 So Nick Fuentes, he's received subpoenas to speak to the committee on Capitol Hill investigating the January 6th attack, so MSNBC reports January 6th select committee announced a new round of subpoenas Wednesday following this thread, could provide insight into a nagging mystery in the insurrection investigation of the committee. The two white nationalist Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey described as leaders of the far-right America First or Gropa movement. Both men rallied outside the US Capitol on January 6th last year, while rioters waged their attack. During the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot Fuentes and Casey, Birkin events across the country falsely claiming then that President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud. So this was discussed by JFKRP. The question of the day tonight is on the survey. Do you think Nick Fuentes will go to jail? That is our question to the crowd. You can click on the link to entropy below the video if you'd like to vote. Richard will reach with Nick Fuentes end up in jail because a subpoena for a committee of that kind is investigatory in nature, but it's often a place where leverage is being used against the exception so that he ends up saying something that he doesn't realize now, but eventually could be used against them. I think there is a very good chance that Nick Fuentes will end up in jail on a similar charge to Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the Oathkeepers, and that is seditious conspiracy. I say this not necessarily because of the things you just mentioned, although that's of course true. There is videotape of Nick Fuentes with a bullhorn saying go into the Capitol. Oh, we're good. We're in the Capitol. They've stopped the counting of the votes. We're not leaving the Capitol until Donald Trump is president for another four years and so on. You can go see it. I retweeted it a year ago. I re retweeted it again. It's pretty damning. Yes, we do have a charitable free speech law in the United States. You can get away with a lot. You can say really bold stuff like, one day we're going to go and round up those damn congressmen and throw them into a dungeon or something. You can say something like that because it's not an immediate direct threat. It's a kind of one day like claim. It's bold. It's maybe stupid, but it is protected in the First Amendment. You can't actively urge someone on who's an earshot to stop the counting of votes. You are engaging in the disruption of government and that is sedition. Now it's not, it's not treason. It's not a hanging crime or anything, but it could be 20 years. I was talking to someone today and I was thinking about this like, with Fuentes, he could get himself out of this by really cooperating with the J6 committee, giving them lots of stuff, etc., but I don't know if he could tell them something they don't know or that they can't get by, that the FBI can't get by investigating his computer. So I don't know what exactly he has to give them, but we are clearly on a new stage of the J6 investigation. The first year of the investigation was rounding up low-hanging fruit. That is people who were in the capital, you know, the poor... And what's going on, Elliott? Elliott, you need to turn down your mics. And what's going on, Elliott? Blessings, Luke. Blessings. One second, let me shut the... Sorry, bro. Thank you. Thank you. What's going on, man? Oh, now I can't hear you. One second. Yeah, what's going on? Boomer Tech, sorry. Okay. Okay, sorry, Boomer Tech. Can you hear me? Yes. What's going on? Okay, great. So I don't know, just a big football weekend. Yeah, extraordinary, wasn't it? Every single game was bizarre in its own way. I couldn't believe... I started watching the San Francisco game. I went to a bar because I don't have a TV. And they let me in. They had all these signs about being masked and vexed, but nobody was masked. And, you know, nobody asked me if I had a vex or not. So I went there, you know, it was around sundown, and there's a little patty on the backyard. So I figured I would just kind of hide out in the back there and watch the game on the TV, right? But I was wearing my sunglasses. So my sunglasses have a way of making TVs next to invisible unless I turn my head to the side. Right. So the only way I could see the TV, I had to have my head cocked over to the side like that, like at a perpendicular angle, which was just ergonomically miserable, right? And then it looked like it looked like misery. It was like the San Francisco couldn't do anything right, right? Yeah. I don't... Did you actually watch the game? Yeah. And, you know, I thought the whole situation was hopeless. So I, you know, I was just kind of gritting it out. And I got through the first half and after the first half, I just didn't want to endure any more abuse. So I left, you know, I figured I would just pick up the rest on the radio, but I was more or less resigned to my fate. I thought, you know, we were done. We were toast. And a blocked punt turning into a touchdown. When does that happen? How often does that actually happen? I mean, it doesn't happen that often. I mean, I never recall a game where the winning team didn't score a touchdown. You know, the only touchdown they got was on blocking a punt. Yeah, on defense. The defense scored all the points. So apparently San Francisco has a pretty excellent defense. I mean, it can't... I mean, obviously it's a small sample, but, you know, they were big underdogs, weren't they? Yes. And I don't know. I don't know, which was more bizarre, the Dallas game or the Green Bay game? Oh, the Green Bay game. Yeah. So anyway, so I watched that and I figured, well, this is good. So the citizen goes on at least another game. And then I'm thinking, well, San Francisco has to travel to LA, you know, your turf, but you're probably not really an LA fan. Or is that your backup team? I'm not aware. I'm not sure. You know, you don't care. You don't know. Well, I've always think they were good. And I ignore ordinarily how we think that LA would beat San Francisco. However, San Francisco has the edge of one extra day's rest. Right. And I think that's actually important. Yeah, sure. I mean, I think that's probably worth... I don't know. It's probably worth a touchdown. Also, San Francisco has beaten LA the last six times they've played. Right. But does that really matter year to year? I mean, the teams change so much year to year. Can you really make like cross year comparisons? No, they beat them twice this year. They beat them twice last year and they beat them twice three years ago. So I think