Speaker 1: Well life.
Speaker 2: Okay, guys, got another debate for y'all today. We got
Brian Shapiro, Jay Dher both have been on the show.
Thanks for coming guys in person. Let's make this thing happen.
So we're going to talk about Trump today. I ran
and Alex Jones. I know Brian wanted to talk about
Alex Jones, but absolutely you want to lead this thing
off with Alex Brian.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, first of all, thanks for being here. Man,
nice to meet you. I've seen I've seen some of
your stuff on social media. I'll be honest with you.
What we do is probably a little different. Right, as
we were talking off the air, you debate, you've been
doing this for like what twenty five years, right, long time.
I've been doing radio for almost that long. But my
show is more of like the last twenty four hours,
you know, talking about news of the day and that
sort of stuff. But all right, let's start. I wanted
to start off by asking you about something because I
know you're friends with Alex Jones, right, and I know
this is probably something more. We'll get into it a
little bit, but bull well, you know, I come from Connecticut.
I was raised in Connecticut, and obviously where the Sandy
Hook shooting was. And I say to myself, and I've listened,
I've reviewed his ex wife. That's kind of irrelevant to
this conversation that I've had private conversations with her, But
I've also interviewed some of the parents who have lost
their children, eight and nine year olds that were decapitated,
and Alex Jones made their pain worse. And I thought
what he did was reprehensible. And then he used the
excuse of psychosis, which I think is utter bullshit. He
knew that that shooting happened. He's not a stupid guy,
and he only lied about it on the air with
his huge platform and said that they were actors, you
know what he said. And he only did that for
clicks and money. And you're making the pain of parents,
like I said, some of them who I had to
talk to an interview, and my heart goes out to them,
and I'm sure yours does as well. And he called
them actors, and he made their pain worse. And I
find only a reprehensible, despicable human being would do what
Alex Jones does. Now, he is a conspiracy theorist, and
I understand he says a lot of batshit crazy stuff.
But if you don't hurt somebody by doing that, then
I don't have a problem with it. You could think
nine eleven was an inside job and you can find
if you're not hurting anybody. But he hurt those people
who are already grieving the loss of their children. And
I'm wondering how you could be friends with somebody who
does that. I just I don't It's unbelievable to me
that he would even do something like that and then
blame it on psychosis, Like, how could you square up
and be friends with somebody like that? Because I don't
know you. I don't know you, I've never hung out
with you. I'm just asking, like, how how can you
be friends with somebody who did that? And are you
willing to call that out?
Speaker 3: Well, I think Alex himself has called that out. Alex
has admitted that he made a huge mistake. I remember
at the time when the trials were happening, one thing
that I noticed in a lot of the you know,
examinations and the prosecution questioning, was that there seemed to
be quite a bit of laxity when it came to
vetting the guests, and that was hammer Home with multiple
people that produced the show, and the way that I'm
sure you know, the way that media works, especially for
high profile people, is that a lot of that is
farmed out to people that work for you to vet
the guests and whatnot. So I think there was some
significant failures, mainly with vetting people like Wolfgang. How big
people that ended up being I think probably con men,
and Alex was lax in that. I think that was
a huge mistake. I think that there is precedent not
for what happened at Sandy Hook, but for the idea
of government being involved in types of things like that,
like the Operation Gladio for example. That's a publicly declassified
document to.
Speaker 1: I get that, But the government, as you know, wasn't involved.
Speaker 3: In I'm just saying, I said, there's precedent for the
understand which is why Alex would have had in his
mind legitimacy, legitimacy to question certain topics.
Speaker 1: So why would you question that? Though? Why would you
question a school shooting hours after the children are killed?
Speaker 3: Because if Operation Gladia includes public shootings at places, light
malls or perhaps even schools, there's no reason why you
couldn't quit.
Speaker 1: But wouldn't you question it if there was some sort
of evidence to prove, like the twenty twenty election. I mean,
Trump still says I'm sure we can get into that.
But it's like when listen, if people have ideas or opinions,
they're entitled to that. That's fine. But like I said,
I'm not someone who's trying to censor free speech. But
at the same time, when you say things that can
hurt people, I know you're not a fan of Candace Owans.
Neither of mine. Okay, we both would agree on that.
I'm friends with Tim Poole. He said some things about
it that I actually agree with. But to me, Alex
Jones does what Candace Owens does, which is say things
that you know are not true. You know are not true.
Alex Jones knew that innocent children were murdered. He knew
that those weren't actors. They're dead, and yet he went
on the air and called them actors. Those family members,
as you know, were threatened, they had threats to their life.
He knew that those children were dead, he knew that
those families were grieving. I have an issue not necessarily
with conspiracy theorists, but conspiracy theorists like Candace Owns and
like Calex Jones that say things knowing they're not true
and knowing that they will hurt people. Alex Jones' comments
at times, not just the Sandy Hook shooting, hurt people,
and I find that only a despicable human being would
profit off of something like that. I'm glad that he
has to pay out that money. Like I said, I've
had private conversations with his ex wife. I don't know
what's true. I don't know what's not true. That's why
I'm not going to share the conversations I had with her.
But what I do know is I could never associate
myself with somebody like that. Who it's good to have
difference as of opinions. We probably have a lot of
different opinions on a lot. I think that's great, that's
what makes America great. But I think Alex Jones is
a scumbag. And by the way I met Alex Jones,
he is a different person off the camera. He doesn't
have in my opinion, that persona or Hey, was that good?
Was this good? I mean, I don't know. I don't
think he's a good person. And I'm not saying guilty
by association. I'm not trying to make a bad argument,
but I just can't fathom or understand how anybody could
hang out with a guy like that who literally made well,
I'm just trying to understand how anybody, not just you,
but anybody would would be okay associated and you host
on the on that network, Like, I just don't understand. Well.
Speaker 3: Again, so that'd be like saying anybody involved in media,
who's involved with anybody that's made a mistake in media,
I don't.
Speaker 1: Think that's a mistake. You know what I think a
mistake is. But how do you prove that it's not
a mistake? Is locking your keys in your car? You
mean to tell me that after this shooting happened where
body bags were taken out of that school, that Alex
Jones legitimately believed that those eight nine year olds were actors.
That's bullshit. I don't believe that.
Speaker 3: I think that Alex legitimately believed that there was a
variety of options that you could have and.
Speaker 1: He called them actors.
Speaker 3: Jay understand that, but that's after having people on who
were not probably Vetter like Wolf.
Speaker 1: He has a lot of people on wars that have
zero credibility.
Speaker 3: I actually agree that everybody who does media, for the
most part, I'm not talking about you. Everybody in media
has people on because it's media. Media is kind of
like you know, it's about.
Speaker 1: But it's our responsibility to push back at those people.
Speaker 3: I agree that, and I think that my main criticism
about would have been and still has been, there should
have been a better vetting of the sources of these
so called events, because the main source at that time,
because I was listening through that whole period, was Wolf
kank Kalbek, who said, I've worked in government, I worked
in education, I was there. I know that this was
a fraud. I went investigated and all that was not true.
So he did not properly about this. He blamed it
on psychosis. There is no medical information to prove that.
Speaker 1: Okay, that could be. I mean his yeah, that could
have been, didn't provide any medical information that he had psychosis.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know. I don't know Alex's legal teams.
You know well that they use psychosis.
Speaker 1: You know that. Come on again, I don't know what
the legal team advice. They didn't show. Well, the legal
team if they're going to say he suffered from psychosis.
There would have to be some evidence to prove that,
which clearly they didn't show it wasn't psychosis. And I
guess this is maybe where we disagree. People like Alex
Jones and Candae Owns and many others, Laura Lumer I
could name you a lot. They say things knowing that
it will hurt people, and they don't fucking care. They
say things knowing that it will hurt people, knowing that
it's probably not true. By the way, I don't buy
the fact that Alex didn't think it was a real shooting.
He knew it was. Like I said, Alex is not
a stupid guy. He knew that there were innocent young
children that died, and he called them actors now regardless
of what all their stuff might have been going on
in his mind. He made a lot of money off that.
Now in the end it's going to cost him money.
I don't think we should be allowed to say things
like that with no justification, and it hurts people. Those
families had death threats, They had death threats, Jay, and
they hadn't even buried their kids yet, eight nine year olds.
And as you can see, I get visibly angry talking
about this guy because I think he's a horrible human being,
and I think his entire network is a fucking joke.
It's a bunch of tinfoil hat morons who spread conspiracy
theories about COVID, They spread conspiracy theories about the deep state,
they spread conspiracy theories about the twenty twenty election, and
the guy who runs the whole thing spread conspiracy theories
about a shooting where a bunch of eight and nine
year old kids were murdered were kept in. I mean,
I don't even think the I should be allowed to
even have a show. That's my personal thing.
Speaker 3: Could you name another crazy temple hat that the position
that you think me or Alex or anybody has positive.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to you because I'll be honest with you,
and I don't mean this way like a whole network
is all crazy. Well, I mean the regulars. I would
assume you're a guest on there a lot, and sometimes
I'm talking about the regulars who do shows, you know,
five days a week. They spread conspiracy theories about me.
Harrison talked about me. Didn't even and we talked about
this off the air a couple of minutes ago. Didn't
even know my position on vaccines, and I don't want
to get too deep into the vaccine stuff because you know,
some platforms don't allow it. Didn't even know my position
on the vaccines, and just assume that I want everyone
to get ten boosters. They say things about people not
doing their homework, not under even and by the way,
I said I would go on their show. I was
talking to somebody from their network. I said, listen, I
will go on that show and I will defend my positions.
Harrison didn't want me on. I call that a coward.
If you're willing to talk shit about somebody, which is fine.
I'm a big boy. I can handle it, but then
you don't want that person to come on. I invite
anybody on my show. Nick Fuentes can do my show
if he wants to. I think he's an awful human being.
But I would have had oj Simpson do my show.
It's not the criticism. He's no longer with us unfortunatelyfortunately
whichever way you look at it. But I'm willing to
have anybody on my show that I disagree with, even
if they're despicable people. If Alex Jones wanted to do
my show, I would probably be a little bit more
heated with him than am you, because I'm not blaming
you for the stuff that that Alex Jones said. Make it.
What's another topic that you think of COVID spread COVID?
I think he's spread lies about the vaccines. He sells
his stupid pills on his website to make money that
there's no evidence that any of those pills actually help
you if you had COVID, I would talk about nine
to eleven a little bit more, because I know he's
talked about nine to eleven a lot. What about nine eleven, Well,
he thinks it was an inside john right right, Okay,
Well we can get into that. We can get into that.
So what's the crazy talks about the deep state all
the time with no evidence to back up his claims
about the deep state? What is the deep state?
Speaker 3: Tell it's the breakaway national security apparatus in the background
that has a tremendous amount of influence installed at the
time of.
Speaker 1: World War two, particularly from right now yah formulations. It's
the same structure. Okay, so right now who is running
the deep state?
Speaker 3: CFR and Trilateral Commission of a huge amount of influence.
This is a CFR historian's own background accounts for in Hurst's.
Speaker 1: But there's over election through on my channel right now.
Speaker 3: So, yeah, I've heard Alex Corporation, Military Industrial Complex, that's.
Speaker 1: What you say. So I've heard Alex say that Barack
Obama was really running the country when Joe Biden was president.
There's no evidence to back that up. You meant to
stay behind situation that Obama had set up. And he
said the Obamas had gay relationships and that Barack Obama
was gay. This is not a serious talk radio. You
make jokes, you make you do sat there outsis satare
all the time. Okay, Well, when I hear Alex Jones
say that he believed, first of all, I don't think
that's funny. That's ten year old humor. I don't think
it's anything funny in saying a president is gay. I
don't think that. I mean, unless we're ten years old.
What about faking gay? You? I mean, okay, but you
get what I'm saying, right, Well, you just laugh, So
you do think it's first right, Well, here's the problem, right,
Alex Jones has a huge platform, and I think it's
important for people to choose their words wisely and to
be responsible. We agree. I think that Alex Jones should
not have done what he did when it came to
the Sandy Hook shooting. It hurt people. Now, if you
make a joke that doesn't hurt somebody, Okay, fine, if
you have a conspiracy theory that doesn't necessarily hurt somebody,
then that's one thing, right. But when you have the
platform that Alex Jones has and you say things that
are unproven, stuff that is just blatantly ridiculous. They said
things about me that aren't true. I have a problem
with that, and I don't think that network is a
serious network. I don't think that is a serious news network.
Give It's one thing. If you give Kanye West a platform, heck,
I would interview Kanye West and ask him about his
anti Semitism. But Alex Jones, he was praising Adolf Hitler,
and Alex Jones is sitting there with his thumb up
his ass. I watched that specifically disagree with him and
said that he didn't believe Hitler was a good guy.
And but the very next day, Richard Grove and I
hosted that next day, yeah talked about that. We did
not agree with. Okay, It's one thing to say you
don't agree with it, and I'm glad you did that,
But if someone sitting next to me is praising Adolf Hitler,
I would call them for what they are. You are
an anti Semite, and you are a moron if you
if you, if you praise a man who's responsible for
murdering anybody, let alone millions of people, there's something wrong
with you. And I would say that to Kanye. I
wouldn't sit here and say, well, you know, Kanye, I
really disagree with you on that. I saw that. I
don't respect people who praise evil, murderous dictators. That's what
Alex Jones did in that interview. Okay, he coddled Kanye. Well, well,
he praised He praised Kanye West in some ways, and
he was very sad. He coddled him, He coddled him.
It was a fluffer interview. And I think we also
have a responsibility to question people and to be tough
on people that praise murderous dictators. Alex Jones did not
do that. So on one side of the coin, Kanye West
will sit there and praise Adolf Hitler and he'll say, well,
I disagree with that. But on the other side of
the coin, he'll just bash Democrats and left wingers and
aoc an attacker for being a bartender. He's more tough
on somebody like AOC than somebody like Kanye West, who
praises Adolf Hitler and is a Jew hater. Make no
mistake about it, Kanye is a jew hater, anti Semitic,
piece of scum. I don't care whether he's mentally ill
or not. And these gripers that go around, I just
think they're really bad people. Right.
Speaker 3: But so a lot of this debate so far has
been about the character of people.
Speaker 1: So and I'm not well believing that.
Speaker 3: Okay, but I mean, you just said at the beginning
that you weren't interested in GOI by association, but.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand why you would be friends with
some of the guy who I think has no more.
Speaker 3: But what I'm illustrating is that nobody consistently can apply
that in media, because I'm sure you have friends that
you disagree with that you might find reprehensible that you've
gone on shows that you don't I don't have you,
so you don't have any I don't have any friends.
Speaker 1: Here's Morgan you go on Here's Morgan show. Yeah, I
don't hang out with Pierce Morgan. He's not one of
my friends. I do his show. There's a difference. So
I don't have any So I don't have so it
is guilt. Well, you're friends with him, So about friends
with that is guilt by association with you said, you're
not trying to trying to understand why you would be,
so you are doing guilt by association. I'm asking you,
I'm asking a question, implying, implying that it's morally wrong.
I mind understand how morally you could associate yourself and
I'm trying to understand that as a friend, not just
for doing a show.
Speaker 3: The morals are, which are what like what's the beau?
I don't think it's consistently apply.
Speaker 1: I think people that associate themselves with people like Alice
Jones are the same people that associate themselves with Donald Trump.
I think it's I think it's the same. Well, the
whole chorus has been guilt by social what you said
at the beginning of your not going to do well, What
I was hoping to do is try to get an
explanation from you on how you could be friends with
somebody like that. I find that in general, and I'm
going to make a general statement now, people that are
big fans of Alex Jones or friends of Alex Jones
tend to also be big fans of Donald Trump, and
they throw they're willing to push aside the Epstein stuff.
They're willing to push aside his behaviors, the way he
talks about women in gold Star families and POW's and
the fact that he's named thousands of times in the
Epstein Falls. I think the same kinds of people who
support Donald Trump are gravitated towards Alex Jones. And yes,
I'll say it again, I think Donald Trump and Alex
Jones are similar. I think they're both horrible human beings.
They're horrible human beings who probably only care about themselves.
Speaker 3: And you know, but again, I think this is what
usually ends up being something not worth debating. I'm not
saying you can't bring interview, debate whatever you want, but
the idea of only focusing on the morals or some
individual in media or in politics, to me just seems absurd.
That's why I'm always an issues guy, because I'm sure
that I'm sure that everybody has some moral flaw or
some problem in their their ethos.
Speaker 1: I would never deny that. I would never deny what
you're saying. So then so then it's not consistently applied.
So it would seem there are different levels of the levels.
It seems like you're doing the very thing that you're
saying shouldn't be done. No, so there are different levels
of mistakes that are made. Whether you cheat on your
wife for who determines that? Okay, well, I'm just giving
you my opinions. There's no book on determining. I'm just
telling you, Uh, simply put, if you're a person who
intentionally lies about a school shooting when children are murdered
to make money and clicks, you're a fucking disgusting human being.
