arguments, many of the arguments that were used and I used as well, I literally copied them. And then I sourced. And so did Mike. So, yeah. But in terms of the argument, the justification that was used by the judge, it seemed to be... It always struck me as weird. I mean, this is like three or four years ago, so I don't even quite remember it. It just struck me as weird in the sense that it could have been applied to more people, including the League of the South. Were you... Did you ever use a... Like a lawyer during that time? Yeah. I used Danuchi after that. And in terms of the... In terms of... I won't go into further. Okay. Yeah. Right. I'm not trying to... I'm not trying to push you say anything wrong or anything. But... Wait, what's that? Okay. Bunk in the... You said three dollars, make the knife versus retry to defend. All right. Go ahead. All right. All right. Now, I guess I was just kind of looking for some specificity as to, like, what... Why do you think that... You know, what were you implying, basically? Like, why do you think that they let him off and not you? But then secondly, I kind of want to ask, did you look at... Did you file as many motions as he did? Well, he filed a lot more motions. So, do you think they let him off because he was being a pain in the ass? I mean, well, if you're asking my opinion, it seems to be like he had a... He did have something that he wrote in his arguments that most people... None of the rest of them did, which because they were... Yeah, Mike, you know, seemed to have superior legal advice compared to the other defendants. Trying to subpoena his... the docks of his lizard base and, you know, he made a very, very good argument against that. Yes. This is Dingo speaking. And he tied that into throwing the whole thing out and that is unique among the defendants. And I think that's why I got tossed about personally. Fair enough. But yeah, I don't know. I wasn't implying anything outside of... I don't know. I mean, it's just... There's so much about this case that is very curious. And to be honest, I think it should have been thrown out for most everyone. I mean, again, there is a legitimate... Like, you know, James... It wasn't like this, I guess, in 2017 or 2018. But I mean, when James Fields has pled guilty to crimes, then, you know, if the case were Natalie Romero v. James Fields, that is an open and shut civil case. But again, I just feel that a serious magistrate judge would have taken different actions. I mean, it would have just kind of seen through what this was. The amount of just assertions literally in the original complaint, I mean, criminal conspiracy and all of this kind of stuff, just the level of hyperbole was over the top. And it just... We knew what this was about from the beginning. Now, once they got in the courtroom, of course, it wasn't just over the top nonsense. I mean, these are very good lawyers and know what they're doing. But if you go back to that original case, I mean, I think a serious judge should just say, look, this is absolutely outrageous. You can't just make bold assertions and treat that as fact. No, yeah. You don't have to try to convince me that the lawsuit was bullshit. Of course it was. I wanted to say this, too. I forgot about this. Now, I was listening to that case on the phone for a lot of that week. By the way, Dingo, keep talking. I'm going to step away for one second. Now, I'll come back. We'll finish up the call and we'll do the musical number. An amazing episode tonight. I have to say, rich over the wrong call. It's been a lot of fun. Go ahead, Dingo. I'll let you carry it here for a second while I step away. All right. Okay, I'll do that. All right. I'll bill you for it. No, but now that Ralph's gone, somebody in the chat was like, oh, Dingo, suckin' spinsters. Yeah, you fucking people can be so irrational. Like, how many times have I gotten on here and argued with this dude already? Like, plenty. You know what I mean? Like, he just hasn't said anything and super fucking insulted me. I'm not like all horny to fucking to bug his vaccine opinions like you guys are. Okay, I'm sorry. If he says something I don't like, I'll call him an asshole. But I mean, I just don't know what you want from me all the time. Okay, so what do you want from me? I don't know what you want from me all the time. So I think that's going to be it. Holly says Mike's legal stance and strategy was good. I read his papers. People who say it's fishy that he got out aren't lawyers and they can't follow what happened. Yeah, I think Mike took the smartest legal approach and got the best legal advice. Civil cases mean squat. Says Napoleon as well. They can mean billions of dollars. So I wouldn't say they squat. Yeah, Dingo was Ford's greatest guest. Civilizations died by suicide. So some also died by murder. The way the world works, the strong take what they want and the weak endure what they must. That's it. Bye-bye.