that matters. Yeah. Well, I have to say, I mean, I have that receiver. I forgot his name, but he's really... People cup. Yeah. That guy's a player. That's what... When I saw the replays last week and I saw some of his catches, I thought they were keen to be reckoned with in a real way. What about Nick Fuentes getting subpoenaed by the January 6 committee? You think he could be found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the United States government? Seems like such a stretch, doesn't it? Well, I mean, he was out there with the bullhorn kind of endorsing what was going on in the capital riots and he got hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bitcoin from some Frenchman. So it's foreign interference, huh? Maybe. I don't even take anybody seriously that talks about January 6 as being a huge deal. It's performance art as far as I'm concerned. Do you think it's worse than that? If it was Black Lives Matter that overrun the US capital and congressmen and senators were basically running for their lives and hiding out as a mob looted and ransacked the capital, you wouldn't think it was a big deal either. Were they really looting and ransacking or were they just sort of taking selfies? There was a variety. Some people looted, some people ransacked, some people defecated. Some people were punching cops and beating on cops. Well, I haven't seen all the video. I mean, the stuff I've seen seem pretty tame, but obviously a lot of stuff happened which I didn't see. But were there any explosives? Were there any guns fired on part of the January 6 people? Was it really sedition or are we just sort of stretching the definition to suit a dramatic narrative? I think some people really did want to stop the vote count and did want to overturn the democratic process. So I guess maybe in the tightest legal definitions maybe, and I'm not a lawyer obviously, but I think it's just bad politics to pursue this any further. And just pursuing a case against Nick Funtz is just only going to sharpen the divide between people. And we need to come together, Luke. We need to come together as a country. On a scale of 1 to 10, let's say 10 being a 9-11 and I don't know, 1 being a riot where some people get injured, a riot in Milwaukee where some people get injured. Like how seriously would you look at the January 6 attacks? So I think I'd give it like a 4 or a 5. I'd give it a 1. Yeah. I mean, okay, I'll give it a 2. It depends. I'd have to see more footage, but the stuff I saw it boarded on the comedic. I mean, you know, the guy with the horns and there seemed to be like, I don't know, sort of a tongue-in-cheek, ironic, you know, internet comedy dimension to this whole thing. So I don't see it. It wasn't storming the best deal, right? It was not a historic event by any stretch of imagination. Well, I think it had elements of both. Like there's definitely a comedy element, but there was also, you know, they overrun law enforcement. They did, you know, smash down barriers. They smashed windows. They invaded the Speaker of the House's office. They stole her laptop. They took over the Senate floor and the House of Representatives floor. So I think there was elements of comedy and elements. You're saying 9-11 is a 10 and January 6th is a 4? Wow. Wow. Just wow, Luke. Because of where it happened on Capitol Hill. Like if this had just happened in Iowa at a, I don't know, a meatpacking warehouse, I think it's such a big deal. Well, I guess we disagree. Okay. I want to go ahead and make some, some points and focus on this Nick Fuentes story. But is there anything else that you want to add before I move on? No, no, I have to, I should probably get back to work. I just want to talk to Paul, but the other games are interesting too. We should talk about this as well. But we'll talk about it. All right. Sounds good, man. Take care. All right. This is Richard Spencer. Fascinating man. I actually listened to a, to an interview of him and he was, he was actually seemed like kind of a good guy to be honest, although wacky. He's been rounded up. You know, my girl Riley who stole Nancy Pelosi's laptop. There's, you know, I won't comment on whether I have a crush on her or not. But she's been under house arrest. It goes on and on. They've gotten the low hanging fruit. And now they are going to big stuff. So one of the memes from the like all white, you know, Trump, you know, idiots who are still doing this, like Darren Beatty or something, one of the memes was they haven't arrested Ray Epps. They haven't arrested Stuart Rhodes, who is a kind of boogeyman like figure. So they're, they're kind of playing the optics game. They're saying that everyone there was good, but then you had these, these, the bad boogeyman. He must be an FBI agent or something like that. Well, there's no evidence for that. And the fact is Stuart Rhodes has now been, been charged with seditious conspiracy. That is a, okay. So I want to make some, some points quickly. So I would favor charging the January six rioters. The exact same way is if they were on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me. So most of the January six rioters seem to be pro Trump people. I'm pro Trump, but I believe in law and order. So I'm for charging them just the same as if they were in Tifa or Black Lives Matter. I think a lot of Black Lives Matter and in Tifa terrorists got away with, with a lot of damage and illegal behavior. And so I would like to see them charged for their crimes, but I also want to see the January six people charged for their crimes. Now, some other thoughts before you get charged with sedition, before you get sued as in the people, the plaint, the defendants in the Charlottesville civil lawsuit, before you run into all the problems that Richard Spencer has run into in the last four years, there are all sorts of warning signs that you're heading in the wrong direction, such as what is the quality of the people that you're aligning with? Right? What is the quality of the people that you're losing from your life? Are you increasingly surrounded by people with nothing to lose? Right? You're always going to be judged by the people around you. They are a good indicator of who you are. And if you hurt people, they respond. So do you listen to the feedback you're getting? So what is the source of your morality? Is it do what your grandma would want you to do? Or you say Cartesian, and you like, you look at your morality from an objective perspective. And if there's a rotten plank in the ship of your morality, you try to tear it out. And so I think with the Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, Patrick Casey, many of the defendants in Charlottesville, there are probably all sorts of warning signs that they were heading in the wrong direction. The quality of the people that they were hanging out with was deteriorating. And so reality will keep coming back if you fail to acknowledge reality. And so I think all these defendants here had all sorts of warning signs that they were headed in a bad direction. Now, I've been a part of many online group chats, and nobody's talked about illegal behavior. Nobody's talked about looking forward to committing acts of violence. So if you're in a group chat or you're in a group where people are talking about committing illegal behavior, and looking forward to violent confrontations, you're probably in a bad place. 