But how do you know a person's motives? Maybe you
because Alex Jones does it all the time. He says things,
he's over the top and he says things. How do
you know the motives? So you think Alex Jones didn't
have what do you think his motive saying?
Speaker 3: I'm saying that when you debate and again, you can
obey whatever you want. But my critique of this type
of debate is that when you debate people's motives is
something that you can never really explicitly prove.
Speaker 1: Why does that Why did you think Alex Jones? Give
me an educated guest, h Jay, if you can, why
do you think Alex Jones said those things?
Speaker 3: I believe that Alex has always, for the most part,
been sincere. That's why he has been willing to change
his mind at me he was wrong. For example, he
recently admitted he was wrong that he thought Trump might
reverse the course on a ramp.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about he admits that he was completely right.
I do want to talk to you about that. Agree
on that.
Speaker 3: That's a recent admission that Alex said I was wrong
about this.
Speaker 1: Okay, good, So so let me ask you something about
that because I disagree with you, respectfully. If Alex Jones
wasn't sued, I think Alex Jones would have apologized. Well.
Speaker 3: The Again, the lawsuit, as I said, highlighted the bad betting.
If you look, for example, at the prosecute where they
were ja I understand me question, let me finish anything.
The when they were interrogating Owen, Schweyer and Owen was
responsible for bringing on a couple people that not just Wolfgang,
but also the zero Hygi article that they highlighted.
Speaker 1: It that was misinformation. So that was not properly about it.
Speaker 3: And I'm saying that if you've got a network that
has multiple people doing multiple cogs of the operation, you can't.
I understand that the head of the operation is going
to receive the brunt of the criticism, but it's not
like Alex was just doing all of this without sincere investigation.
Speaker 1: I believe he's sincere okay. So that's where we disagree.
And I would go as far as to say this,
I believe that if Alex Jones wasn't sued and he
didn't have to face consequences for his first things, he
would never have apologized or retracted anything, because he never
has in the past to my knowledge, for anything else.
The reason why he apologized and says I shouldn't have
said that, which, by the way, he said in a courtroom,
and then he said it was a kangaroo court, and
he attacked the judge and he attacked the prosecutors instead
of just being a man and saying, you know what,
I really fucked up. I really shouldn't have said that stuff.
What happened to those families was awful. Instead, he does
what Donald Trump does. It's a kangaroo court. I didn't
do anything wrong, So no, I disagree with you, Jay.
I don't think Alex Jones would have ever retracted what
he said, and I don't think Alex Jones would have
ever apologized if, in fact, he was never facing a
civil lawsuit, which he lost. That's my personal opinions. We
can move on to a rock because it's way to
prove it. We can do that. Well, that's just my
personal opinion. Obviously, there's no way to one hundred percent
proven other than the fact that to my knowledge, I
don't think Alex has ever apologized for anything else on
the air in the past. The only thing I could
ever recall that he's ever apologized for or retracted was
the comments he made about the school shooting and those
kids being acted. And he recently retracted his position on Iran.
Speaker 3: He thought Trump would have a better course and a
course correction, and he was wrong about that. He was
wrong about the thing that was going around where Pam
Bondy was saying that they were going to release the files.
Speaker 1: He thought that that was as he has been open
about criticism for the Epstein files because he's been talking
about the Epstein files for years, and I think Donald
Trump has made a lot of people like the Alex
Jones that look really add because Donald Trump has protected
pedophiles in my opinion, I know that. That's what I
just said. Yeah, I'm happy I agree with you on that.
He's angry. Well, he's he's upset at Donald Trump. It's
not really that he was wrong about something. He he
he's upset about what Pam Bondi said like two months ago. Well, yeah,
he's criticized at times the Trump administration. He gives the
apology that you want. Basically, it's not really the apology
that I want. It's it's basically it wasn't really an apology.
He just basically when it comes to the Epstein stuff,
he's talked about how disappointed he was. He was wrong
about Pam Bondi. He was wrong about Pam Bondy, and
he thought Pam Bondi no.
Speaker 3: He said specifically that the claim that they were going
to release more of the files, that when Pam Bondi
claimed this, he shared that and then a bunch of
people on soldial media called him out.
Speaker 1: He said, you know what, You're right, I was wrong,
so he will Admitkay, well, I'm glad he did that.
I was unaware of that, and I'm and I'm glad
he did that, and we could we can end the
Alex Jones conversation. But but in closing, I'll just say this,
and and you know, it's not nothing that I've I've
never said that's fair. Of course, I think Alex Jones
is what's horrible with society. I think there are grifters,
the Candace Owens types. I put Alex Jones in that category.
I think he only says things as an act to
get clicks and to make money. What he did was disgusting.
And then the reason why this topic is so it
should be personal to anybody, but it's even more personally
because I grew up about twenty minutes away from Sandy
Hook number one, number two. I've interviewed some of those
families who have to wake up every day without seeing
their kids. It's reprehensible and the fact that somebody like
Alex Jones, and this is irrefutable, made their grief even worse.
With what Alex Jones put those families through is reprehensible,
and I think only a reprehensible and repugnant human being
would do what Alex Jones did. I have zero respect
for him. I don't care how many followers he has.
I have no more respect for him than I do
like a Candace Owens type, and I know we'll probably
agree on gandis owns. There is a way to have
differences of opinions, and there is a way to have
a conversation without hurting people. And there are too many people,
particularly in right wing media today, that do that. They
make claims that hurt people. They lie, They attack undocumented
immigrants in brown people every single day, making it seem
like all these undocumented immigrants are going to rape your kids.
They're wrong. They lied about the terrorist attack in New Orleans.
They said it was undocumented immigrant. They said it was
because of Joe Biden's open border policies. They lie. They
lied in conspiracy theories about what happened to Paul Pelosi
when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer, and Alex
Jones was one of those guys that spread the conspiracy
theory that Paul Pelosi had some sort of gay relationship
with the guy that almost killed him with a hammer.
Did Alex Jones ever apologize for that when the police
report came out? And Matt Gates when he was in
office another repugnant piece of garbage, and Ted Cruz spread
those conspiracy theories. These right wingers don't apologize. Usually. I'm
glad that Alex Jones has done that, but there's a
lot of people on the right that don't. They don't retract,
they don't apologize. When you get something wrong, why don't
you wait until the information comes out first before you
you spread conspiracy? There is I'm not talking about you,
I'm just saying in general terms people on the right,
and that's my one of my biggest criticisms is with
the lower lumers of the world and so many others.
It's all about clicks, Jay, It's about money and clicks.
They don't care whether they get it right or not.
They I'm generalizing. There's a lot of people on the
right on X they want to be the first one
to say it was an undocumented immigrant, it was a
black person, it was this without knowing, and then when
they get it wrong, they don't retract and they don't apologize.
And I'm sorry if I'm going on a rant here,
but on X when you look at when they're fact checked,
what is that called on the bottom? Checking community notes? Yeah?
What is the point of a community note if somebody
is getting a community note like two hundred times. There
are right wingers out there that have been community noted
two hundred times. They're not suspended, their accounts don't get
taken down. Why are we community noting people when they
literally it happens to them every day. So anyway, I digress,
Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah again, I think you know, so much of media
ends up being a lott of low tier slop and
debating about things that are not really that substantial, such
as people's motives or intentionality, which is unless you have
you know, somebody's actual DMS or something like that, it's
really difficult, I think, to know the motives, and so
in philosophy and debate we don't typically focus on that.
Understand that in media and in news it probably is
the best. But I would assume that maybe you engage
in debating about who's good and who's bad because that's
the easy, low tier route to go to get attention,
to get clicks.
Speaker 1: I mean, aren't.
Speaker 3: You think it's low tier to today what it is
to debate people's motives because its call that homine.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's low tier to talk about our
president and his behavior about Alex.
Speaker 3: Jones, right, you're saying as bad motives, and I'm saying
that that that works in low tier political debate. But
like if you get into a philosophical debate you debate
people's motives, that's called that hominism because unless you have
proof that there's some motives, you don't know people's motives
other than to say that.
Speaker 1: Well he's a bad person. Okay, that's so he's a
bad person. What is that proof. I don't think it's
low tier to criticize al Jones for what he did.
But you said that you motives, and I'm just trying
to figure out how you know that. Well, first of all,
I think most people would say the reason why Alex
Jones says these things is because he wants to That
would be money and get more attention. The fact that
most people think that really has nothing to do, Okay, well,
that's I think I would like to think that a
logical opinion would be that the reason why fallacies. Okay, well,
if you think that Alex Jones does this stuff. I mean,
do you think appeal to masses is a fallacy? No,
but I would say I would say, you don't think
it's perhaps. But the point that I was trying to
get at is that just just Alex Jones says these things,
not because he needs to get this off his chest
or he wants to be an inn. So you're just
saying what his motives are. Okay, Well, well what do
you think his motives are? Help me understand Alex Jones.
You're friends with them. I've listened to Alex in two
thousand and three.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I've noticed him consistently over the years reference
many tax that we lecture through on my channel. So
it's become a mainstep what I do is to kind
of take all those books that he references over the
years to to see if he's legit and if you're
saying the right things. And most of what he says,
I would say ninety percent of what Alex has said
over the years has been accurate in terms of the
big geopolitical perspective. There are minutia areas where I would
disagree particularly with wh who he brought on during that
time period of Sandy Hook that was not properly vetted.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: But when it comes to the big geopolitical stuff, most
of the time I disagree. But there's been areas where
I disagree with Alex over Trump. So I don't have
a problem disagree with Alex. But I don't think that
Alex is ultimately overall about person. I've met him, known him,
you know, personally, for many years.
Speaker 1: So okay, I mean I based that on some other
things that I'm not going to talk about here on
the show, but people that have known him very close,
closer than you even. But we can leave it at that.
I know this entire debate isn't isn't this movie, But
if you want to talk about Iron, I'm happy to
stave to Iran. Yeah, even though you both agree, maybe
there's some slight I won't be taking Alex Jones out
to dinner tonight. I guess I was trying to say,
go ahead, shan.
Speaker 2: Jay, you want to start off with Iran and how
you feel about the US getting involved, how you feel
like Trump's done with that relationship.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So this is an issue that I've dealt with for
many years. I've had a lot of debates publicly with
muslim for about eight years straight.
Speaker 1: Some of them. We've debated most of the top Muslims.
I think maybe Junior the future of Muslim debate they're
going to do.
Speaker 3: So I'm very familiar with like the background of you know,
Sunni versus Shia Islam. I'm decently educated on the history
of Iran, and I think the big issue with Iran
is that this is really just a repeat of nineteen
fifty three with the CIA Q where they took out
you know, Mozedic to put the SHAW in. Then you
had the SHAW failing, and you had Istola Kashani being
brought in with British intelligence and CIA assistance, all ultimately
for Anglo Iranian Oil Company which would become VP. So
I think that from the very beginning, this was a destabilization,
a regime change that was brought about for the purpose
of a big corporate interest in Iran. I think it's
really not that different today if we fast forward to
where we are now, it's a lot of repeat of
what we saw with Iraq, which was you know, false intel,
weapons of mass destruction, which is not true. Saddam was
brought into power by the CIA, trained by the stay
of that, he's given weapons of mass destruction, usually by
the CIA, to fight the Iran Iraq war. And then
when we decided that he had to spoiled like spoiled milk,
then we didn't need a Sodomini Moore. And I've never
been pro war all the way back to nine to eleven.
I've been anti war pretty much because I think most
of the wars are fought for interest, not in the
best preview of American people. Their fought for corporate and
banking interest. For the most part. I'm not a past fist.
I believe in self defense. But so the same situation
with Iran, I think that we've seen the administration all
the way back to Obama with the Green Revolution. They
were pushing for a kind of a more democratic any
D style Color revolution back in twenty nine, ten eleven.
But now what we have a situation where Trump has
just greenlit under I think probably influence from BB Yahoo
to go for a full on just you know, you know, taking.
Speaker 1: Them out and go back thirty years.
Speaker 3: They were playing the cliffs yesterday on Hodge Twins, where
BB is like saying a little two weeks away from
the nuclear Bob and then like every few years it's
the same two weeks and it's like, so it's like
two weeks to fly in the Iran was my joke
on Twitter, not making jokes about Yeah, but I mean
the same situation where oh it's two week flatten the
curb and then it's going to turn into protracted war.
Speaker 1: This is different than Syria.
Speaker 3: Syria, it took fifteen years to take down a SAWD
to install by CAA in Western support a very radical
Sunni regime under Joulawi. That's something that was mentioned in
the Clean Break memo. It's something that goes back to Ed,
you know, on strategy. So I think that all of
those are a disaster for the West and for America.
They basically only benefit the Greater Israel project. And I
disagree with all that.
Speaker 1: It pays me to say I agree with a lot
of what you just said. Not much of a debate there,
but I will say this. When Donald Trump was running
for office again, said he was going to be the
peace president, the peace candidate.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, You'll never have war again, nothing to worry about. Yeah,
probably the best that's true. He said that, and uh,
he said there were you know, he's going to be
a known regime, new regime president and all that. Tulsi
Gabbert testified ten months ago under Oh that there was
no reasonablieve, based on our own intelligence, that they were
furthering their nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: We were told eight months ago obliviated, I believe is
the word obliterated. I'm sorry, obliterated. I always get that
mixed up. Obliterated their nuclear capabilities. Then we heard it
was regime change. And then when they figured it out, well, wait,
we're gonna have to have boots on the ground if
there's regime change. Then they said, well, these civilians need
to rise up. The hell does that mean? Then Marco Rubio,
in some terminology, was blaming Israel. And I agree, by
the way, with a lot of the stuff you said
about Benjamin and I am listen, I'm a Jewish guy.
It's not anti Semitic to be critical of the Israeli government.
I've maintained that position. I am very anti Israeli government.
I am very pro Israeli people. I think they're great people,
but I'm anti Benjamin Uttaw who plays Donald Trump like
a fiddle. Then we were told by Marco Rubio that Israel,
you know forced our hand. Then we have this school
bombing and Donald Trump it was a tomahawk missile. Iran
doesn't have tomahawk missiles. Everybody knows that, and he blames Iran.
Does he even know that they don't have tomahawk missiles.
It's this guy is such a madman, and he's such
an imbecile and Pete hegsett this. They don't take responsibility.
We're told this is the party of protecting children, and
now we're told, well, this was about the Marines and
this was about attacking the ships. I agree with what
you said about Iraq. That was an ill advised war.
Thousands of American soldiers died, hundreds of thousands of innocent
Iraqis died, trillions of dollars that were still paying off.
How is this any different? Are you disappointed you voted
for Trump. I know you're not defending this war, which
I appreciate. Are you disappointed in your vote? Kamala Harris
would not have start You could have your criticisms of
Kamala and that's fine, and we can get into that.
I'm not saying she was perfect. She would not have
started a war in iron I do not believe this
war would have happened.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's similar to you know, a lot
of what Obama campaigned upon. We saw Obama campaigning as
a peace candidate back in the day. We saw him
then reversing with the drone strikes that he was involved in.
So I didn't have high hopes for politics to be
anything other than what the one it usually is.
Speaker 1: I was involved in promoting Ron Paul back in two
thousand and seven and.
Speaker 3: Eight ran Paul campaign, and I saw back then the
way that Ron Paul was sort of sidelined and kind
of kept out of the political discourse. And so my
vote for Trump was mainly based on a lot of
the policies that he supported, which are kind of older
nineties centrist Democrat type of America.
Speaker 1: First, sure, are you think as some of some of
these policies are America. I'm saying what he campaigned on, okay,
And I'm so many campaigns on a lot of things
that he lies about. We're going to build a wall
in Mexico's going to pay for it.
Speaker 3: I'm saying that I disagree with the main areas that
my main issues are that I can think of with Trump.
Speaker 1: I think worksheet was a huge failure. I think that
was a mistake.
Speaker 3: I think he did that probably at the behest of
a lot of pharmaceutical and corporate interests. That's my opinion
on that. I think that it was a mistake to
talk a lot about the Federal Reserve, but not really
to go after the federal reserve. I think that's a
huge problem for the country, for the economics, and then
also to promote the war for Israel's benefit. Really, that's
I mean, those are the main things off the top
of my head that I can think of.
Speaker 1: It. Those are big things. Well, I mean those are
my main those are my mains. It's pretty important things,
don't you. Again.
Speaker 3: I'm not a Trump apologist, but I'm an issues person.
What I'm saying is that since two thousand and seven,
I was really disaffected with mainline party politics.
Speaker 1: What about rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin
in Alaska? What about no concessions? What about the fact
that Russia is giving intel to Iran right now? And
Trump they just don't seem to want to talk about that.
They've had pleasant conversations in the last week. Rolling out
the red carp He blamed Vladimir Zelenski called him a dictator,
and he blamed Ukraine for the war. Let me tell
you something, if Iran had invaded Israel, I might feel
a little differently about this war. Well, here's where we
disagree right now. I would be intol Ukraine for sure.
Who started the war in Ukraine? Uh, NATO, That's not true.