20 year sentence. So they are now moving on to a new stage. They've collected their evidence. The wheels of justice turned slowly. It's going to take a long time. They have no doubt investigated the Bitcoin donation and they are looking into it. Now, I'll just say, I am not in the loop of any of this. I'm just looking at it from the outside. That Bitcoin donation looked very much like a quid pro quo type donation. It just occurred at that time. There were millions of dollars flowing in to the stop the steal movement and the Trump legal defense and all that. It just strikes me as some kind of thank you for your service type thing. So we all can fall guilty to group think. I've lived most of my life within Orthodox Judaism over the past 20 years or so. And so I get habituated to a perspective on the world that is complementary and friendly to being an Orthodox Jew. And so Spencer and Nick Fuentes, JF Garapie, they also for vulnerable to group think. Now, it's basically impossible to live without group think, but you also have to be able to step outside of yourself and ask, how would what I'm about to say, how would what I'm about to do look to outsiders, people who don't have an agenda either for me or against me. And it's this ability to step outside of yourself and get some perspective on your group, right? That's, that's what leads to a lot of oblivious and dangerous behavior. Now, ostensibly, it was done by a French, a French nationalist who committed suicide. Very, very possible that that's the case. Just looking at it from the outside, I don't have evidence. It just does seem like a payoff because Nicholas Fuentes was absolutely decisive, maybe even indispensable in the soft the spiel movement. He was there very early on with Alex Jones, Ali Akbar. So there are all sorts of wrong beliefs, I think that can serve you. And then there are wrong beliefs that are really dangerous. So it's not that the people who committed January six were say wrong about believing that massive fraud affected the election that got them into trouble. It's certain beliefs, right? So certain beliefs that are wrong get you into trouble and other beliefs can empower you. For example, many Democrats after the 2016 election became convinced that Russia stole the election and changed votes in favor of Donald Trump. Now, there's never any evidence that Russia essentially altered the results of the 2016 election. But believing that false belief, it probably produced group solidarity. And I don't think it led to a lot of destructive behavior. It helped Democrats consolidate and oppose Donald Trump and feel righteous in doing so. But it didn't cause them to go out and commit a lot of crimes. The downside of believing that false belief is that they wouldn't take stock of maybe where they'd gone wrong in the 2016 election and learn from it because they just want to blame it on this various force. But the belief that the 2020 election was stolen, this false belief, it does lead to a lot of bad results because you then are unhinged from any morality. There are no longer any moral or legal safeguards on what you're going to do because you feel like the country has been stolen from you. But that is a false belief that is particularly damaging to many individuals, including the January six rioters or Ali Alexander. They were in Georgia. They're writing around in Humvees. They were talking about the stolen election. Nick also has a really organic audience. Nick can get 10,000. It's weird, but I think Richard Spencer's got some pretty sharp things to say here. And the chat says, you don't have to like Richard Spencer. At least he openly declares what he believes in. Nick Fuentes, on the other hand, constantly switches positions and uses the it's just humor, bro, excuse, good point. Richard Spencer, due to the Charlottesville trial, was made aware of the fact members of the alt-right are low quality human beings. Hence, he wants to increasingly disassociate himself from them. 20,000 people watching a live stream live. He represents and kind of reflects the nature of this youthful right with the irony. Yeah, it's not that Nick Fuentes is changing tens of thousands of opinions. He aligns himself with this large, underserved community who want to believe that the 2020 elections were stolen. And so he is feeding a hungry audience what they want to hear. The silliness, the denial, the jokes, the just totally immature behavior, the lack of a coherent ideology, the Trump fandom. He represents his fandom very well. And he was essential in getting this thing off the ground, getting juice behind it. And so I think he was paid off. That's just my view with no evidence. I'm simply looking at it from a kind of... Well, every commentator, everyone who does a live stream and attracts an audience gets paid off. When you say things that the people think are important, that they want to support, then people give you money. Huey Bono standpoint. I think you can have two interpretations here. It was a moment of emotion. And Chad says, Nick is capturing youth as they become politically interested. I don't think he's capturing. I think he is reflecting a certain worldview that is not served by the mainstream media. And it's very possible that a man about to commit suicide, would it be emotional about all this and would want to support it exactly at this moment? Because that's a moment at which the crowds were very happy about Nick's work. The other... So I think Fuentes was terribly influential, except to the extent that he articulated often very clearly and in a humorous fashion, in a captivating fashion, what tens of thousands of people felt and perhaps could not articulate as well as Nick. I mean, that's what makes a powerful public intellectual or a public speaker or a pundit, when they can articulate what many other people feel, but can't put into words as effectively. Another