Speaker 3: It is true Vladimir who invaded twelve NATO was provoking
Russia and they did not keep to the agreements during
the Cold War about not banding.
Speaker 1: Who invaded Ukraine? Again? Who started violence vod Russia to invade? Okay,
I didn't ask you who provoked? Who invade? Who invaded Ukraine?
Russia devoked? Started the violence? Who put the the I
could provoke the biolabs. I could provoke somebody the biolabs.
I could provoke somebody politics. Okay, I can provoke somebody
to murder somebody. But I'm not asking you who provoked.
I'm asking you who committed put the bio labs all
around Russia as a offensive Probaly, nobody forced Vladimir Putin?
Who invade Ukraine? It is a forcing I disagree with you.
Speaker 3: Well again that Ukraine is actually historically Russia anyway, and
it was only Ukraine after Lenin and after World War One.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's not even a real country. Ukraine didn't
start this war.
Speaker 3: It's a country that was created by the West and
by Communists to sever that center of power.
Speaker 1: I understand. I understand your history. I understand. But Ukraine
did not start the war. They did not start to disagree. Okay, Well,
I think that NATO and the West provoked the war,
so that then they could You think Zelenski is a
dictator in many ways, he acts like a dictator with
per and shuts it down. So Zelensky started the war
and he's a dictator. You agree with Donald Trump start
the war? Well, Donald Trump said that was he lying?
Speaker 3: Uh, he may be speaking about for for political reasons.
He didn't start the war. I think NATO started the
war again, don't you think.
Speaker 1: It's kind of important if you're the president of the
United States, do not lie about problem criticizing Trump.
Speaker 3: But I will defend the fact that I don't think
that Russia started the NATO provoked the war.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this NATO expanded sense the Cold War. Well, no,
but I can tell you that, well, Hold on a second.
Let me just go back. They've been putting bases and
bio labs that that came out dependagon on medies. There's
biolabs in Ukraine, but that still doesn't defend It's not
a defense for Vladimir's Ukraine problem. Okay, So do you
think we let's say, people if they started coming into
your property and they were saying, oh, well, you don't
have a right to you know, react because you know
we're not actually causing you to react, We're just coming
on your property. So do you think it's appropriate for
an evil murderer's dictator, which is who Vladimir Putin is.
I would hope that we could at least, even though
we disagree on this, you would agree with me that
Vladimir Putin doesn't have a regard for human life. He
kills journalists in his own country that disagree with him.
If you talk about Vladimir Putin on the phone, there
have been instances where you're massacred, he kills. He's an
evil dictator. Can we at least agree on that? I mean,
I don't.
Speaker 3: I mean all heads of state operate in a similar way.
The US assassinates people all the time. So can you
tell me where the US assassination?
Speaker 1: Yeah, all the time.
Speaker 3: Is the famous I'm familiar, famous journalist who was assassinated
in Germany. We're talking about the CIA infiltrating and using
German media for Western purposes. So whether or not Putin
himself had the journalist assassinated, I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised because a lot.
Speaker 1: Of journalists are actually also undercover as pies. If anybody
listened to my show for thirty if I was talking
about Vladimir Putin that way in Russia, I would be murdered.
In the United States of America, even though Donald Trump
is trying to take away our First Amendment rights to
criticize him, he does it all the time. He calls
people like me vermin and the enemy within. We still
have the right in this country to our First Amendment
to criticize politicians and the president. In Russia, you will
be murdered if you do that. That's what makes him
a dictator. That's part of what makes him a dictator.
And the point I was trying to make was was
that Donald Trump has right. And I'm not saying you're
a Trump apologist, but Donald Trump has rolled out the
red carpet for an evil dictator on American soil. To
this day, no Russian sanctions. In fact, they've blamed Ukraine.
Now I know, I guess we disagree on what's going
on in Ukraine. But Donald Trump's foreign policy is a joke.
The world is laughing at us right now when it
comes to tariffs, the one hundred and seventy five billion
dollars that he stole from the American people, and now
we were told we were going to get tariff checks
and now it's turned into well, you can sue us
if you'd like to. I can go policy by policy
with you. Ice. I agree that because I'm sure this
is a topic that you talk about a lot, which
is immigration. I am pro border security. I want people
to come to this country legally. However, I don't want
people that have been in this country for decades, that
pay taxes, that have families here sent to an L
Salvador prison. That's happened. Not everybody was nonviolent, but the
majority of those people, I think it was over sixty
percent of the people that they sent to an El
Salvador prison were non violent criminals. I don't want people
murdered in the streets. What happened in Minneapolis is a travesty.
What happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretty is repugnant.
It's terrible. And then you had christinoam who is no
longer there now, who called them domestic terrorists hours after
these shootings without a full investigation, and by the way,
the evidence proves it. That's why they took that Boveno
asshole out of Minneapolis, and they took out two or
three thousand troops. Listen, violent criminals ninety percent of the country.
Democrats and Republicans agree if you're a violent criminal and
you're undocumented, deported, absolutely, I'm on board with that. But
I have a serious problem with a party that says,
come on into our country, just do it the right way,
do it legally. We don't care what the color of
your skin is. Which is the party that has made
it more difficult for people to become legal citizens. In
some cases it takes ten or fifteen years for people
to be naturalized. The Democrat party has tried to come
up with a way to make it easier for people
to get a pathway to citizenship, and meanwhile, Republicans make
it more difficult. Let's make it easier for people. I
want them to be vetted, but let's make it a
little bit easier for people to become citizens, and let's
give them some more incentives. And if you happen to
be undocumented and your nonviolent criminal, which I think is important,
then you have to pay a penalty. But let's come
up with something that works for the American people. I
don't think separating families and murdering people on the streets
is good policy, and that's what the Trump administration has done.
I would actually just say we don't need immigration really
at all.
Speaker 3: I think we have enough human resource and capital here
in the West in America that we don't actually need
the replace of the indigenous people.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of a war crime in my view.
This is a known strategy.
Speaker 3: You can read Kelly Greenhill's book, She's Like, she writes
for Cornell University. I think weapons of mass migration. So
this is a known geopolitical strategy technique to change the
people groups. Specifically with Europe, you have the Colergy plan.
I've read Kudnov Clergy It's real. His book Practical Idealism
discusses this explicitly that plan was adopted by the Royal
Society to change the demographics of the European Union, and
then we have the same situation I think in America
where you have the flooding of the country with all
kinds of third world people, to change the demographics, not
just for political reasons, but I think ultimately for long
term socialist international reasons.
Speaker 1: So we can give a history lesson on immigration, and
we can talk about the past, but what I'm talking
about right now is the future and where this country
is at right now. Will you agree with me that
the shootings of Rene Good and Alex Pretty were horrible.
They weren't handled properly, and we had a woman in
Chicago who was shot five times, almost died, and everybody
in Ice, including Donald Trump, Christy Noams, Stephen Miller, everybody,
based on text messages, were praising this guy for shooting
this woman five times. They claimed that Ms. Martinez was
trying to impeding an investigation, and then all of a sudden,
when the body camera footage came out, it said the
total opposite and they were tracted the charges. Did anybody apologize?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Are those officers still out there? Yes, that's wrong. Can
we agree that that's wrong?
Speaker 3: I mean, and I don't doubt that in some of
these situations, you have absolutely horrible mistakes like that. I
would probably agree with that, But and I don't know
the specific of those cases because I'm more focused on
the bigger you'll pay you watch.
Speaker 1: You're saying, oh, we don't need a history lesson.
Speaker 3: I actually do need a history lesson because if what
I'm talking about is true, then there's a longer, broader strategy.
Speaker 1: You don't want immigrants in here at all, there's a
long we don't need any more. No, so you want
to just close the borders for everybody? Yeah, sure, okay,
Well obviously I disagree with you one.
Speaker 3: Okay, but that's fine. But Uh, the the reason that
I'm saying that is because there is a real long
term socialist strategy to change the demographics of the entire West,
and these documents point to that.
Speaker 1: It cell goes oct what does it matter to you
where where someone comes from?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: What does it matter?
Speaker 3: You know, the people's heritage and tradition makes sense. All
the people who come here, all the people that come
here certainly believe that what is it? What does it
matter where somebody was from. So long as the example,
as long as if they have Sunni ISLAMI believes it
matters quite a bit.
Speaker 1: Okay, But if they're not breaking the law and they're
decent people and their family people, why is it.
Speaker 3: It's way more complex than that, because, for example, in Islam,
they have the idea and belief that you pretend to
be a minimal and affable to the society that you're
going into, and then over time, when you gain power,
then you overthrow them.
Speaker 1: That's in the Quran. Okay, Well, so that's one example.
Do you have any friends, to have any friends? No,
that's not what I know you. I didn't mean interact,
But do you do you? Interaction is one thing, but like,
do you do you spend time with people of Muslim? Okay,
so I have and I didn't. I didn't say you
didn't have friends. That I misspoke. That's fine. But I
can tell you that I know a lot of people
that are Muslim that live in this country, maybe a
couple dozen, and they're good people. They're nice people, they're
family people. Not every Muslim wants harm on America. Not
every Muslim it is a terrorist. But there are people
on the right that do. Laura Lumer thinks that all
Muslims should be deported. She is despicable. She is a racist. Now,
I disagree with you on the fact that you don't
want any immigrants in this country at all. But I
will say this, every single time Donald Trump says make
America great again, it always meant to me, make America
white again. That's what I believe many in his base
beliefs would racist. Yes, yes, but you're saying race isn't wrong.
Absolutely it's wrong. And I'm saying his slogan, and a
lot of people that abide by his slogan want America
to be white. And and I and I I don't
know about you just said, what's wrong with the people
coming here? I don't see anything wrong with people from
what's wrong with them having their heritage and their tradition.
It depends specifically what you're talking about. But if they're
not breaking the law, then let them believe in what they're.
Speaker 3: What's wrong with people who are white having their heritage
in their tradition, if they're not breaking the law.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't have a problem with that either. But
what you're saying to me is you don't want any
immigrants country. Okay, but I think that's wrong. Does Japan
have to take in third world people? First of all?
That makes do they have to That's that's a different country.
I'm talking about the United States. What makes is this
a universal principle? No? I believe the United States, the
United States of America was particular just to America. We
live in the United States. So I'm going to speak
on what I want here in the country applies to
people in America, doesn't apply to our country. In a
perse relative in a perfect world, it's arbitrary. In a
perfect arbitrary, I'm answering you. In a perfect world, I
would love the entire world to operate in a state
of live where you want to live, have the religion
that you want. And I don't want people to be
judged based on religion ors sing j in a perfect world?
Should they in a perfect world? I want want every
You talk about this world, so should they in this world? Yeah?
I think everybody of every country should take in immigrants.
I think untold infinity as long as you're vetted properly. Well,
I mean, I mean, listen, I come from a different cloth,
I guess and in my personal opinion, I don't care
what you look like. I don't care what the color
of your skin is unless I don't care. No, you're
not letting me finished. No, it has something to do
with that I want. It's a double center. No, it's
not a double standard. You're not hearing me out. I
don't care where you're from. You could be white, you
could be black. I don't care. You could be as
one hundred percent white like me. I want everyone to
have the same opportunities as long as you're vetted properly. Yes,
I do want border secure. I want people to be vetted.
But the difference, to the fundamental difference here is I
don't care where you're from as long as you don't
have bad intention. It's crazy you don't care about that.
But that wasn't the question.
Speaker 3: The questions about the ethics of an entire country taking
in massive amounts of other third world migrants, that was
the question.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's dependent upon are they coming in
the right way. It's dependent upon are they properly vetted.
It's dependent upon where are they going to go? Are
they going to be able to provide something to the
United States? Tools and skills that they have. That's part
of the vetting process. So as long as you're doing
that properly, and we don't have bad people, which I
don't want. I don't want bad people coming here. I
don't want people that want to do harm to America.
I don't want rapists or child molesters, or quite frankly,
people that you support like Donald Trump. I don't want
people like that in this country. And if they're properly,
I'm being serious that. I know it's funny, but I'm
being serious. I don't want people like Donald Trump, your
orange people like Donald Trump, who are thirty four count
fellow liable sexual abusers, people that you support like Donald Trump,
who's named thousands of times in the Epstein files. I mean,
I don't want people like that in this country. I
don't care what the color of their skin is, like you,
I don't care where what country they're from. I don't
want people in this country like Donald Trump. And I
can give you multiple reasons why you voted for a
thirty four count villain. You voted for a liable sexual abuser.
Why are you so worried about people from other countries
coming here? When the guy who you support the president
of the United States is like a fallacy machine. No,
it's not a fallacy machine, it's logic.
Speaker 3: Don't Well, you don't actually know what fallacies are because
you demonstrated that earlier. You don't know what appealed to
masses was I know.
Speaker 1: I know what someone who is a threat to this
country looks like, and I know what's someone who is
not an immigrant.
Speaker 3: You think that massive amounts of people should be able
to come into the country. So I don't think you
actually have a good assessment of what threats are. I
don't think you have a good assure your situation would
allow for the complete disintegration.
Speaker 1: I don't think you have a good assessment of what's
good for this country and what's not. You want you
you want our border. Your assessment was based on he
was purely subjective. What you want. You want our borders
to be closed. You don't want any good for the country. Okay,
so countries that have voting for Donald Trump, but voting
tru is good for the country. That's good for the country.
Give it what he can starting. Yeah, so yeah, but
he's not doing that. He's who cares what this guy? Actually?
Were you calling me out for voting for what he campaign.
You want good people? Trying to associate me with a
bad guy again, which, well, yeah, because you support him
and you voted for him, you have no problem supporting
up going with his policies already. What about his behavior?
You want good people in this country, You don't want migrants.
Politicians have crazy behavior. Right, gave me another politician that's
ever been the president that's a thirty four count felon,
that's a liable sexual abuser. Please give me one example.
Jay Uh, Well, I don't know the number of because
because you couldn't find that. Because you couldn't find that,
I don't defend Bill Clinton. You can try the what about?
I mean what about? You asked me how would that be?
What about? To answer your question, it was Bill Clinton
a thirty four count film. I didn't say he was.
I said there is probably nobody with thirty four counts
or whatever. Yeah, you voted for that guy. Well, you
asked him that.
Speaker 3: Absurd question to give a specific person who has thirty
four felons, which obviously there's not a person.
Speaker 1: Well admit that with respect. I think it's a absurd
when you say you want our borders closed and you
don't want but it's coming here. Why because the other
countries we founded, I'm telling you we were founded by immigrants.
But about this found I'm giving you my full explanation.
We were My my personal opinion is that I want
it's the land of opportunity, and I believe that if
you're vetted and you're you know, you're not a criminal,
we should give everybody the opportunities to succeed in this country.
You go through the process of becoming a legal citizen.
There are a ton of immigrants that have come to
this country that have done so many great things for
this What I was arguing, well, I mean, you just
want the borders to be completely closed, which I think
is absurd. Okay, I'm sorry. I just for the countries
that do that seem to do I just disagree with you.
I just I just think that And again, you might
not like the comparison I'm making here, but I think
it's important. You seem to have a concern and you
think it's bad for the country to have immigrants coming
here no infinity immigrant. Yeah, Well again, you know, I
think maybe there needs to be something put in place.
But you've made the case that you don't want immigrants
here at all. You want to close the borders completely, right,
it's not needed? Yeah, well, I mean there's a lot
of things that you might think is not needed. But
how does that affect you negatively if immigrants are coming up.
I'm not arguing for what effects mean personally. I'm just
for America country in general.
Speaker 3: Countries that have homogeneous populations that keep to their traditions
and their heritage seem to flourish and function better than
those that are demographically changed. Hence why I was referring
back to the older strategies of the War College and
others that are written about how to do demographic replacement,
which is a form of warfare.
Speaker 1: Do you think immigrants, all undocumented immigrants that are in
this country now should all be deported? Yes? So people
that have lived in this country for decades that have
children here. How about anchor babies? Do you think they
should be deported as well? I would want the law
to be changed on that. Yes, So you think that
if you're a three or a four year old child
that was born in this country, they should be deported?
Unfortunately you do? Okay, Well, I think that's extremely harsh,
and I disagree with you. By the way, if you're
seeking asylum from a country, you know, from Mexico for example,
and you're going about it the right way and you
filled out the right paperwork, it is illegal for the
Trump administration to deport you. Do you understand that they're
doing that right now? It is against the law. And
there they are going against what our constitution says. It's
happening right now as we speak. You have ICE agents
outside of courtrooms when they have filled out the proper paperwork.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think these are your focusing on
minutia of bad situations that happened the individuals in masses
of tens of millions of people, when the overall net
negative for the country is more important than the minutia.
And you know, one person is a you know, a
news story, but the statistics of millions of people get forgotten.
So it's more important for the long term benefit of
the country in general than to highlight as the left
off and does I'm not saying you're a leftist, but
they highlight specific cases to do emotional peals and so
like you've done in this debates, a lot of emotional PILs,
which also fallacy.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's emotional to say that the president
is ripping up parts of the constitution and breaking the law.