hypothesis is some nefarious foreign agent, maybe an undercover of the CIA, just rerouting money from the American government to incite more of this stuff, so that eventually they can go after it. It could be a Fed or it could be some billionaire or millionaire who just wanted things to happen and just... Yeah, it could be Weave. He could be Weave and the Anglin group, who have always supported Nick. Weave apparently, from one thing I read, he was in a chat room with this Frenchman who committed suicide. Weave is up to no good and certainly does a lot of dirty tricks like this. I wouldn't be surprised if he were behind it. So Weave is not a Fed, at least I don't have any reason to believe that, but he is someone who definitely deals with cryptocurrency and is definitely interested in inspiring things like January 6th. So if I were to just guess from the totally outside, totally without evidence, I'm not making a real allegation. I'm simply looking at it, thinking about who would want this, who could do this, et cetera. I would actually suggest Weave. Now, some people disagree with you on the chat and I actually agree with you. I think let's not forget that it's a crime to interfere with the obstruct the government's work and especially a vote of that importance like the transition to a president. It's a highly symbolic thing and blocking it is a crime and therefore appealing to others to try to block it or even saying on Twitter the next day after it happened that you're happy about it and that the siege was great. Those are things that will be held against Nick. Now, just to represent what the crowd is saying, some people say bad take, someone says Richard doesn't understand Nick only fears God. What would be your answer to this? I do understand that. I hopped on to Nick's cozy.com stream or something last night and I couldn't take it, but it was about five minutes where he was saying he only, yeah, the FBI isn't so scary because the real thing that scares him is eternal damnation and he's put his faith in Jesus and so on. Yeah, but what's your point? I mean, Nick has clearly turned the... So, Nick's like a lot of people I notice around the alt-right. They use religion as a shield. They use religion to make their positions more socially acceptable, but I never hear from Nick about any sacrifice. I never hear from Nick that he's taking advice from a priest. If Nick is the Roman Catholic that he says he is, then you would think he'd be getting advice from a priest. That would be the Roman Catholic thing to do, but none of his behavior and speech indicates that he's getting advice from his religion. I don't detect that he's sacrificing for his religion. His religion's a shield from attack. He can just wrap himself in Jesus and try to make what he's saying more socially acceptable, but if you're truly religious, then you're going to be sacrificing for your religion. You're going to be taking cues from your religion. You're going to be taking guidance. You're going to be taking instruction from people who are wiser in your religion than you are. So, when I have questions, I often talk to rabbis who know more Torah, have more life experience, who are smarter and wiser than I am. I think Nick better represented than someone like me what the alt-right actually is. If he has added much of anything, it is the irony, the kind of lack of any kind of political co- The way you stay out of the kind of trouble that Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes and Baked Alaska and Christopher Cantwell get in is that you live for things higher than yourself. So, if you are religious, then you take guidance from people who are wiser and smarter than you are. If you have things to live for that are more important than your own ego gratification, that are more important than your career, that are more important than getting attention and getting a large audience or getting income, then that tends to keep you out of trouble. When I watch movies or TV shows or read novels, the characters inevitably get into trouble because they're pursuing their own instinctive desires. They've got certain instincts and they're just running roughshod over everybody else to satisfy their instincts. So, if you're particularly driven to get money, then you may run roughshod over people or turn into a cheapskate so people don't want you around. If you're particularly driven to get laid, then you may treat people as objects and develop a bad reputation that then isolates you and marginalizes you in your community. So, when you have something higher to live for, something transcended, it can even be secular. It can be if you put the good of this political movement ahead of your own career and your own welfare, then that will tend to guide you out of a lot of the trouble that self-centered people like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes and Christopher Cantwell get into. Like, Richard, there is nothing higher than his career. There is nothing higher than his fame and fortune. And so, he will pursue his own self-aggrandizement over a cliff. Coherence. But he's also added, particularly of late over the past year, the God stuff. I think there was one quote saying, your job isn't real. Your girlfriend isn't real. What's real is the crucifixion of Christ, and this is the true reality. Yeah, that's what he, I mean, I think he does believe that. You know, good luck with that. Now, the goal of this, the goal of this... I don't think he believes that. I think he uses that. Supina. I suppose is the government, while the Democrats are interested in making a link between some money and some action, because eventually they want to make a case of it larger than just, I was on a speaker phone and siding people. They want to make a case that there was some kind of managerial involvement here, which would be dramatic in a criminal case. Yes. Now, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal case. I mean, this is a congressional inquiry. So, he is going to be under oath and it has the trappings of a legal case, but it's not a criminal or a civil case. But one could only imagine that the Department of Justice and this committee are in some ways collaborating or kind of sending smoke signals or something like that. So, I do think that I thought that he was in jeopardy of criminal prosecution for a year, ever since it happened. Everyone, when I tweeted that, everyone was like, oh, see more, cope more, you're just jealous or whatever. It's like, I don't know how anyone at this point a year later can argue that he's not in serious jeopardy of prosecution. He is, period, end of statement. They