Those are breaking the laws emotions, Those are emotional appeals.
Does it say that we all have What does it
say in our constitutions say every citizen has the right
to do process? Or or any every person? What does
it say? Uh?
Speaker 3: Off the top of my head, I don't recall, but
I kind of important. I would assume its citizens.
Speaker 1: No, you're wrong. In our constitution it says any person
has the right to do process. This is really fundamentally important. Okay,
but they also didn't have the idea of infinity open borders.
Okay at the time, again you use the term infinity,
but you said you don't want any immigrants coming into
the country, So that's different than infinity. My solution to
infinity is the closing of the borders, Right, you want
the borders closed and you don't want any immigrants coming in.
And the point that I was trying to make is
if you care about our constitution, which I hope you do.
I do as well, it says in our Constitution our forefathers,
it says not any citizen has the right to do process.
It says any person and as much as your person
also can be a lawbreaker and people that are here
absolutely absolutely, but that doesn't mean they don't have the
right to do process.
Speaker 3: That's what it says in our constitution. Well, yeah, I
wouldn't have a problem trying to that and do uh
do process.
Speaker 1: But they're not doing that. Jay, Well, that's I'm sorry.
I mean, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't defend that specifically,
but just now asked me about that. Okay, but you're
saying that any child that is.
Speaker 3: Born, I said specifically, highlighting certain emotionally charged cases is
neglecting the bigger problem. And that's what the left tends
to do in this topic is highlight the emotional appeal
topics about this child or that child, which is unfortunate,
but it's.
Speaker 1: Not the big issue.
Speaker 3: The big issue is I'm sorry going Well, I'm saying
in philosophy and emotional appeal is where you cite a
specific example and then you expand that to the to
the totality and say that on the basis of how
you feel about this specific example, you should sway your opinion.
So the reason it's the fallacies that's not actually based
on the logic of the situation. It's based on what
what you feel the war propaganda does.
Speaker 1: That's where they say, look at this child, he was
killed in the war, therefore be against the war. Well,
I'm just talking about our constitution in the lawn. No,
you weren't. You were talking about I wasecific emotionally charge case. Now,
I was specifically talking about what it says in the constitution.
You talked about mostly charge cases. Then you ask me
about that I'm asking you about and I was responding
to the law which states if you are from certain
countries like Mexico and you're seeking asylum, and you come
to this country and you fill out the proper paperwork,
and you're in the middle of that process, and you
show up in front of a judge, it is illegal
for the Trump administration to deport you. And the point
that I was trying to make is this isn't a
one off for a couple of cases. Thousands of people
have been deported in the middle of the paperwork process,
where in our own constitution it says they cannot deport
you if you're seeking asylum from certain countries. It's against
the law. That's not an emotional argument, but it's a
law that's being.
Speaker 3: Broke thousands of cases versus ten twenty thirty million people
that are here illegally in the last few decades. Again,
it's that's highlighting something that's not the main issue. So
it's more important to save the country than to be
an overly concerned I don't think these people.
Speaker 1: Are ruining the country and our country needs to be saved.
In fact, per case, I disagree. Okay, well, do you
have a better chance of being the victim of a
crime from an undocumented immigrant or American citizen depends on
where you are. Okay, now, you know to certain places
where there are no there's going to be more crime
in certain cities. But as a whole, and you could
look this up FBI statistics, you have a better chance
of being the victim of a crime from an American
citizen than you do an undocumented immigrant. I think that's
very important to note because a lot of people think
that brown people and undocumented emigrant's coming into this country
are going to rape your kids and they're going to
kidnap your wife. It's just not the case. There are
examples there are examples of undocumented immigrants that do horrible things.
I want those people to ported. I don't want them here.
But the overwhelming majority of these people that are coming
into this country, that are here already, many of them
you know, that are undocumented, are not bad people with
bad intentions. I want bad people, uh thrown out of
the true But it's still illegal. Yeah, okay, okay, so
it's against the law. Yeah so you think so. Your
your opinion is if you break the law, there should
be consequences. Is that a fair assessment? Sure? What are
the consequences for Donald Trump, the man who you support.
You're laughing, but it's I mean.
Speaker 3: Because you're trying to pay me as if I'm some
sort of like, well, no, every single policy.
Speaker 1: This isn't about policy. This is about concept. Now you're
changing between when I told you I was an issues person.
You say I'm a Trump apologist. I did not say
you're a trumpopolicy said the man that you support, And
I'm like, yeah, no on specific issues issue person. Okay,
so let's talk about this. And I already agreed that
let's forget about the fact that you've because it's hypocrisy.
You want people held to the highest hold on I'll
explain to you what I mean, and I'm not. I
don't think you're a Trump apologist. I don't think you are.
Based on the twenty minutes i've known you, I don't
think you are. But you want people to be held
to account. If it's somebody, by the way, it's a misdemeanor.
If you come into this country legally, it's not even
a felony. But but you want people to held to
the highest extent of the law in this case of misdemeanor. Okay, fine.
Speaker 3: I believe for the for the maintenance and safety and
health of the country, because I think the country will collapse.
Speaker 1: Do you do you agree with me? I disagree with that,
But do you agree with me that we should have
that same standard held to the highest people in power,
including Donald Trump? Yeah? I think everybody, nobody should be
immune to to or above the wall. Sure do you
think that standard has held up when it comes to
Donald Trump in the thirty four count felony felonies that
he was found guilty of or the Jack Smith case?
Uh January sixth, Let me ask you another question. Since
we're talking about the law, do you do you think
January sixth happens. If Donald Trump doesn't lie about the
twenty twenty election, would January six have happened? Yeah? If
Donald Trump didn't lie, which clearly it was a lie,
I don't care what Alex Jones says. If Donald Trump
didn't lie about the twenty twenty election because he didn't win,
does January sixth happen? I have no idea. You have
no idea, all right, Hypothetically speaking to you, asked me
a lot of questions I want to ask. Can I
just touch on this? But I want to use some
interrogation as well. Fair enough you can, as you can
ask me anything you like. Last question, well, to this issue.
You're telling me that if Donald Trump did what every
other president did in American history, which was concede, which
he didn't do, you think January sixth still happens and
people are trying to overthrow a free and fair election.
You can't add answer that question. You don't know.
Speaker 3: It's just an argument from silence. I don't know what
would have happened had this major event not occurred.
Speaker 1: So if he conceded and did what every other president did,
you still think January sixth happens, and they stormed the
capin on their saying, I don't know what would have happened. Okay,
maybe it does, it happen, Maybe it's less likely. Who
won the twenty twenty election free and fair? I believe
there's manipulation. I think most elections are manipulation. Okay, who
won the election? Free and fair? Did Joe Biden win
a free and fair election? No? Is there any evidence
of widespread voter front that you can share with us today?
This is my opinion. I don't spend a whole lot
of time focusing on voter fraud or voter election issues
because I'm not really into day to day politics, but
studying the history of the CIA the way it works,
I think that they can easily tap into their techniques
for regime change and throwing elections. Donald Trump win the
Donald Trump win the twenty twenty four election free and fair? Then?
Or would you hold that same standard and maybekommonalt No.
I think that Trump had overwhelming popular so so it's
only free and fair if Donald Trump wins. But I
just gave you my opinion based on what though there's
no evidence of widespread voter for he had chances my
opinion on how the CIA riggs elections. But go ahead,
So a lot of what you've argued, you keep saying
my opinion, my opinion, my opinion. I'm just curious, like
where on what basis ought we go with your opinion
on what which opinion? Every topic tonight has come back
to your specific specific on what what what topics in general?
On the on what basis ought we to choose your opinions? Well,
first of all, it's not an opinion, but you said
that the Trump administration is breaking the law.
Speaker 3: I've already clearly why we know, why ought we do
this or that for the country. For example, you said
that we ought to have certain types of immigration that's legal,
and this and that, And I'm saying you said this
was my opinion, my opinion, my opinion, And I'm saying,
why ought we do that? Because you didn't apply those
things to other places like Japan? So why ought we
only go with your assessments?
Speaker 1: America is not Japan? Number two? So why ought we
care about here? Well, because I care about the country
that I live. I'm more concerned about the country that
are the ethics relative or are the universal? It's a question.
As I've said, I wish that every government across the
world shared the belief of we are going to vet
you properly ought to because you wish it was the case. No,
I just don't care what the color of your skin
is or where you're from. If you're a decent person,
I welcome you in my country. So what's a pretty
fair logical We follow your position? Because it's logical? Why
ought we follow not being a racist? Because that's kind
of when I'm I think if you don't want anybody
from any other country, which is what you have said,
you want our borders completely shut down. I believe that
is Unamerican. Okay. The beauty of this country is that
we have the freedom and others have the freedom to
make something of themselves so wherever they come from. And
I think that's a beautiful thing about the United So
I can't speak for Japan. Why ought we follow that though?
Because you because you like it, you think it's beautiful.
Why this country was founded on that our freedom? Many
countries have founded on all kinds of things that are stupid.
So your reasoning is the country is going to go
down the crapper if we that's that's your reasoning behind it,
and I okay, so fine, my reasoning is dumb, but
I want to know why we have to follows dumb.
I'm just saying, why are we follow yours? Because we
have been following it for decades and I think we're
the best country in the world for for a very
very long time. Circular argument following, because I do believe
the immigrants have a lot of benefits to the United
States of America. You're not telling me why we ought
to follow that. Well, produce jobs that immigrants take, that
most Americans are not willing to take, working for wages
that and Americans they help the economy. There's no question
that it helps the Why are those things? So? In
other words, you're assuming that there's this good that you
have access to the different cultures I think is good.
I think I think learning different cultures and uh, I
think what's made America great is being uh for, for
lack of a better term, I'm a mixt of different
colors in the crayon box and being diverse. I think
diversity is a good thing, and I don't.
Speaker 3: I said, so there's a standard of the good, which
originally was what you said was your opinion and you
think that it works, and this and that's the standard.
Speaker 1: Brown people scary. So now you're asking questions when I well, yeah,
because I don't understand your logic to this. You said
America is going to go down. You're deflecting away from
the fact that your position objective. I'm not deflecting. Are
they relative? Are they subjective opinions not based on on
crime and statistics and and the benefits that the economy
UH has toward ethics? Are they subjective? Yah? But I
was talking about the economy of numbers ethics. What about
the ethics? Is your ethics subjective and relative or is
it objective? Yeah? I think there are people out there
that could disagree with me that are maybe don't like
brown people. I think there are people out there that
have different opinions that think that brown people are I
guess I guess you could make the case. I guess
you could make the case it's subjective. I guess you
can make that case. I mean, some people could say
the Klan isn't racist. I guess that's subjective to you
could make the case. You could make the case. I
know what's subjective means? What does it mean, I know
what it means. I understand what it means. And this
is see, this is sean. I'm not sure that they
do so in terms of relativism and what is that?
What do you think that this is? Okay, I'll answer
your question, but this is this is the Andrew Wilson approach. Well,
I've been doing this debate for twenty five years, I know,
and you can be doing it for one hundred years.
It doesn't mean anything to me, means dick. Okay, so
let's continue the conversation. I don't have to have as
no no, no, no no. This is a word game
that you're trying to play with me. So I do
and ethics games. You can say all racism is word games.
To the point that I'm trying to say for the
good and you're saying it's a word game. So your
position is based on I've told you you're not listening.
First of all, it's a benefit to the economy. Why
is that a show you in the question what's the good?
Why is it a benefit that it people help our economy?
Speaker 3: You have a reference to the good in all of
these assertions, and I'm asking you what is this good?
Because you just keep saying. Then you said admitted that
it's objective and it's relative. Well, and that case, then
there's no reason to prefer to offer that on anyone else.
Speaker 1: Well, I would ask you the same question, why is
it bad? I don't believe in subjective ethics? Okay, Well,
why is it bad for the country? Why are immigrants
bad for the United States of America?
Speaker 3: Why do you want to close I already argued that
because a massive influx of other people that are not
indigenous to this population replaces the it's demographic.
Speaker 1: Don't we have a First Amendment right to believe? We
believe that. So you want to take the first Amendment?
I want to say that your ethics comes from the Constitution.
That's fine, you want to take. I'm asking you, though,
people that are in this country that are not from America,
you don't believe they should have a First Amendment right
to believe something differently than you when it comes to
religion or beliefs. Certainly you misunderstood the question. So the
question wasn't are there people who have different positions or
do they have a right to different position? The question was,
what's the epstemic basis you have for your ethics, which
was purely subjective. Yeah, do you know? Well then I mean,
I mean, I mean, if it's purely subjective, then in debate,
then you But no, I've not conceded anything. What I'm
trying to tell you is that when it comes to
immigrants that are in this country relative I'm talking about
legal immigrants. I can give you statistics that show you
that it benefit follow your position. I'm telling you because
you don't want our economy to be boosted.
Speaker 3: You know you don't understand that question is about why
ought we follow it? Not just to restate what the
position is.
Speaker 1: Why ought we follow it? Because it's why should we
because you've already said it's relative and subjectives? Why should
we not close our borders? And why does Brian believe
that we should allow people from other countries in? As
I've told you before and I'll tell you again.
Speaker 3: So again, it's a higher level order of questioning. That's
about the basis for the ethics, not to restate your
position again, but why ought we follow your position? When
you then admitted that your position is relative and suspective.
Speaker 1: I've told you that I don't think immigrants coming into
this country as a whole are bad for the United
States of America. I've stated my position there, which is
based on the good, but you don't know what the
good is. Well, I've told you already, which is benefit
to our economy. I believe diversity position. So you're saying,
what is the case, this is the case, this is
the case.
Speaker 3: But why ought we follow your subjective, relativistic argument, Because
when you come to debate and you admit that it's relative, ye,
then well then there's no reason to follow it.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, you come from the cloth of you want
our borders to be completely closed and we can play
word games. You are, and the reason why is the
reason why I disagree with you. Instead of getting into
a philosophical debate, which I'm not here to do, I'm
telling you that in my personal opinion, it's my opinion.
I don't have a problem with anybody from other parts
of the world, from different cultures and different backgrounds and
different religions coming into this country, so long as they're
properly vetted and we know they're not criminals and they
have good intentions. I don't think that's a threat to
the United States of America. Now you do you think
it's bad for America. You think it's a threat to America.
I disagree with you. I've given you multiple reasons why.
First of all, a lot of these people are good
for our economy. They're hard workers, they want a better
life for it themselves. I think diversity is a good thing.
I don't want everybody to look like you and me.
I think diversity is good for the country. Now you
can say, well, you know that's just your opinion and
you're you're not basing it on anything. Well, you can
base it on the crime rates. You could base it
on how it benefits our economy, the financial numbers. There
are a lot of different ways. You know, why should
we follow All those things are assertions about what are
the cases? Well, tell me why should we follow you?
Why should we follow you? I've answered your question. You
might not like my answer. Why should we follow you?
And why should we close the orders completely? If the
ethics that you prefer are relative and subjective, then in
a debate, that means that anyone can just state the
exact opposite and it's just as legitimate as your position.
To me, this isn't about winning a debate. This isn't
about to me when I come to a conversation. It's
not about playing word games. It's not about talking about philosophy.
Would you think it's because that's what we're doing now.
I want you to explain to me why it's so bad,
so you just don't want to get drilled into your
position to give the basis. It's not about me being
afraid of anything. I want to know. I want to
know why position based on good I gave you. I
gave you my ma I gave you, I gave you
my reasons. Why I think immigrants coming into this country
as a whole. That's just like I'm telling you, well, yeah,
that's what this entire thing is about. It's about opinion.
I'm okay, Well, you can have a different way of
talking to people, and you have that right to do that,
but I don't play that game. So I'm asking you
why why do you want the borders closed? And why
do you think immigrants all over the world are so
bad for America? Tell me why.
Speaker 3: I argue and explained that earlier that the demographic replacement
of a people group is a form of genocide and warfare.
Speaker 1: So just igrants, I would just know, I said, mass
amounts of infinity immorants, not legalized immigrants, and not reasonable
sensible numbers of people. Sure that makes sense, that's not
what you said earlier. You want the borders closed, you
don't want any immigrants. That's the case right now, decision.
So right now, you think would be a wise decision
to not allow anybody from other countries I come into
this country legally because you think there would be genocide.
Speaker 3: No, I said that bringing in infinity amounts of people
is a form of genocide, is demographic replacement, and that's
what I disagree with. So that's why I would say
that the present policy would be wise to completely in
immigration at this stage.
Speaker 1: So people that are on student pieces or you would
you be against that as well. People, it's I'm talking
about the masses of people, and so yes, all of it.
Speaker 3: I mean a lot of the for example, Chinese foreign
change students, A lot of those people are spies anyway,
So yeah.
Speaker 2: So of it.
Speaker 1: Didn't Trump say he wanted to bring in six hundred
thousand Chinese because that was a mistake because in his
first administration he said I want to cut off.