would not be talking to him if he weren't. And the FBI has frozen about, if I understand correctly, half a million dollars of his bank assets. And I think that the Democrats are wondering to what extent the Bitcoin money is fluid and to what extent essentially the FBI has been unable to seize Bitcoins because of its nature. The wheels of justice turn very slowly. Things take a lot of time. If the FBI, I do think that this is Richard on his Twitter space about four days very early on, the FBI was going to make a sedition charge. They were planning on and they're not just going to shoot out an arrest warrant for someone the next week. Unless, if something would have to be extremely brazen for that to happen, they have to collect evidence over a long period of time. They have to get grand jury indictments. They have to really go through the process and double and trickle check their work because if they screw up on such a heinous charge, they're going to have egg all over their face. I do think that Nicholas Fuentes, at the very least, is going to be criminally charged in some way. I do think that that is coming down the pipe. I also think it's going to take a little time. We might see that in this year, but it is going to happen in my opinion. And I thought that very early on. Why did I think that? Because sometimes it's not just about the act itself, but it's about the act itself really crying out for some kind of prosecution. So if we look at, there is a video, I actually tweeted this out. I recently retweeted it. I tweeted this out a couple of weeks after it happened. And Nicholas Fuentes is not just saying bold and seemingly illegal things from a podium somewhere. At the end of the day, that might not be protected in Europe. That is absolutely protected under the First Amendment. And the Brandenburg decision, Brandenburg was a kind of Ku Klux Klan Nazi type. Under that decision, you actually can say really bold stuff. And it is still protected under the First Amendment. You can say things like, you know, we're going to go to Congress one day and crack a bunch of skulls, or, you know, we're going to, we should throw out every black person in the country tomorrow morning. You can say things like that, that, you know, are not going to happen and are, you know, extremely bold. Okay, Rodney Motton, what's going on, man? Hey, Luke, how's my sound? Sound good, man. Hey, you know, I'm enjoying this show, but it's interesting listening to Richard Spencer O'Kline about Nick Fuentes. We know that they have bad blood. You know, they've had a feud. And, you know, hearing Spencer give legal commentary is quite interesting. You know, I would think, first of all, contempt of Congress is a, when you defy a subpoena, that is criminal. Steve Bannon has been charged with that already. So it's not a civil matter. If Fuentes has received a subpoena, he can choose to go and participate, or he can choose not to by citing, you know, his constitutional rights to remain silent, or he can just ignore it and run the risk of being found in contempt of Congress, which he would be arrested and charged by the Justice Department. The same matter of Steve Bannon. You have to assume that they would charge Steve Bannon. They're certainly going to charge Nick Fuentes. You know, this business, the January 6 business, is getting to be annoying in general, because January 6 is ingrained in American DNA. I mean, the first January 6 per se was the Boston Tea Party. I mean, and then the United States has adopted January 6-type tactics as public policy and formal policy for years. They did it in Iran in 1956. When they deposed Mossadik, they created a fake mob that deposed Mossadik. What I think is really irritating the government is a, there's two issues here. The government doesn't like it when their tactics are used on them. And then two, you have a bad situation where during the summer of 2020, the exact same conduct, if not worse in the form of riots, looting, insurrection, and the declaration of independent zones in the Pacific Northwest, was condoned. And actually you had a display of Democratic members of Congress bending the knee in the Capitol Rotunda, which all but blessed this type of conduct. Now they're seeking to prosecute this type of conduct because it's against them. So you have a very schizophrenic public policy right now based on what tribe you're in, what political party you're in, what's good for you, me is not good for you, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what makes this entire January 6 committee absolutely intellectually dishonest. Where is the committee with regard to the insurrections that plagued the summer of 2020 that resulted in more deaths, more property destruction? There wasn't anything burned down on January 6. If anything, it was a glorified sit-in which took place routinely during the 1960s. Protesters would go in, take over a building, Berkeley's president, President Berkeley was, his office was routinely occupied. Alcatraz was occupied by the Native American movement. This is nothing new. It's not domestic terrorism. It's just what happens when you do not enforce the law, you know, equally. You know, the prosecutor, the summer rioters, they should have been prosecuted. And with the same zeal that the government, well I say the government, I call it the Democratic party, is going after and pursuing these, you know, people that rioted in Washington DC on January 6. And I agree they should be prosecuted, but certainly this is not, this was not an insurrection. It wasn't treason. It wasn't sedition. It's a crime. It's a crime. It's a crime. It's rioting. It's destruction of government property. And, you know, prosecute it, but also prosecute everybody else has done the same thing. This is all for politics. This is the Democrats real, they're hoping this will have some play on the midterm election. Sorry, too late for that. People don't vote according to this type of stuff. They vote when they have to pay twice the amount of gas that they paid last year. Their groceries are 30% higher. That's what the Democrats need to be focusing on because the only people are going to vote based on the outrage in January 6 is about 30% of the electorate, which are hardcore Democrats. And what was your reaction to the Charlottesville verdict? Oh, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Spencer and all that. Well, that was coming. I mean, that was a long time coming. You know, only one person was able to get off of that suit. Interestingly, and all the others were not. I think actually Charlottesville, I think I predicted that on your show, that they would