Speaker 4: These Chinese students. A lot of these people are Chinese spies,
probably not wise to do so.
Speaker 3: Again, I disagree with Trump rehearsing on that. That's by
the way. That's another one I disagree with. Okay, up, immigration, Okay, yeah,
I really don't know what else to say. Obviously, I
disagree with him, Obviously. I want people to be vetted properly.
I think there's a lot of good people all over
the world that make America great. I have a lot
of friends that come from other countries, wonderful people. I
have friends that are from the faith of Islam. I
don't come from the cloth of judging somebody by where
they're from. I judge them on their character. I think
Alex Jones is just as much of a threat to
the United States of America. I think Donald Trump is
just as much of a threat to the United States
of America than the overwhelming majority of immigrants that come
to this country.
Speaker 1: You ask me, I think we should deport Alex Jones.
I think we should support your buddy to Gaza. I
think Alex Jones is a piece of shit. I think
we should deport Donald Trump to Gaza. I think he's
a piece of shit. These are people that you surround
yourself with. This is people that you vote for. I
think those people are far more dangerous to the United
States of America than a lot of the people that
you're talking about that you don't want here. That's my
personal opinion. I think there are bigger threats in the
United States of America people that look like you than
anybody that looks brown that comes into this country. You know,
hopefully what's up. Racism is wrong? Right? Yeah, how am
I being racist? Well you just divided up your assessments
on the basis of yeah, because you are very concerned
with people is wrong. Yeah, absolutely, racism is wrong. I
have no problem with white people racism right now. No,
I'm not. I'm doing orange people. I don't care what
the color of skin Donald Trump is. Yeah, because you
seem to be having a problem with people that come
from other backgrounds differently than you. I think that there
are people all sorts of people, different colors. But racism
is also subjective or is it morally wrong? In general?
Racism is terrible, it's wrong. It's horrible. Everybody anybody who's
a racist. So now you're not a relativists subjectivist. When
did I ever say that it's okay to be racist?
It's another word game. No, you either, so either something
is relative or it's objective. And now racism is objectively
morally wrong everywhere. But your ethics was relativists and subjectivists.
So you just I've been very very clear, and I'll
make it very very simple for you. Racism is wrong
on what base? This and that was subjective on any basis? No,
what is your base? When you judge people based on
your skin color? When you judge people and treat them,
is that universally morally wrong? I believe so yet Okay,
but now you're not a relativist or subjectivist.
Speaker 3: Now you're believing in moral universal claims, which you said
isn't really possible.
Speaker 1: Point that I was trying to make, Jay, So it's
a contradiction. No, it's not a contradiction the point that
I was, is it subjective or is it objective? I'm
going to give you the easy background. Is it subjective?
I'm going to answer you, but I'm going to give
it to you. You're going to get around the question
because because earlier your ethics were subjective and now they're universal,
so it can't have both. My opinion that when you
so it's not universal. So it's not universal. So you
just contradicted So it's not a contradiction what I'm about
to say it's universal. It's not universal. That's a contradiction.
What's your definition of what racism is? What about do
you think it's universal? Is it universal? Right? I don't.
I mean, I don't know even what racism is technically,
don't know what racism is. Is that a serious statements
you expect because when people define it, it gets defined
in a million different ways. And your situation, you just
did a racist on to me. I'm a bipop person.
I see that black indigenous personal. I'm sure you are,
and how there you? So you should be so you
would want you to be deported them? So let me
be clear on this, Okay, The reason why I said
people who look like you is not an attack on
all white people. The reason why I said that is
because the reason why I said that, which I think
you're struggling to understand respect. I don't. I mean, I
don't think there's anything funny when it comes to racism.
But racism is subjective. But also can call you word
games are So if I say A and non a,
is that a word game or is that a contradiction.
So here's the point that a contradiction, not a second.
Calm down for a second, don't so logic is relaxed.
Second is logical. Point that I was trying to make
was that you seem to think that if we'll allow
a lot of immigrants coming into this country, yes, it's
bad for America. The right that I was traveling. The
point that I was trying to make is people like
your good friend Alex Jones and people who you voted for,
like Donald Trump, to me, are probably more of a
danger to this country than most immigrants that are coming
into this country. But yet you want to be concerned
about all these people over the world that you claim
are got to cause a genocide.
Speaker 3: You assumed that I had no other I mean, I mean,
but why is Donald Trump or Alex Jones more of
a threat to the country than millions of.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, first Amendment, first amendment, free speech.
He attacks people like me on a daily basis with lawsuits,
civil suits. Yeah, towards people in the media in general,
media members in general. When you look at the Pentagon
press briefings, I can give you an example there. I
know people that are way on the right. Uh, they
don't allow people like me at these press briefings, and
they don't allow people in Pentagon press briefings unless right
wing idiots. And if someone gets in there that is
on the left or in the middle, Pete Hexth does
not call on them, that is against our democracy to
begin with. Anyway, I think that's a joke when you
look at the White House press briefings and we're just
talking about the media right now. You ask me about
the media when you have idiots like Jack pisobic and listen,
I think Tim Poole, I don't think Timpole's an idiot,
but I think Tim Poole would agree. He's not a journalist.
He's a talk show host, just like me. Talk show
hosts and opinionated people should not be in that room.
That's not about opinionated people. That should be about strictly
journalists doing their job. And I find that an attack
on democracy as well. I think that is a threat
to democracy. It's a threat to this country. It's a
threat what happened on January sixth. It's a threat that
he still has yet to concede an election that was
not stolen, by the way, there's no evidence of widespread
voter fraud. You cannot you couldn't articulate that whatever you
said about the CIA or the FBI or whatever you said. Okay,
well act so all of a sudden. Now it's okay
for you to have an opinion, But if I have
an opinion on that, you're playing word as the justification
for your what's your justice? I asked for the justicers
for your morals, which you're not to our opinion. Okay,
it's fair enough. What's your justification that the twenty twenty
election was stolen? Let's use your same have a hard
position on that? Because I said, now you don't have
a hard position. It's my opinion based on the my
what's your justification? Why do you keep interrupted me when
you asked me? But because I don't need a justification
for my assessment. That's an opinion I don't need. It's
a different type of question than what's the grounding for
your ethics? I don't need my justification for an opinion.
I guess, I guess I could use the same logic
that you just know for ethics. Okay, not your opinion again,
what about our justic case where ethics can't be a
mere opinion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was the argument. Now you're conflating two different
two different questions. By the way, not to believe in
democracy much is retarded.
Speaker 1: So you don't think we should have elections.
Speaker 3: I think that elections have been kind of a joke
for a long time, so I just don't really care
about them. So it doesn't matter to me whether there's a.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should have elections in this country.
I'm more I'm more of a monarchist to believe in monarchy. Okay, wow,
I didn't expect that you don't care about democracy. I
think democracy, like Plato SAIDs retorted, So democracies, what do
you mean it's gay baking gay? Can you help me
understand something I guess we could have. I feel like
words of Magas supporters, they use homophobic slurs. I'm not
saying you did that on X to attack people. I
don't understand that. It's like the way an eight year
old but Brian democracy ethic, it's just a jug. If
ethics are relative, I don't understand then I just have
a different ethic. But okay, so democracy is gang can
that should be the title. So people on social media,
some are saying you're a fascist. I didn't say that,
but some people on social media are saying that, what
would you What would be your response to that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've done a lot of critiques of fascism on
my channel. Again, christian or the ox Christianity is not fascist.
It's out a history of being monarchists. So if you
think that fascism is monarchy, that would be a big
historical mistake. Fascism is the joining of the corporate interests
together with the state interests.
Speaker 1: That was Mussolini's definition.
Speaker 3: Mussolini was originally a socialist leftist who became a fascist,
and so I do think that the history of fascism is.
Speaker 1: Bound up with.
Speaker 3: Corporatism, and I'm opposed to corporatism. So I would actually
favor a minimalist government that is a form of hierarchy.
Speaker 1: I haven't said this, but there are people that have
accused you of being anti Semitic. I have not heard
anything that you've said in this conversation that would lead
me to believe that. Why do you think people say
that about you? And what are your thoughts on Jewish
people in general?
Speaker 3: Well, again, I think guilt by association if you go
on a podcast of somebody who's critical of Israel, you'll
get immediately be called it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think that's anti Semitis.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying that you're I'm answering the question as
to why might somebody say that. I do believe that
the Talmud is not good. I don't think it teaches
good things.
Speaker 1: You're a religious person, Okay, So.
Speaker 3: I'm giving the answers about I think that Zionism was
originally a socialist quasi religious movement from Heimweitzmann, Theodore Herzel,
Moses has Uh, and I disagree with Zionism, but I
think that as an Orthodox Christian, we have a duty
to love all people, and so we can't hate anybody
or specifically pick out certain people. But I do think
organized crime syndicates like BB or Jeffrey Epstein should be opposed.
Speaker 1: But I don't make sin Jeffyin's religion, though I don't
make sin genetic. Was what I was about to say. Okay,
what are your thoughts on Jewish people in general?
Speaker 3: I think that again, we have a duty, as Paul
says in Romans eleven, to love and to pray for
the conversion of Jewish people.
Speaker 1: I think religion is bad for people, by the way
I think. I think in general terms, billions and billions
of people have died because of their religion, because of
their religious beliefs. What's wrong? I have a song with that.
What's wrong with death? Murdering people's kind of if morals
are subjective, is nothing actually wrong? I think murdering people
and killing it's not. Actually it's not a universal moral wrong.
It's just a personal subjective Yeah, well, I think most
people would agree. Do you think it Okay? Probably killing,
that's a fallacy because appeal to masses. Well, I'm not
going to debate that, because you know you want to
give using fallacy that's going to listen appeal if you
try to call it what you want. All I'm saying
is a lot of people have died innocent people and
their faith and religion. So that's all I'm saying. You're
saying what is First of all, it's a genetic fallacy,
So because people have died because of their fallacy, Yes,
I do, But answer my question. Answer my question. I
asked you first. You keep you keep asking to try
to making bad arguments.
Speaker 3: I have a duty if we're playing chess, and you
kept violating the rules like I would have to say,
you can't move the pawn.
Speaker 1: Like, no, you're right, listen, Jay, You're right. Calling democracy
gay is a great argument. You're very okay, Well, it
wasn't very funny, you have I'm serious, though, Do you
care about our democracy? Do you care? Again?
Speaker 3: I I would like to see American flourish and do well.
I don't have any hopes for democracy. I think democracy
is a term that so weaponized and used. The CIA
kind of used this in the Cold War. I don't
care what about history. I'm asking you about your opinions.
I do care about history, but I'm asking about your
opinions right now.
Speaker 1: My opinions come from history and the books that I read.
So we shouldn't have elections? What book? What book did
you read that should I just said that I don't
have a lot of faith in elections. I didn't say
we should have. And where's your evidence that our elections
are being rigged or stolen? I said that the CIA
has a long history of rigging elections of foreign countries.
It's a very general state.
Speaker 3: So that's why I don't have a lot of faith
in elections. In general, I think that at the local level,
people can do a lot more effect. They can be
a lot more effective in terms of politics than national elections.
I mean, unless you're a lobbyist, unless you're part of
a pack, unless you.
Speaker 1: Have billions of dollars. Really, I don't see that's that's
national polity. I understand what you're saying. I would have
a problem with that. I understand what you're saying, Jay,
But I'm an evidence. I'd like to think of myself
as an all I said. But everything I said is
not even controversial. Okay, But but Jay, you are not
willing to say that Joe Biden won a free and
fair election, and my question an opinion on it? Right?
You said you have an opinion, and most people that
have an opinion based that on actual and I gave you.
You didn't give me any species.
Speaker 3: I think you'd understand the difference between when people have
an opinion that they have as a theory or an
assessment that they don't have a hard heart position on,
versus when they have a heart position.
Speaker 1: So I have some things that I have heard positions. Okay,
but when somebody tells me that they believe that the
election might happen. I said, it's an opinion based on
the way that I know about how the CIA works.
That's my opinion. So your opinion is the election might
have been stolen because you're based on the way the
CIA works. If you presented in dozens of other countries
the elections in Iran, thinking about other countries, that's different. Well,
that's the precedence for why it would happen here. We're
not Iran, Okay, we actually because the way the deep
state that you asked them about the beginning, the way
they operate in other countries, is the same way that
they object. Let's try that one. Let me try this
different way. If I'm a judge right now, and your
case that you're making that you believe opinion that Joe
Biden didn't win a free and fair, aaloh election, what
evidence would you be able to present to me other
than I know how the CIA works, which is not evidence,
by the way, well it is of it. Okay, Then
where is your You have to have something called residence. Okay,
you have to have something presented to a judge called widespread.
But I didn't come here with a hard opinion. Again,
on the twenty twenty election, So you can have an
opinion based on no fact at all. I didn't say.
Note again, you're lying about whether I had so tell me.
Give me something that makes you believe that Joe Biden
because I believe that there's a breakaway security establishment that
is the quote deep state, and the same way that
they re elections. And I don't care what it sounds like.
That's again a fallacy of association, which you said you're
not going to do what Well, you sound like you're
saying that I'm sorry that you can't do the nuance,
But that's a fallacy. You're making a claim that the
election opinion, okay, an opinion. Are there things that you
have opinions on that you're not hard set on based
on some cherry or gut? Sure, So if I told
you that, why are you trying to grill me on
something that If I told you that I have an
opinion that Donald Trump is a criminal, I would give
you actual cases and evidence to prove that he is
a criminal. My argument was actual cases of dozens of
countries where the CIA rigs elections. But other countries are
the United States. Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that
that's how it was here. Okay, So you not get that,
So you believe the way the CIA has allegedly rigged
other elections they do this. You don't know that you believe,
you believe it probably was. How did they do that here?
How did they rig it again the same way that
they do it in other countries. There's a lot of
different techniques. How did they rig it here? Help me
understand again? It's my opinion that they rigged it probably
with Holli stuffing. They can bring the evidence of boutant stuffing, though,
wouldn't you have cameras. I don't have a hard opinion
on this, so I don't know why you're trying to
debate me on Like if I had a hard opinion,
I would say, I'll be honest with you. I'll tell
you why. It's a theory. I'll tell you why. The
reason why I'm grilling you on this, for lack of
a better term, is because there is zero, let me
repeat zero evidence of widespread voter fraud. Does this idea
that in that do they any hold on? Let me
just produce thought and then you have the floor. Do
they there is zero evidence of widespread arter the same
a position. It's not a position, it's a fact. But
birth is not that and Donald Trump did not win
the associated Well, no, I'm just showing how ridiculous you're
argument ridiculous. No, it's not because I'm saying because you
know how they do they do in other countries. I'm
sure it's happened in the past, but that has nothing
to do that is. That's the precedent for why I
have the suspicion of twenty twenty So you know so
by your standard, you don't believe any elections. Do you
think any election is election? We're giving a a straw man.
I didn't say every election is, but twenty twenty four wasn't.
That's a strong man? Okay, yes, I do twenty twenty
I argue that all elections are. Do you know what
evidence is? I can your Yeah, do you know what
evidence is?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Do you okay?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: I don't okay. I can play your stupid word games too,
the two thousand game, the twenty twenty four, the twenty
and twenty four elections. You want to you keep saying game.
So I want to know if the law of non
contradiction is the word game. I'm asking you a question. Okay,
I've answered all your questions. Is the law the world
hold on you just say everything's a word game. The
twenty twenty four election was not I have a suspicion, okay,
but the two thousand suspicion. So the twenty and sixteen
election where Donald Trump won, I admitted the he does
this the country. So why are you growing I don't
have the knowledge of that. So in two you said
it probably did. Maybe I don't know. So that's why
that's my question. I'm not making that claim. All I'm
simply saying is in twenty and sixteen, you believe Trump won.
In twenty and twenty four, you believe Trump one. But
it's very interesting that you retort back to the CIA
as the reason why you think Joe Biden's suspicion right,
Joe Biden didn't win because you have a suspicion. Mhm, Okay,
I'll let the less on something that you said is possible.
I'll let the list. I want to ask, so if
if I say A is the same thing as not a,
do you think that's a word game or is that
the law of non contradiction? No, I think you're a hypocrite.
I think when you use these words and you have
these opinions, No, I think you're a hypocrite. That's an
out homonym. Okay, No, I wouldn't. I'm not name calling you.
I wouldn't say that. But I think, okay, well, because
you say certain things like, for example, okay, fine, you think,
let's say, for the sake of argument, standard in every election,
is a the same thing as non a? Is that
a word game? Is the law? It depends? What we're
talking is the law? I'm asking you about the law
of non contradiction. That's what we're talking about, is that
it depends on the topic that we are referring. Is
the law itself a word game? Like I said, I'll
answer the law. Do you know that there in logic?
You study laws? Right? What do you think those law
word games? Do? I think laws are the laws of logic?
Depends specifically what you are refering to. One called the
law of non contradiction? Is that a word? What about it? No?
I wouldn't say that. Okay, thank you, not necessarily so,
I'm not playing word games. But you are a hypocrite.
You use a different standard for that. You do actually
didn't argue that Donald Trump was had a different center.
I actually specifically said that he should be held to
the same standard. I don't think that she hasn't. Well,
that doesn't mean that that's again, had nothing to do
with it what I argued, No, I think I think
it is a little bit to do it. But I
do find it interesting. When Trump wins, everything must have
gone fine in the election. But if Trump loses, the
CIA must have been involved. That's an Alex Jones conspiracy theory.
That's not what I argue. That is a conspiracy theory.
I know what's going on in the CIA, and I
don't think Joe Biden. I know I had a suspicion.
You have a suspicion past evidence and examples that you admitted.
So if I said I have a suspicion possible if
I said no, if I said that, you said the CIA,
you said the CIA could elections and others. I don't know.
I don't have and he knows possible. What I do
know is that said earlier as possible. What I do.
Just because I say something is possible that I didn't
say that you did, that's my suspicion. So you just
have a suspicion with no evidence. You in a position.
I just think it's it's it's okay. There's nothing wrong
with being a hypocrite, because ethics a relative anyway. Yeah,
you got to fend off with the files and the
deep state or sure we could talk about that. Sure, absolutely, absolutely,
you want to go first this time? Go ahead, I'll
be a gentleman. You let him go, I'll let him
go first. What's the prompt? Are they are they real?
Are they good? Or they like? Yeah? Well, would you
want to?
Speaker 2: I guess you mentioned Trump's in there a lot, But
do you have a heart take on that, Brian? I've
seen files with Trump.
Speaker 1: Sure, I have some very strong opinions on it. First
of all, a lot of maga Republicans and even members
of Trump Trump's well, not before his administration. A lot
of people that were around Trump campaigned on this, the
deep state in Hollywood, pedophiles, and then they had those binders.
As you know, Jay Jack Bisobek was one of them.
I called him out for this and Pam BONDI made
them all look like clowns. I agree. As you know,
there's still see we might agree on this one. There's
still three million well, let me just start with this foundation.
You agree with me that what happened to these kids
is horrible, sure, and people should be held to account. Right,
but to this day the only two people, I think
there were a few more arrests right overseas, but Gislaine
Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are really the only two people
in this country that have been held to account. Correct.
What does Donald Trump do well? The first thing he
does is, says his former personal attorney Todd Blanche to
interview Maxwell. A couple of days later, she sent to
a club med facility. Jeez, I wonder why she's still there,
by the way. And when she was asked, as you know,
I think it was like a month or two ago,
she pled the fifth and she said she only answered
the questions if Trump basically gives her a pardon. Trump
had nothing to say about that, and he hasn't ruled
out a pardon for her. Donald Trump is mentioned in
the files that we've already seen partially thousands of times.
In fact, Donald Trump is mentioned more in the Epstein
falls than Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Bible. He
doesn't want us talking about it. Jay. He calls people
like you and me stupid for even talking about the
Epstein fau even talking about it. I've been very consistent,
whether you're a left or a righty, whether you're a
Democrat or a Republican, I want everyone held to account.
If you're in those files, release everything, redact the names
of the victims. If Bill Clinton did some horrible things, fine,
Hillary Clinton testified, Bill Clinton testified. Why isn't Howard Lutnick testified.
This is a guy. This is a guy, as you
know a month ago, who said he was never on
the Epstein island and then right of course, and then
he led about it. Trump doesn't want him to testify.
Why isn't Donald Trump testifying? If Hillary Clinton? You know
what the Republicans did, They set a precedent. Now Milania
should have to testify. She was closer to JESSELEYN. Maxwell
and Jeffrey Epstein than Hillary ever was. So do I
know for sure, one hundred percent if Donald Trump committed
any crimes in there, No, I don't. I know there
are accusations. But what I do know is that this
is a huge cover up, huge cover up. I want
people held to account. This is a huge cover up.
And then I do believe a portion of the war
and Iran a portion of it is a distraction.
Speaker 3: I agree, So that's kind of like my Yeah, I
covered this pretty extensively on my channel. We live streamed,
I think every day as these were beginning to sort
of drip out. We did about thirty hours of live stream.
People can go check all that out where we sort
of archived everything. I thought that was pretty substantial that
came out. I do think absolutely that the rest of
the of the file should be released. There should be
total you know, they should redact everybody but victims absolutely
agree with all that. I do think it was a huge,
huge mistake to cover this up and to not allow
not to push for this to be released when this
was a campaign promise. So I'm having a hard time
to figuring it out where we could disagree on this one.
Totally agree, huge bleunder, as big as any of the
other Trump blunders.
Speaker 1: What would it take for you to regret your vote
if something came out in the episte? To be honest
with my vote was just kind of anti Yeah, you
could say that, what was it about Kamala? I know
we're kind of because we're gonnae on the Epstein stuff.
We're not going to argue about that only because only
because I only because I agreed with what were the
majority of Trump's campaign promises. Okay, I get that part.
Let's talk about Coamala from moment. I don't really is
there anything about her like you just said, I just
can't vote for the because of what do you in
what sense? Like what do you mean she's a goober?
Just in that sense? I just I mean, I don't
take political seriously anyway, So, but there's there something about
her that said I can't, I can't vote for her,
like what you wanted me to say, that she's a
brown person. Jay, That's not why I That's not why
I messing. I'm asking the question policies you didn't like
obviously again the positions as I said that Trump campaigned upon, uh,
you know, no new wars reigning in Uh. It was
more about his promises more than a I'm always an
issue person, but I definitely think that even if Donald
Trump went full Neocon, which I always had the suspicion
that he could turn neok on, I felt like that
it would still be a better bet than Kamala. But
I don't even think that that. What I'm getting from
you is it was more of Trump's promises that you
thought he would keep, which I don't.
Speaker 4: Know what it was.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 3: If I'm going to have to choose between these two,
then I'm gonna at least agree with these campaign promises.
But I also don't believe politicians actually ever, even if
they keep half of their promises.
Speaker 1: That would be Jay Jay. He ran them basically on
two things. In twenty sixteen, he ran and We're going
to build a wall in Mexico's going to pay for it.
Obviously that didn't happen. And every campaign stop he talked
about locking up Hillary Clinton and he was going to
hire a special prosecutor. So what would make you think
that he was going to keep his promises this time around?
Perhaps the potentiality that he had a lot of.
Speaker 3: Ignorance and naivety about who he's staffed as his as
his as his people. So there was a lot of
neo cons a lot of people that betrayed him. And
so my hope was that if he saw that Bolton
and these kinds of characters were sort of duplicitous, that
he might actually take actions. To quote durin the swamp
and actually not have a bunch of lobbyists and you know,
pack type people.
Speaker 1: If they can remind it, let me finish it.
Speaker 3: The last thing I would say is that also I
think it had to do with he campaigned originally on
not taking GOP money, and then I suspect that there
was that he did take GOP money in twenty sixteen,
and that's why you had so many neo con appointments
to his staff. And then I had hoped that in
twenty twenty that he would learn from the first mistakes
and perhaps at least attempt to not.
Speaker 1: Based on his age and where he's from, he hasn't
learned from any of his mistakes. I would also say,
unfortunately it seems that way.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jared Kushner when he took two point one billion
dollars from the Saudis, Donald Trump with his crypto scheme scandal,
I disagree with all those Yeah, eight times more wealth
now than he had when he first got into office.
I mean, I don't know, man, my whole take on
this whole thing. And like I said, we're not going
to disagree on the Epstein stuff. I'm glad we that's
a really important thing. I'm glad we agree on that
is that I went to Trump rallies and I was
criticized nationally for saying it felt like a clan rally. Now,
that might be extreme language. I don't believe everybody that
goes to a Trump rallies racist. I don't believe everybody
that goes to a Trump rally as a clansman. But
in a way, the way you talk sometimes in a
joking fashion, right, ninety nine percent of the people were white.
I went to a Kamala rally and it felt like America.
It was very diverse. I saw Confederate flags at Trump rallies.
I saw a lot of hatred. Fuck Joe and the
Hoe shirts.
Speaker 2: It was just like.
Speaker 1: Just a lot of hatred. Man. And I've never said,
and I've never grouped all Trump supporters as one. I
wouldn't put you in one. I wouldn't. I've never done
that ever, and I never will. But I will say this,
I don't think, uh, everybody who voted for Donald Trump
is a racist. But I do believe everybody who is
a racist voted for Donald Trump. I strongly believe that.
And I could go with policy. Listen, you haven't done
this but a lot of people in the right call Kamala.
They've called her a whore, she slept her way to
the top. I haven't heard you say that. I'm not
accusing you. I didn't even remember that. I remember people saying, yeah, yeah,
I'm not accusing you of that. I want to be clear.
But well, I'm trying to sleep my way at the top,
so I could be hire for me to call out.
That's funny. Actually, see you made me laugh. You're funny.
But you know I hated that rhetoric. You know what
I mean. Here's a woman who she became the attorney
general duly elected twice. Even if you disagree with their politics,
that's fine. Yeah, this is a woman who became a
senator and then a vice president. Uh wasn't wasn't my first,
second or third? Let me be very clear, how about this?
She's a woman? That's that would be an area where
I don't want her in politics? Why tell me why? Seriously,
you don't want women? Why tell me why? Oh, less
women in politics, just like I would want less immigration. Well,
let's go. I don't think women are fitted for that.
I don't think they're made for that. Why tell me
what's why would you say women A woman can't be
a politician. I don't think they're made for that. What
they can do? What are their characteristics that would lead
you to believe.
Speaker 3: That women tend to be more emotional, They tend to
not make their decisions based on facts, reasoning, and logic.
Typically doesn't mean that all.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's funny married, because if you have
a wife, I'm laughing. Because the guy who you voted
for has nicknames for people he disagrees with. You couldn't
find a more insecure emotional guys that have to do
with the question of whether you don't I'll tell you what,
because you're making the case, which I disagree with, that
women are more emotional. Uh, when the man who is
probably more emotional ten times more emotional, I would imagine
than most women that are in office right now, who
has nicknames for people he disagrees with, he puts on
eight layers of orange makeup. When you have a.
Speaker 3: Comedy, I mean it comes to Trump's a comedian. So
the stuff you're talking about there, you.
Speaker 1: Want a comedian to be president, A serious person who
happens to be serious person. So you don't think you
don't think Kama is a s Why do you say that? Again,
I don't think most politicians are serious people politicians in general.
He's got a law degree, she's a good mother. She's
got to see politicians as like, well, what's the old
is that?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: Politics is Hollywood for ugly? Okay, So you don't think
you don't think women should be an elected office? What
other jobs do you What other jobs do you do
you think are not front lines? What if they pass
a physical the same physical that a man passes, well,
none of them have passed the Navy Seal physical. I'm
not talking about Navy seals, just in general serving. You
don't have to be just a pass. It would then
suggest that they're physically different. I believe that if a
woman is able to and by the way, there are
some women that are that are able to pass the
same physical standards that a man. Okay, so why would
you have a problem with them because the exceptions don't
make the norm?
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's kind of common sense that
just because of our exceptions, we wouldn't want that to
be the norm.
Speaker 1: Why not the norm be just passed this one generic
uh test that all genders have to pass. Why wouldn't
that be Why wouldn't that be a good norm?
Speaker 3: But the test and most women not passing that test
would make my point that men and women are fitted
and made different, they have different.
Speaker 1: It's a case by case basis as far as physical ability.
I think you would again, I agree that you know
there have been for example, frontline soldiers typically have not
been women, and there's a reason for that. So you
don't think women should be elected officials because they're quote
unquote emotional, They're too emotional not be the norm. You
don't that women even if they pass the basic physical
that a man has to pass, they shouldn't be able
to risk their license or the norm. I said, I
know that you're not listening unless they the norm, But
why can't the Norman will be one basic standard physical
because that's not all that it is.
Speaker 3: There's also a push, there's a social engineering push to
get for example, all women in America to go to
college to become career women.
Speaker 1: I think that's a bad idea. I think women are
made to be at home, So women are made to
be at home. A lot of people would call that
a massogynist statement. Women are made to be at home?
Should women be allowed to vote? Again? I don't think voting.
I think voting is dumb, so okay, but but what
ought to be I didn't ask you what your opinion
on voting was. I'm just saying right now we're we
out of the do you think women should be allowed
to vote? I don't think voting makes sense in general.
So you don't like you don't like voting? I don't
think women?
Speaker 3: Answer, Women shouldn't be involved in politics or geopolitics or
any of that.
Speaker 1: What, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. So they're made
for being at home. They're just made for being at home.
So women shouldn't be out there in society in the
office place. They shouldn't be able to have their own careers.
They shouldn't be allowed to be teachers and dies. When
when you make that attempt to make that a norm
for society, it undoes society. So without getting personal here,
and I don't mean to be personal, you're married. Well,
I'm not trying to go there with you. That's why
I'm asking you. First. You're a married man, right, so
you tell your wife. If your wife wants to have
a career, she wants a job. Maybe she wants to
do what you do. She wants to be a podcast
or you would tell her, no, your your job is
to be We do that together, so we have a dynamic.
If she said, that's great, I'm happy to hear that.
But if your wife said to you, for example, you know, Jay,
I've been thinking I really want to be a teacher
or a doctor, you would tell her no, typically careerism, no,
it is not good for one. So women shouldn't have
the choice to.
Speaker 3: I also recognize that we live in a world that's
not that's not that way, So people are forced into situation.
So I don't blame them for what they were taught,
what they were indoctrinate with growing up. But I don't
think that that's the best way for women to live.
Speaker 1: No, but that's your opinion. Why not let that is
not my opinion. Why shouldn't a woman be able to
decide for herself what's good for you? Why should do
for them?
Speaker 3: They can do that in this society, and I think,
but if you observe the negative effects of doing that.
My view is based on traditional Christian morals, so that's
why that's the aught.
Speaker 1: So Christian morals say that women shouldn't be allowed to
have careers. Generally, Jesus Christ would have said that women
shouldn't be allowed to have careers, right proverb thirty one? Okay,
well again, I'm unaware of Jesus's teachings of saying that
women shouldn't be allowed to live their life. Jesus what
men tell? Did? St? Paul?
Speaker 3: And Paul says that women are made to be a
subject to the husband and to have children and to
be at home.
Speaker 1: So Jesus appointed politican, what if a woman doesn't want
to have a child, they don't want to have a child. Yeah,
if they don't want to be a mother and they
just want to they want to be a career person.
Is that wrong? I mean, again, you have the ability
to do that. But again I'm saying that I don't
think that. But in your world you don't think they
should have that ability.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't have the I don't think that we
have the ability to enforce some sort of like handmaiden's
tales that you don't.
Speaker 1: But in your world you would want women. But I
also believe not have careers. I believe in a degree
of freedom in society. What about all the women that
are teachers, professors, very successful doctors, surgeons, brain surgeons. What
about all the women in this country? That is to
do with what that's like saying that because people do
things in the case that these women are not qualified
because they're too emotional. I said that it shouldn't be
the norm. It shouldn't be the norm. Right, So, for example, I.
Speaker 3: Know one woman who is extremely uh proficient in history,
she knows geopolitics very well. She's an outlier. So it's
not the norm for that domain for women to be
in that. The fact that we have that in modernity
and that it's common doesn't mean that it ought to
be the case.
Speaker 1: This is why I don't live my life based on religion.
I don't live but you live it based on subjective
I don't live my life based on what something is
said in a book. I'm not a Bible thumper, but
it's just based on what Brian says. No, it's you're
just based on what Jesus Christ says. Well, that's a
better basis than just what Brian says. I would I would,
first of all, I would respectfully disagree with you with
Jesus that Jesus Christ doesn't wouldn't want any woman to
have a career and be forced to stay home. I
think that's a misogynistic opinion in my.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, and you've given it a place in
the Bible. Jesus implies that that's I don't live my life.
Speaker 1: I don't live my life. But you said she wouldn't
say that. I'd like to think Jesus say that. So,
so you're telling me in the Bible, Jesus, so women
should stay at home and they shouldn't. You made the.
Speaker 3: Argument that Jesus wouldn't say that. So I'm asking you where. Well,
I'm asking you where does it asking me when you
made the assertion, Well, tell me what's where? Where does
it say in Jesus he says to Timothy that women
should not be teachers and that they should not be
outside of the home.
Speaker 1: They should be at home. Okay, So and if you
would have to take a look at that. But you
said Jesus wouldn't say that, And I'm saying, but he
does say that. Well, I'll tell you what I think
about the Bible, and I'll tell you what I think
about religion in general. You can believe in the tooth fairy.
You don't know if there's heaven and hell. You have
no idea. If there's a god, you can believe it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with you believing it.
I actually am not an atheist. I'd like to believe
that there's something out there, a higher power, but we
don't know. You know, you don't know if there's hell
or life after death. You don't know any more than
I know. And guess what, we won't know until we're dead.
But what I don't like about religion is people that
push their beliefs on other people. And I believe that's
what you're doing. But you push your beliefs right now. No,
I want women to do whatever the hell they want
to do, but you're pushing that belief. Give me an example.