lose at the trial court level. And, you know, their best chance is an appeal, but not without a competent appellate court attorney to actually go after the constitutional issues, you know, the lack of, you know, the fact that they had a permit whole. There's a plethora of issues. Not only that in the environment of how the trial was held. I mean, that itself spoils it, but they're going to need competent attorneys for, you know, the appellate court level because you don't get to relitigate the case. You have to go on errors. And by my count, there's about four or five errors in that, in that case, starting with venue. But did it surprise me? No. Will they have a judgment? That's one thing to have a judgment, nothing to be able to collect it. I doubt if anybody will ever be able to collect a dime on that, even if the appellate court process is not successful. It's going to be interesting because I think probably several of these defendants can discharge that debt and bankruptcy for a whole lot of reasons. It's not a personal injury judgment by any means, which is very difficult to discharge. So, you know, the thing is, and to get back to Charlottesville, this all falls with Spencer. You know, I go back, I've said this before, it's not like a broken record on your show, Luke, but the night before is the riot and the shit show, pardon my language. You know, they had their torchlight display. You have to, a leader has to realize when they won and then withdraw before they make things work. They won that first night with that rally. It just shocked everybody. They could all went home and they'd be claiming success. And there wouldn't be any de-platforming. There wouldn't be any of this. The fact of the matter is, Richard Spencer was such a piss poor leader, insisted on letting his ego drive the agenda and ended up with a lot of, you know, young people in jail, their lives wrecked. And this is the problem with the alternative right is they don't, you know, Spencer just faulted Fuentes for having no cohesive ideology. Well, Spencer doesn't have one either. It was a cult of personality and he led a lot of young people, you know, to, you know, ruin their future. And this is the problem with the alternative right in general is it's predominantly made up of financially frustrated, sexually frustrated, socially retarded young men who don't function well in society. They talk about, you know, the trad life, the traditional wife, kids and all that. But they attack people that actually share their views that have done all of that out of sheer jealousy. So they're basically a bunch of emotionally retarded, you know, people that are looking for some sort of home and where they can show off. And most often or not, they end up showing off in the showers of federal prisons and state prisons. And so my reaction to the January 6 riot would be the same if it was a bunch of left wingers, like I want the law enforced. I don't want people, you know, rampaging through the halls of Congress and causing disruption. And how about you? Would you have the same reaction if it was Antifa who did January 6? I absolutely 100% agree with you, Luke. Remember what I said was I don't Okay, we just lost Rodney in 1990. I mean, you could see it, you know, you had problems all through the Soviet republics. And it was all ethnic based. It was tribal based. And finally, the whole, you know, show, you know, collapsed, you know, the quality of quality of life is based on law and order, the, you know, the effective and equal application of the law towards all. That means the left can't go and destroy your, you know, the neighborhoods and riot and loot. And likewise, the right can't either, both will be equally prosecuted. I mean, I'm a firm believer in some of the old laws where, you know, police and judges and even the military should be non political period, they should be forbidden from joining political parties. And that's probably an extreme unconstitutional position. But I think we'd be far better now, if that was the law of the land. I mean, I have to say, Luke, the police during the Weimar Republic held law and order in place stronger, I think, than what's happening in the United States in 2021, 2022, you know, the for, you know, for, you know, all the problems of the Weimar Republic, you know, they arrested people, they charged them, they put them on trial, even, even, you know, Adolf Hitler had to show up and give a deposition to be cross examined in court. He didn't look too good. And I think that most, most liberals don't like rising crime rates. So there's got to be a reaction to the dramatic increase we've had in motor rates since the George Floyd arrest. Now, California is an overwhelmingly democratic state, but I imagine there's going to be some kind of blowback against our rising crime rates. But what do you think? I have to say that, you know, first of all, I think there's some evidence to what your, your statement that is Joe Biden's ratings are just they're, they're lower than Trump's ever were at this point. And I think that's part, I think that's part of it. And I think also part of it has to do with this business where criminals at the left is now starting to treat criminals as repressed persecuted persons. We just had a court decision over where this Luke couple of days ago where judge in California cleared the way for early release of the three strikes offenders. These are people that have committed, you know, the most horrendous crimes, child rape, you know, rape of women, many cases, murder, three strikes, you're out, you know, the most violent crimes. And now we just had a judge say that you can release California, start releasing those people early. So I think there's going to be blowback to coin a CIA term. And I think what you're going to see is in some cases you'll have independence having buyers remorse on their vote for Biden, because at least they had cheap gas prices. The streets were safe. And immigration was under control under Trump. They just didn't like his attitude and his main tweets. But I think people are going to say, I'll take that over what I'm dealing with now. I think some Democrats in the center, and there are still people think the Democrats have drifted to the extreme left. There's not. There's a larger schism in the Democratic Party, and I've said this on your show. There's a larger schism there than in the Republican Party. And the Democratic Party is the one that's most likely to split with the Sandy Cortez and the Bernie Sanders wing forming some sort of workers party or Democratic Socialist Party or Labor Party of some sort. But the rest of the Democrats, you