Are you give me an example of me pushing a
belief and forcing other people or treating it.
Speaker 3: It does not equate the forcing people to do it
because you've been arguing your positions the whole time.
Speaker 1: My whole position is I want people to live their
lives and I want people to do what they want.
A position that you're pushing on people. I want people
to have the freedoms to have a career regardless of
what's between their legs. But I don't give a fuck
what's in the Bible. But you say, oh, I have
all these Muslim friends. They don't believe that. I'm going
to ask Sean a question. Okay, so you're not going
to answer this? No, no, no, this is important. This
is important, Sean. I hate to bring you into this.
Is it ridiculous for somebody to think? Do you disagree
that what a man says that a woman should have
replaced not having a career but should be at home?
Is that a misogynistic you? Am I wrong? And I
want to know what is I trust him. He is
referencing a Bible verse, so I think he's approaching it
from that point. But would you say that's massogynists? And
a lot of people say that ethics are relative, So
another wrong with racism, more misogyny. You're telling an entire
group of people what to do, what you think they
should do, like you've done this whole debate where you
said that every white man in America must accept your
form of liberals. I never said that, and I'm not
a liberal and I never said that. When did I
say you're a liberal you're a classical I'm a classical liberal. Okay,
let's go with that. Uh. And we had this conversation before,
and this is what happens when we have these conversations.
Speaker 3: But you've been arguing that the people in America should
accept your positions, So you're doing the same thing.
Speaker 1: You're I'm not asking you to accept any of my positions.
I'm just disagreeing. Debates are about trying to convince people
in your position. Teople, I know that I will never
convince somebody like you about anything. You are stuck in
your views and your christianda, oh, fine, I'm bad, But
what about I didn't say you were bad. I'm just
saying whatever. Let me be very clear, when I wake
up in the morning and I do my radio show,
I'm never trying to convince anybody. What you're going to
get is my beliefs and my opinions. I don't show
up somewhere and say, boy, you know, I saw that
Jay Dier guy, and he thinks all women should be
in the kitchen. So I'm going to show up to
that debate and I'm going to try to convince him
that women should have their own careers. The audience. Okay,
I'm never I'm never going to convince you because this
is the way you believe the audience. Okay, well listen,
anybody who's watching this, chances are if they're a fan
of yours, they're going to agree with you. If they're
a fan of mine, they're going to agree with me.
I'm not obsessed with audience. I'm not obsessed with changing
people's minds because in most cases, I think a lot
of people that are on the right, that are Trump supporters,
it is impossible to convince them virtually about anything. Occasionally
I get a caller who calls in and says, you
know what, Brian, I made a mistake. I regret voting
for Trump. It could be the Iran War, the Epstein falls, whatever.
But I'm not trying jay to convince anybody. That's why
we are fundamentally different. Well, on debate, I am trying
to do that, well, debate to convince people. Okay, well
you haven't done that. Okay, Well again, when you make
a statement that you believe all women, in your opinion,
should be in the kitchen, most people would them Okay,
most people would define that as extremely misogynistic. And let
me tell you something. I don't have a problem either,
do I. But I can tell you that if a
woman is capable and she's smart, then I have no
problem with her being a politician. I think there are
people in DC that are women that are very good
at what they do. I have no problem with them.
I think a lot of people like you didn't vote
for Kamala because they're women, and I think that's wrong,
and I think that's wrong, and I think it should
be about your intelligence and your merit and what you've
done in your life. And Hillary Clinton, listen, I didn't
even vote for Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, but I'll
be the first one to admit she was overqualified for
the position based on what she's done in her life.
Donald Trump is a fucking reality TV show host. You
voted for a reality TV show host guy with no
experience on campaign policy. He was given a half a
billion dollar company from his dad when he was like
a teenager. This is a guy that was a TV
reality star. So if you want to talk about people
that are not qualified, I would say maybe we shouldn't
put reality TV stars as the leader of the free
world more than what's between their legs. Which it sounds
like you're a little bit obsessed with I'm sorry it
does sound that way. You would never vote for a woman,
It's clear, right, you would never vote for a woman ever,
right ever, because they're a woman. Mean, there could be
some insinuating circumstances where there's a you know, lesser of
two evils, okay, good, Like for example, if there was
a woman running in a local election that I thought
in my vote would have some effect on so you
would be okay with the woman being.
Speaker 3: Brian, I said the whole time the norm, and you
wanted to make it like expansive universal claims.
Speaker 1: It was just what well you made the case and
we could rewind the tape that women are not shouldn't
be programmed, women shouldn't be politicians. That's a generalization, but.
Speaker 3: A generalization can include exceptions, which I said, for example,
because they're emotional. For example, the case of as a
friend of mine, she's a PhD in history, feopolitics translates
foreign languages. I mean, she's an outlier in terms of
a domain that's typically male dominated. I think there's a
reason why STEM courses and things like that are dominated
by men. Geo politics because that's the domain that men
are better fitted for. I think, in general, every human
being is different. Some are more emotional than others. In general,
doesn't matter what's between your legs and my opinion. Some
people are smarter than others, Some people are more capable
of some people are stronger than There's plenty of women
that would kick my ass. And I said that to
Myron Gaines, who was assas. Those are all exceptions, bro Okay,
but you're making a generalization. You don't be any women
should be politicians, but you're trying to make it they
should be in the kitchen on the exceptions, and I'm
doing the opposite. Okay, but they're Every single human being
is different, and I don't speak for women, but some
women choose They're still generalizations. But some women don't want
to have kids, some women don't want to be moms.
Some women put their career.
Speaker 1: None of those were relevant to what you asked me
was the best fit generally speaking. I mean, listen, going
back to my original statements earlier, I don't like government
involvement in our lives. I don't. That's my biggest criticisms
of religion is that too many people tell other people,
I'm right and you're wrong. No, my religion is right
and your religion is wrong. But don't you think in
this debate you think you're right when it comes to
what religion? I think anybody positions. Okay, well, well let's
talk about religion. I'm just saying, like, you don't believe
that about yourself. What do you mean?
Speaker 3: Don't you believe that all your positions are correct? You're
doing the very thing that when it comes to I believe.
Let me hear this way. I believe everybody is religious,
even you. You have a religious commitment to your positions.
You just don't believe that it's a god. You're basically
just your own god. And you're saying that all my
positions are what I say, and that's my opinion, and.
Speaker 1: I'm not forcing it down your throat. I'm not making law.
I don't. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm telling
you my opinions of how I feel. You're telling you're
telling half the I'm not trying to convince anybody. You're
telling No, I'm not so when you're coming to it,
that you're coming to a debate and not to debate,
I'm okay, I'm coming to a debate or discussion to
tell you how I feel about different topics or just
how do you feel about It's a very feminine. Okay,
well that's fine, you can call me. I guess I
guess Jay thinks I'm in the kitchen. Then I guess
I'm not Jay. I got bad news for I'm not
cooking you dinner tonight. But you're not gonna make a
sund Everybody. Everybody is different, every human being is different,
everybody has different skills. Because you're making a generalization about
women how they should all be in the kitchen, and
I find that to be extremely misogynistic. Generalizations are not
again on your wrong, it's on your basis women in
your life, and I'm just making if you tell them
I think you you all belong in the kitchen. What
would they say to you if you said that? How
is that relevant too? Because because I'm curious, this is
an emotional appeal again, Okay, but but I want to
know the people in your life, your mom or sister, whoever,
when you say, hey, you guys shouldn't be mom. My
mom was an outlier. Actually she was a very qualified
editor assigned journals. I think that's great. I think that's great.
So why can't other people like your mom? Well, I'm
sure in this society they can, but that doesn't mean
that it's the best for society. So the question was
what's the best for society, not can they actually physically
do it? So that's two different You think it's best
for society to get all the brain surgeons and the
teachers and the politicians and every woman, say oh, I
said generalizations.
Speaker 3: Typically, it's not the best for society for women to
have what are classically male oriented positions and jobs.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be a case by case basis based on
the person. No, if you're asking me about what's generally
better for society, what about the individual? Does that matter too?
What's best for the individual? Well?
Speaker 3: I have a Christian ethic and belief so I think
that that's the best for society and for individuals.
Speaker 1: So I would assume you think that gay people are
all sinners, you're against gay marriage because of your religion.
I believe that those are actions, not a state of
being or an identity. So you think everybody chooses to
be gay? You think Richard Simmons was born because I
think that's ridiculous. Are you saying he was gay? So
there are many people when they're four or five, when
they're four or five years I actually had a conversation.
I actually had a conversation with George Santos about this
the other day. We're actually friends, believe it or not,
and George told me he knew he was gay and
he was like four or five years old, and it's
not a choice. And I think a lot of people
who are because I talk to these people and they
tell me, and they're honestly, that's still that's not how
you would know that. So Richard Simmons was born straight.
I'm just saying that, I'm saying that what you answered
with would not prove the way that you know. Do
you think being gay is a choice?
Speaker 3: Yes, there can be a society apigenetics, So you think sometimes,
let me finish, there can be an epigenetic or a
societal factors that can influence people's proclivity. Sure, but I
think there's still a degree of human volition, and so
let's go with that logic for a second. You think
men in society who are once straight wake up one
day and say, hey, I think I like penis now
that's the way you think it works.
Speaker 1: You think it's a choice like that. That's probably, in
most cases a continual progression of moving in a certain direction.
I don't think it happens overnight. Again, I'm gonna strong men. Well,
here's another one for you. I believe that sometimes in
society people hide behind their religion to hide their bigotry.
And when people judge somebody based on sexuality or in
this case, what's between their legs, I believe it's a
form of bigotry. And you say, well, this is what
my religion tells me. No, No, this is who you are.
You decide to think that way. You decide to think
that if somebody is different than you, I assume you're straight.
If somebody is different, If somebody is different.
Speaker 3: People don't What do you mean? I mean if I
just told you they're agnostic. Couldn't everything be conditioned? Then
there are people who are good conditioned to believe? There
are people who are Could I be conditioned to my religion?
Speaker 1: Could you be? I don't. I don't know. I have
no idea. So why would I be held guilty or
accountable on your Because when I talk to people about holmosexuality,
you don't even understand the argument I make. And if
it's people, and if my religion is genetic, then why
am I guilty and gays aren't? And you think religion
is genetic, I'm saying, if that's the case in your view,
religion is genetic, religion is not understand that word I do.
Religion is a choice. Why can't I be conditioned to
my religion? Because sexuality is different than religion? You see
for example, why can't I be conditioned? You're an atheist, right,
You're an agnostic? Right? I believe that there's a higher poety. Okay,
but it goes back to what I said.
Speaker 3: But if I'm raised in religion from my earliest days,
being taught about same, baptized as an infant, let's sam,
brought up in Sunday school from the age four, whatever,
why would I not be conditioned in the same way.
Speaker 1: First of all, I believe that's wrong my worldview on that.
That's not the question. Here's why. Here's why, because I
think most people who are gay would tell you. And
by the way, I am a straight man. I don't
speak for gay people, but I think most people would
tell you. It's a little bit different the fact. Hold on,
it's a little bit different to switch a religion or say,
by the way, I know people in my life one
woman who is a pastor, she's now an OnlyFans model.
She's a great person. Of this is answering all question.
She made a choice to get out of that lifestyle
and that religion and go live her life. Okay, most
people who are gay would tell you it's not just
a snap of the finger. If you're born I believe
gay and you want to turn straight. So those choices
are conditioned and they're not actual free will choices. Do
You're not believe in biology? You're not even letting me
finish it, because this is a killer for your argument
and I never even noticed, as it's literally in this debate.
So you can be conditioned to believe or to have
those proclivities. But even though I go through the exact
same situation, I'm guilty for the choice that I made
for the religion, which is identical to the conditioning according
to you, No, well, I why is one of them
free will and the other one on I'm going to
be very clear again, here's where I think you're guilty of.
And this goes for any religion in anybody. When you judge,
somebody's wrong with judgment. I think it's wrong to judge. Well,
that's great, but you're are relevant. Okay, So when you
judge an entire group of people because they are different
than you because of what the way they look or
their sexuality, that is what bigotry is. What's wrong with
being a biggot? Oh, I think that makes you an
asshole if you're thinking, well, but I mean, those are
just your own prosper Well, you're right, biggots are great people. Argument.
I'm just saying, No, you're right, biggots are wonderful people.
I shouldn't judge. Biggest why philosophy is good because if
you learn philosophy, this is why religion is bad. Because
he's trying to defend religion. Never made a religious argument.
All I said was that when you judge, why is
it so hard for you admit my judgments are my
conditioning that I'm not morally accountable on your world view?
Doesn't the Bible say not to judge if but if
your worldview is correct? Does the Bible say your world
view is correct? My choices are my conditioning, so I'm
not liable or accountable. Does the Bible say not to judge?
It says judge with righteous judge Yeah exactly, So you
think this is righteous taking all groups of people because
I have a consistent basis to judge actions, not the people.
I believe you. I believe God can judge people. I
don't know what God, whatever, God, you would How would
you know? Then? How would you know he judges people? Okay,
well it's a saying okay, but I will tell you
I don't even know if God exists. I don't know,
and you need to judges to you? How do you
know this audio? I made a statement, as you would say,
a joke. How do you know that nobody knows that
God exists? How do you know that we don't know
for sure? Nobody knows? Now it's a universal claim. How
do you know that no one knows? Who's your evidence
that God exists? How do you know that No, I
didn't make a universal claim? You did. How do you
know that no one knows? There is no direct evidence
that there is a God. But how do you know
that no one? No one's presented it. So do you
know what a universal claim is? Yes, nobody's presented it.
What's a universal claim? Universal claim is what I just said,
which is what nobody has direct evidence that God is?
Speaker 3: And what about all states, all people at all times
a universal claim? Sure, do you have access to universal
states of affairs?
Speaker 1: If you disagree with me, then tell me your evidence.
Do not have access to university affairs? Give me your
evidence that God exists?
Speaker 2: Do you?
Speaker 1: You could make me so philosophical question or word games?
Even though you admitted that the non contradictions God exists,
your Christianity has got God exists? Right of course, where's
your evidence that the transit argument? Oh? I see, okay,
so so that's direct evidence. Uh yeah, it's a logical argument.
And hell and heaven exists, right, yes, yeah, where's your
evidence of that? Because it's part of the worldview? Got you?
So your worldview? You know for sure? And if I
have the high okay, you can have the highest degree,
it doesn't make it true. But we don't know if
heaven or Hell exists. But you don't know. But you
for you to make that you I think is insane.
But you made the claim that you have universal knowledge
that no one knows that and you can't know that
either on your own position so you're going out on
the bounds of what you can e do on your world.
There is no more evidence that God exists. Keep saying that,
but sorry, you don't have the evidence. No, but I
didn't make the claim that no one knows you did
your entirely religion. Did you say no one knows your
entire life is based in region? I think it's a
fairy tale. Correctly, that's great, but you haven't given an
argument for they have actually the fairy chill that you
believe in, like free will I have? Actually you have?
How do you have the freedom to believe in what
you want to believe in. I'm not denying, but if
I go with Sam Harris or Daniel Dinnitt, maybe I'm
just conditioned to think I have free will and all
choices are determinists. Again, you have how do you know
that free will exists? Okay, what do you mean you have?
How do you know that exists? Right? Because you believe
it metaphysical things that you can't justify you want me
to justify. Listen, there's a there's the problem with saying
to a theist that you have to justify it. You
believe in logic, universals, things that you can't justify, like
free will. So, Jay, so you don't you're not going
to answer that. I'm going to answer, do you believe
in free will? I'm going to answer it the way
I want to Okay, Okay, you have the freedom well
in your estimation, in anybody's that's it works. Okay, Well,
if you want to use fallacies, you can understand. I
understand how a debate. A debate works, j Just because
you've been doing it for twenty five years doesn't mean
you have to be condescened. What's free will? I understand
that there's a lot of people on the left that
are very nice to you when you debate them, and
you're very condescending. That doesn't work with me, So you
don't have to do that. I've been very respectful to
you considering the circumstance. I'm just all and I'm asking
you to let me answer in the way I want
to answer it respectfully. You have the free will, I'll
use your terminology to believe in what you want to
believe in. You have the free will to believe in
your God, your religion. I usually don't get along very
well with extremely religious people. I have almost nothing in
common with some of these people. I think it's a
mental illness. That's my opinion. Now, if you form and
live your life based on your religion, you have the
right to do that. But nobody knows if there's heaven
or hell. You don't know that. You don't know. You're
making the case that there's a heaven or hell. I'm
not making that case. What I'm saying, Jesus there might
be Jay, I'm saying that there might be heaven or hell.
I don't know. That's no no, no. You said no
one knows. Those are tis. I don't know. That's the
way I answer. You said, no one knows, and now
you're saying I don't know. Those are two different Nobody knows,
nobody knows. There might be heaven in Hell?