know, you're going to see two things happen. I go back to the to the Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter race where Ted Kennedy failed to take the nomination Jimmy Carter. I know they're still alive today. Many Democrats that either stayed home in 1980 or voted for Reagan to punish Carter. And I think we're going to see this schism of the Democratic Party unfold here in 2022 where you're going to have the Democratic vote is not going to be as high as it previously was. And you're going to see a lot of crossover votes to punish that party to send a message. This is what happens when you go to the extreme left. And I've heard I know three Democrats, including one elected official that says that very thing is going to happen. That's the only way to get rid of the extreme left or put get them under control is to, you know, go through another four years of four to eight years of Republican dominance in the late in the House and Senate and possibly reelect Trump. Now, when I was in Australia for two months, I saw in the LA Times article saying that there's a growing consensus that homeless camps are unacceptable in Los Angeles. And so when I came back to LA after two months in Australia, I saw fewer homeless camps. So I think there's a growing consensus that you just can't have these massive homeless camps. And I think there's going to be some sort of blowback against the large amount of homelessness that's been tolerated in LA over the past few years. Do you have any thoughts? I was in LA a lot while you were gone doing stuff at Cedar Sinai. And there were the homeless camps, you know, they cleaned up Echo Park, which surprised me in the way they did it. They just went in. And then also, I consider Sheriff Villanueva to be a hero because he just started doing it unilaterally. He went into a lot of these homeless areas and says, you can either take help, move to, you know, a shelter or something, but you're out of here. So he unilaterally acted without regard to the LAPD who's had their hands tied, you know, by, you know, politically, you know, stupid mayors, and of course, the DA, Gaston. And I don't know what, you know, where his constituency is and why people would elect a guy that is going to sit there and release the criminal that just assaulted your daughter or your wife, and then talks about, you know, rate equity is more important than prosecuting a pedophile. Now, what's really interesting is, and those matters I just talked about, Gaston hasn't been held accountable. It wasn't until people weren't getting their Amazon packages because of the train robberies, you know, they're thinking near Lincoln Park is where the famous one is their loop, it has all the packages and derail the train there near Lincoln Park. When that happened, all of a sudden for the first time, Gaston publicly responded after the railway said they were looking at alternative routes to bypass and not go through LA. And I think it's interesting that he would not respond to, you know, the release of murderers, the non-prosecution, the violent, you know, including anti-Semitic attacks, you know, near, you're in and around UCLA and in and around West Hollywood, you know, down, oh, the street escapes me right now. But he never responded to any of those when he released criminals or never prosecuted. It was the train derailment and people not getting Amazon packages that he finally publicly reacted to and agreed to prosecute. I found that to be rather interesting. Well, everybody is susceptible to pressure. So it depends on the pressure. But when the pressure builds enough, when there's enough of a social reaction against these permissive policies that have unleashed so much crime that the elected officials again have to respond. Well, you know, it's funny that, you know, between the mayor, which, you know, I'm not sure, you know, what, how much, you know, how, you know, Garcetti is now leaving to be an ambassador somewhere, how dirty his hands are, but definitely Gaston's hands are really dirty because the cops can arrest people all day long. And if he just says release them, we're not going to charge them, that emboldens the criminal that says there's no ramifications. I went shopping at Macy's at the Beverly Center, you know, there, Luke, during one of my visits, took my daughter to get her some clothes for school. And we watched a person come in and just load up, you know, I mean, we're talking six, seven, $800 over coats and I mean, expensive clothes and just walk out the door. And the clerks just shrugged and said, we're not even going to call the cops because nothing will happen. But what should happen? What should happen? You know, and, you know, inside you, you want to act and my daughter grabbed my arm and said, dad, don't because it'll take you to jail. Yeah. So, you know, we just, whatever, I mean, you can't have a society like that. One of two things has to happen when you have a society where, you know, crime is unchecked, the police are told not to do anything, and you have tribal, tribal and racial politics, you know, dictating the agenda. Either society collapse, or there is pressure like you talk about by what Nixon called, you know, the silent majority, because a lot of people believe it still do not get involved in politics. They actually are probably not. Yeah, man, those people are not terribly political. Those people are not. I mean, people get more excited about sports in the United States than they do about politics. It's only the extremes, you know, the far right and the far left that let politics dictate, you know, their every breathing that, you know, activity. But when you have the people in the center, the people that are trying to go about their life, go to work, they pay the taxes, they vote, big one is that they vote, and they're, you know, they're law-abiding when they start rising up and saying there's a problem, generally. Yeah. Okay, we lost you there. You're still there, Rodney. What's happening with the homeless encampments and stuff in LA? You talked about hooking on the chin. I mean, I know a lot of people just wouldn't go to LA anymore. They, I mean, they told me to point blank that they would not, they just weren't visiting because they didn't feel safe. Yeah. Okay, I need to move on. Any final words, Rodney? No, I just wanted to chime in for a little bit and glad you're back. You know, I was thinking you might stay and it might have been good for you, but everybody gets homesick, don't they? Yeah. So I had a wonderful time. When I was in Australia, I felt very much at home and when I'm back in LA, I feel at home as well. Yeah, very good. All right, we take care, Luke. Take care, Rodney. Bye-bye. Language. But it's, it's protected because it's kind of vague. It's a kind of, you know, exclamation mark and it's going to happen someday. It's not an immediate directive to do that. You know, this, I guess we're kind of getting to that. You don't have the right to yell fire in crowded theater, kind of famous and somewhat misunderstood line from Oliver Wendell Holmes. Nicholas Fuentes is on videotape with a megaphone saying that, yes, we've stopped the vote, we're in the Capitol. We aren't leaving here until Donald Trump is installed as president. The fact is, those words can easily be construed as calling for the, just to use the words itself, prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States. Right. So there's a type of rhetoric which can be quite galvanizing on live streams, can be quite entertaining, can capture people's attention, but you take it outside and you jump on a bullhorn at a riot, like what happened January 6th and you start looking at criminal charges. That can just easily, he is in effect urging them on. Now, could his lawyers argue that people who were actually doing these things weren't in your shot of that megaphone, that he was kind of playing to the crowd? Yeah, they could definitely argue that. Maybe there's some truth there. But what a lot of this indicates, getting subpoenaed by the congressional J6 committee, is that there is more to it. We should remember that Stewart Rhodes and the Oathkeepers, they were using Signal, which is famously an end-to-end accretion app. Those Signal messages have been recovered in some way. Probably it was recovered just because they asked for someone's phone in the Oathkeepers and they got the message. Yeah. So it's a good idea not putting anything in a text or in an online message that you would not love being made public. Those messages have been recovered. And what I think this indicates is that there is some kind of planning or conspiracy behind or before J6 that Flint has was also involved in. So that act using the megaphone, urging on people to enter Congress, telling them, we're not leaving here until Donald Trump's president, that act is kind of bad enough. It does seem to fit the letter of the law. Now, whether he would be actually convicted of seditious sedition is another question. But it does seem at least kind of reasonable to charge him under that. But what this suggests is that there's more going on. And this is where I find the whole story really interesting. Right. When you make the government your enemy, the federal government your energy enemy, the government has almost infinite resources to go after you. And if the federal government decides to prosecute you, they can fund enough investigation until they find something they can nail you on. Because I tweeted this out in around 2018. And this was during the Democratic sweep in the midterms. This is when I was criticizing Trump pretty seriously. This was also came at a time when the movement was criticizing me extremely harshly. He's bad optics. He's terrible. We hate him. We need good conservatives leading no more Spencerism. Now, why did Richard Spencer get so much criticism? This is more evidence that Richard Spencer hasn't found emotional sobriety. Because he still sees most of his problems as the fault of other people. All these people are unjustly harshly criticizing Richard Spencer. What Richard had done so much that was deserving of criticism. He'd taken a comedic movement, the alt-right, and turned it into a Nazi movement, which is an absolute death sentence for any political movement in the United States. But he doesn't really wrestle with the role that he played in creating his own misery, etc. The movement was kicking me out, as it were. Former alt-right founders often said as being expelled from the alt-right. I also tweeted out that time because I really strongly sensed this. The alt-right was integral in Donald Trump's victory in 2016. Now, there's no real evidence for this. This is based on Richard Spencer's romantic feelings of awesome cosmic power. In fact, I think it was decisive and I think it might very well have been indispensable. This disconnection from reality is what has repeatedly gotten Richard into trouble. What do I mean by that? Do I mean that the alt-right was this huge voting block? No, I don't quite mean that, although that probably should have been dismissed. But I don't mean that. I mean that information warfare, that's the right term, is extremely important and is actually decisive in conservative victories. Information warfare is not decisive in conservative victories. Information warfare possibly changes the votes of less than 1% of voters. There's simply no evidence for what Richard's talking about. People have their preferences. People have life experiences that combine with their own preferences and that leads them to support one party or the other. It's not that they're being psyched out by information warfare. Now, Joe Biden won without that because the 2020 election was all about Trump. So it was almost like that. It was all that craziness almost was working in reverse, so to speak. So those people who were posting QAnon memes, they weren't just inspiring their own troops. They were also inspiring the liberals who were getting freaked out by it. Joe Biden is kind of an aberration in the sense that he won. Now, he's touching on something important there. Richard Spencer would say a lot of inflammatory things that fired up his own supporters, but he fired up his opponents by 1,000 times. So you fire up your supporters twice and you fire up your opponents 1,000 times. And then what happens to you is what has happened to Richard Spencer. So he doesn't apply his analysis to himself. He won running the most traditional campaigns. He won without having media influencers in his pocket. That being said, I don't think Trump could have won that way. And that's one of the reasons not the only one that Trump, given many opportunities, never really denounced the alt-right. He denounced neo-Nazis or whatever in a kind of very vague way. But when given the opportunity, he never denounced the alt-right. Much like in 2020, he never really denounced the Proud Boys. He was given an opportunity infamously in debate and he said, stand back and stand by. So Donald Trump loved people who loved him. So Donald Trump took everything incredibly personally. So if people supported him, Donald Trump would think of reasons why they were okay. And if people opposed him, then his mind would start working to think of reasons why these people are awful.