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't neither know. You is it I
don't know? Or nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can provide
me direct evidence that heaven or hell exists. Nobody can.
In philosophy, those are two different claims. So which one
is it? Nobody on the planet that's a human being,
how do you know that? Nobody? Nobody's presented direct evidence.
That's what that doesn't. That does.
Speaker 3: That's not a proof that no one knows. That just
means that in your limited experience empirically, you've never verified that.
Speaker 1: So you don't actually know. No one if you know
for sure that, So you're assertain things that you don't know.
Somebody would have to present clear and present evidence. But
the fact that they have exists. But the fact that
they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that you know
that no one knows. Then nobody has provided evidence, which
means nobody. So your argument is a bad argument because
you can't help me, help me understand them. You believe
that heaven and Hell exists. When you provide me I'm
waiting for you to give a good argumenty. I just didn't,
So I'm asking for right now, Jay, prove me wrong
right now. You're a Christian. You believe that heaven and
Hell exists. Give me direct evidence right now in your
belief that heaven and Hell exists.
Speaker 3: Please, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary. Your
worldview doesn't make sense of knowledge. That question wasn't about worldviewing.
Hold on, Jay, the argument is a world of the argument.
My question was argument is a world argument. My question
wasn't about world views. I'll ask it again.
Speaker 1: My argument is a worldview argument. So when you ask
me the questions from religion based on religion, so based
on your worldview, is that logic is based on religion. Okay,
so give me that logic. What is your evidence that
would lead you to believe from your world is a
logical argument called the transcendental argument. That is the argument. Okay,
it's just a belief. I believe in the t's a
logical My worldview tells me the tooth very exists, But
you don't have a basis word my religion tell my
religion tells my religion tells me that when I lose
a tooth, I'm going to get a hundred. If you
if you took a philosophy class, you would learn that
free will is a metaphysical position that a lot of
philosophers an atheists. I'm not saying an atheists, but people
like Daniel Dinnet or Sam Harris, they don't believe in
free will. So I'm just trying to say that you're
asserting things like free will that you don't have a
basis for us. So hold on, be thirty seconds here.
You are making the case, in your opinion, based on
your lie, I did not opinion hold on worldview that
heaven and Hell exists. My opinion is I don't know.
But that's not what you said. Ok You said no
one knows, which is not an opinion that's a universal No,
I knows for sure whether that's a universal client. Okay,
So tell me where you're getting this from your worldview.
Give me some evidence that heaven and Hell exists. The
evidence is the logical argument called the transcendental argument, which
there's not all. So evidence is not just like a
physical object. There are logical arguments that are non physical
but are also evidences. That's what you're missing in what
I'm arguing. So uh again again, I go back to
what I said earlier. And this is my issue with
religion in general. Every religion. You're a religious person, you're religious.
I never said I was a religious person. No, you're
rapidly religious about things like free will. What you have
no basis for. I'm not a religious person and I
don't believe in the tooth fairy, and I live my
life based on a religion. Free will is like free
will is this is the same thing as the tooth theory,
the to and the free will are the same. I
live my life based on the way I was raised,
the way my parents raised me, but none of that,
And I don't religion. I don't hide. I don't hide
behind a religion attacking all gay people, which I believe
that are attacking. Yeah, you're right, it's emotional, just judging
entire groups of people, which it says don't to do
in the Bible. You're judging all women are more emotional,
or gay people are sinners. No, these are judgments on
large groups of people. Your argument right now is an
emotional appeal, not the statements you are making judgments. Don't
like it. No, I just think you hide behind your
religion to defend your biginning. It's not I think. I
think people like fact that you think that I'm doing
something for bad motives. Yes, I do motive argument which
is not relevant to why when you judge an entire
group of people, it's called bigotry and you don't like
so what in your view? There you go in? Your
words are all subjective. If it's in your view, it's
subject in your view. It's okay to be a bigot
in your view, it's okay to judge inconsistent in my view. No,
you're right, you're you're consistently a bigot. That's what you are.
Inconsistent in my view. For the used word games, your
position is inconsistent because you have very consistent You're very consistent.
I'll explain once again, No, I'm I'm extremely consistent. I
don't judge people based on sexual orientation. I don't hold on.
I don't judge people based on color of skin, sexual orientation,
or gender. I would never tell somebody that doesn't logic.
I would never tell somebody that doesn't look like me
that you belong in the kitchen. It's a big for
your position is what's inconsistent, Not the having a moral
compass and caring about all people. Yeah, not telling other
people what to do with their lives. Because you're a bigot.
You tell other people, You make assumptions about people because
they're not like you and they don't look like I
know that you don't like. I understand that it's not
probably most people don't. Most don't like. It's a fallacy.
All women belong in the kitchen, All gay people are sinners,
they're all bad. Because it's my world view, I hide
behind my Christianity. I know that heaven and Hell are
I've given a very simple basis you judged on. I
don't care whether you think it's full. You're judging me.
You you're judging. You're judging me right now. I'm judging
you right now. You have the right thing you judge,
you think you judge. That is wrong to be when
you judge a group of people based on their sex
orient No, I don't, because not all Christians think like you. Okay,
but what's wrong with being a biggot and judge people
to be a bigot when you don't have a basis
for your understand that therapy, You don't have a basis ethic.
It's subjective. That's the kills There is no kill shot here.
That's your ethics is admittedly subjective and relativists, and then
you make it universal. That's a contradiction. You are just
you did. You said, no one knows I'm painting all
Christians as this. I never said that. There are plenty
of that universally wrong to be racist and a bigot? Yeah,
I think so. Yeah, but your ethics is subjective and relative.
That's a contradiction. I don't think it's subjective at all.
You already argue for the first hour its subjective. I
think I think it comes you argued that, well, you'll
disagree with this, but I think it comes down yourself.
I think no one, not you said you're making yourself.
I think you did. You not say your ethics was
in this, in this, in this, in this conversation, multiple times,
your ethics is not everybody thinks murder is bad, not
everybody thinks rape is bad. That's subjective to okay, thank you.
So it's objective. So if somebody says that it's not
universally if you said that it's not universally wrong to
be racist, big If you said to me, no, there
are people out there that think racism is okay, I
don't deny that. Okay, but universal doesn't mean are there
people who do otherwise? I said, this is I means stupid.
This is how stupid this argument is. If I said
to you right now now, I think it's stupid. If
I said to you right we don't, I think it's
very stupid. If I said to you that racism have
a basis. If I said to you that rape rape
is bad, you have a basis. For why it's bad.
You don't. I don't have a basis to why, big,
consistent basis. No, have you seen slavery? You know what
that was? That bad? When people judged others based on
their skin color and owned humans. It's not relevant to
the ethics of well. First of all, I'm just giving
you a general term. You just saying things are bad
because these things happened, and that doesn't get you to
an ought. That's why philosophy matters. You need a better
argument or a basis for why something. So, you need
a better argument. But yet you're the guy who says
Trump won the twenty twenty election. You need a better argument.
Jay says, but yet all would be in the kitchen suspicion.
For me, it's just a suspicion. I just have a suspicion.
If you want to argue that your ethics is based
on suspicions, I'll use your stupid I'll use your stupid
defense and arguments, and I'll turn it right back on you.
But I don't have to have the same justification for
every position you're justifying. The religion you're justifying. All women
is a philosophy domain. Politics is something I don't really care. Again,
you're taking entire groups of people and all women and this, well, yeah,
I think it makes you there's nothing universe. I think
it's very wrong. That's great that you think that very
universally wrong. And also, by the way, I'm just conditioned
by determinism to believe it. So what's wrong with that?
I think you hide behind your religion to hide you.
I'm actually giving you atheist lines of argumentation, though you're
not an a saying that all women belong in the kitchen.
I'm talking about determinism and the idea that there's free will.
You believe in a metaphysical fiction that you can't justify
if your agnostic world is true, called free will? So
other and using your word games, would you agree that Danield,
Denna and Sam Harris believe that there's no free will?
I haven't talked to them, but they do believe. I
don't know that. I haven't talked to them. Many philologists,
many philosophers, do not believe in free will. They think
it's a metaphysical fiction. Fine, So it's like the too
many bigots don't think that when in the kitchen to theory.
So I want to know why should I believe in
free will but not God? In your view? You can
believe whatever you want in your view. In my view,
when you judge an entire I've said this like ten times.
I was that an answer to the question I just asked.
You're not even listening to the question. I'm listening to you,
and I'm amazed free will is equated to the tooth
theory and most modern philosophy. Then I want to know
why is it free will any different than believing in God?
It's a metaphysical claim. You can I'm not. I'm not
making that argument. You can believe what you want to believe.
You argue that free will makes me liable to belie
and choosing religion versus gaze and not have a choice. Jay,
you made the argue. Here's my argument. You're not your religion.
Your argument as I am when you take your religion
and you treat people differently in you're not listening to me.
Why do you believe we can keep talking about free will?
You could listen to my questions for my religious dame. Jay,
just let me get this out. When you when you
use your religion and treat people in a negative fashion
because of it, Okay, it's bad for society. Now, in
this debate, you've talked about what you think is bad
for society. Believe in two three things. I was making
a joke about that. Now ridiculous are saying that it's
Totti monster. I don't understand what you're saying, Jay, But
in my society that I would, Jay, you can believe
whatever you want. Know why should I believe in your
worldview and free will? I think if you're a decent
human being, you probably should treat people with respect and dignity,
regardless of whether there's whether the ocation for free will. Okay,
I'm just telling you right now, I want, I want. Well,
I'm going to give you my justice. Okay, but that's fine,
that's not going to give you subjective in your opinion,
it's not a good argument. But a lot I think
in logic, if you make a subjective argument, it's not
a good argument. In your opinion, it's not a good art. Okay, okay,
But in your opinion that everything's opinion? Excuse me? Is
it your opinion that everything is an opinion? I don't
think everything is opinion. There's fact and there's fiction that
goes along with it. Like Trump didn't win the twenty
twenty election. That's a fact. That's not an opinion, Jay,
that's a fact. Trump did not win in twenty twenty.
So I think you're the one who can't spell the
word fact. With that being said, when you take an
entire yeah, yeah, I know you're shaking your head. It
makes sense. No, it actually makes a lot of sense.
The Earth is not flat, Jay, And Donald Trump did
not win the two thousand No, you were. You were
arguing that Trump Trump, but you think Trump won the
two thousand election. So if you're going to talk to
me about fact and total whatsoever, it's actually completely wrong.
I never argued anything about the physics of the Earth.
I asked you about free will, and you've had no answer. Yeah.
That is again you're you're missing the entire you believe
in fairy tale things. I'm just trying to figure out
why I believe. Why what do I believe that's very
free will? Tell me what you think free will is, Jay, I.
Speaker 3: Believe that we're made in God's image and we have
the ability to choose to is freely morally good or
evil or this thing or that thing.
Speaker 1: That's what free will is. Now I'm just trying to
figure out if you don't believe in fairy tale things
like God, why is free will any different than a
thing like God. I never said I don't believe in God.
What I said was but you said, I don't know
if there is I don't know what it is. I
don't know whether there's a God. But you said my
belief is what you said. What I never said, that
there's no God, But then you said my position was
fairy tale. Well, what I'm saying is when you make
cases and you talk about homosuality and you know, listen
to me, when those are mutually exclusive claims, when you
make generalizations about people were digated positions, Well, I think
there's something wrong with Well that's great, but you haven't
given a moral basis for White's University. Wrong. Are we
not all created as equals? Or is that not? No,
we're not all created. I mean, am I equal to
Kobe Bryant when it comes to physical ability? That that's
athletic ability. That would have to do with creation of
my reld view. So okay, Well, I thought we were
all created as equals, but maybe law but not in
physical cysical abilities. Again, going back to what we said earlier.
Let's wrap this up somewhere going to the final points.
Final points matter. It's just it's just going on. We
are going. We are going a little bit in sort of.
I would agree with closing off. Sure, I'm glad we
agree on the Epstein funnels. I think that's extremely important. Obviously,
I would never vote for the orange turret. I disagree
with you on you haven't give me really any reasons
why other than you thought Donald Trump what he did,
what he what he said he was going to do here, here,
and here, and obviously he didn't do a lot of
those things, which clearly are frustrated on. You didn't really
give me many reasons other than Kamala Harris as a woman,
and clearly you don't want to vote for general Yeah,
I mean, you know, you know, you didn't really give
me any reasons for that. The reason why I'm not
an extremely religious person is because of this conversation today.
I believe, especially in Christianity, people make judgments on other
people based on their religion because people don't look like them,
or they don't have the sexuality that they have, or
they're a woman. I also don't like the fact that
women and men are separated in synagogue. I don't like
that either. I don't like it in any religion. That's
why I'm not an extremely religious person. It comes down
to me wanting to just treat people the same and
with respect, regardless of what religion they are. I don't
like to judge people, even if you're wearing a maga hat. Okay,
I'm not going to immediately assume that you're a racist
or atrocious human being. And I think it's important in society.
If you want to talk about society falling, I'm less
concerned about immigrants in this country documented and not more
concerned about people that judge other people, or people that
are so upset. And I would assume you were one
of them that was so upset at what Don Lemon
did going into that church and disrupting a church service. Well.
I don't condone people protesting on private property. I think
that's wrong, it's against the law. But I find ice
agents murdering people in the streets a little bit more upsetting.
We need to have the separation between church and state,
which clearly we don't have in Washington, DC right now.
And I think the people that want the ten commandments
in classrooms are people that don't abide by the ten
commandments themselves. They break those commandments themselves, Hence the word hypocrite.
I did not come here to change your mind or
try to convince you on anything. I understand that's your
objective when you go to debates. I came here to
give you my opinions, my views on a number of
different issues. Some we agree on, obviously a lot we
disagree on. I think we've stopped listening to other people.
This is why I do enjoy doing these kinds of things.
But I think as a whole, we stop listening to
other people. People that look differently than you and me,
people that have different pathways in life, people that have
been brought up differently in different cultures, different backgrounds. I'd
like to think, as a whole, most human beings are
good people. And then when we have issues and bad
things that happen like nine to eleven and other issues,
that the country comes together, even if it's only a week.
But this is what I do, and this is what
I preach, and I'm not trying to change people's opinions.
People can have their own opinions and judgments about this debate.
If you're a fan of Jay Dyer, they're going to
agree with you. If they're a fan of my show,
they're going to That's what. I don't really care about
that stuff. Other people do. It's just not me. I'm glad,
like I said in closing Land my Plan, Sorry, I'm
glad we agree on the Epstein files. I'm glad we
agree on some of the Trump stuff. That's refreshing. Obviously
we disagree a little bit on religion. But here's the difference. Like,
I would never tell you what to do. I would
never tell you what to believe. I would never tell
you that you can't think of something, even though I
might hate the way you think, even though I might
hate your opinions on certain things. I would never say, Jay,
you are not allowed to think like that, even though
I hate the fact that you think women should be
in the kitchen. I would say, you know what, we
have something called freedom of speech in this country. And
if women you're you're clearly a married man, Clearly it's
working out well for you. I would assume, which which
is great. But you know, I would never tell you
that you can't think that way. I think that's fundamentally
very important. So anyway, thanks Jay for doing this discussion.
There wasn't too torturous for you, and I don't think
you're a bad guy. It was a civil, lively discussion.
I enjoyed it. Go ahead, shut up.
Speaker 3: I would just say, yeah, I appreciate Brian coming. It
was a great discussion. Thank you Sean for this opportunity.
Speaker 1: It was good. Yeah, I feel like, uh, you know,
there was common ground with the Epstein stuff, with uh,
you know, criticisms of Trump's turn worn Iran. All that
was was good. I would just you know, again, stress
that when it comes to debate, My take on debate
is that it's more like a chess game, not in
the sense of it being frivolous or a game, but
that it has rules and it has boundaries.
Speaker 3: And it has limitations that define it being chess and
not checkers or some other games. So when we come
to debate, we have to be able to abide by
the rules, and those are the laws of logic, which
are essentially the laws of critical thinking. The laws of
logic dictate debate, because that's how we know when somebody's
not playing chess anymore and they're doing something else, so
we have to play by the rules. I think that
Brian didn't play with the rules for the most of
the debate when it came to the issues of justifying
the morals, or when it came to the issues of say,
free will being a metaphysical claim, which again to me
is no different than the type of claim that God's
existence is. So that's when it gets into the domain
of philosophy. So again, I'm not used to political debates.
This is probably, I think, my first political politics debate.
So I'm again glad for Brian Viers always, I think.
So I can't think of another one. I've done a
lot of you know, he's.
Speaker 1: A lot of we've done Islam, atheism, but I don't
think I've debated politics until now. But could you do
me a favor, Alex I said, Hello, okay, anyway, Jay
diy Er.
Speaker 3: You can find me on YouTube, you can find me
on Twitter, Instagram, all those check them.
Speaker 1: Out, guys, we'll link everything below. Comment below who you
want to see next, y'all? Next time? Good job? How
long was that? Two hours? Two hours and a half.
That was my longest debate