Speaker 1: Rumble got bigger, specifically because of the fact there's pushback
Speaker 1: on YouTube because they literally won't even let Nick fuent
Speaker 1: As on YouTube and he's on Rumble and he's like,
Speaker 1: they're number one guys, kelen it on Rumble.
Speaker 2: See that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, if you hold something back, you're just gonna
Speaker 1: make another version of it that opposes it, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna have more energy to fight against you because you've.
Speaker 2: You've stopped the truth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you've stopped stopped the truth about like not like
Speaker 1: about petty things, about really important things.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell. As you
Speaker 2: guys know, I have I think I've given positive coverage
Speaker 2: of Nick fuentt As for quite some time now, almost
Speaker 2: universally positive I have. You know, I've been critical of
Speaker 2: him at times, but certainly i'd say ninety percent of
Speaker 2: the times I bring him up, it's because I agree
Speaker 2: with or I appreciate something that he's saying. Over the
Speaker 2: past couple months. That has changed. Now I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that my coverage of him has changed. I'm saying that
Speaker 2: his behavior has begun to concern me a bit when
Speaker 2: it comes to the candidates that he endorses or the
Speaker 2: candidates that he goes against, seeing as he doesn't seem
Speaker 2: to really endorse any candidates at this point unless they're Democrats.
Speaker 3: Everybody's attacking me today and I see all this stuff
Speaker 3: and I'm like, Wow, they really don't want white people
Speaker 3: to vote Democrat. Is that what it is? Think about it.
Speaker 3: I really didn't even think that was the biggest taboo.
Speaker 3: There's some red lines you just can't cross. I guess lately.
Speaker 3: You can attack Jews all day long, that's totally in fashion.
Speaker 3: You can attack Israel, you can be racist. People don't
Speaker 3: even bat and I when I say the N word,
Speaker 3: nobody even cares. But you start to say, I'm off
Speaker 3: the Republican plantation, I'm voting Democrat, and everybody loses their minds.
Speaker 3: We are going to vote Democrat in the mid terms.
Speaker 3: We are going to vote for Amy Acton in Ohio.
Speaker 2: What makes this interesting is that there was a good
Speaker 2: America first candidate that was running for the governor of Ohio.
Speaker 2: That was Casey Putsch. Now, he fell short. He ended
Speaker 2: up getting I think twenty percent of the vote in
Speaker 2: the primary. So Vivic ran away with it, which was
Speaker 2: to be expected, particularly given that Casey had only raised
Speaker 2: I think one hundred and thirty thousand to go up
Speaker 2: against the tens of millions that Vivik had raised. So
Speaker 2: Vivic was almost certainly going to win that. But it
Speaker 2: was interesting that Nick Fuentes chose not to back casey
Speaker 2: push and I was mystified by it. Now that being said,
Speaker 2: I'm going to do something that a lot of Knick's
Speaker 2: dissenters won't do. I'm going to give him the benefit
Speaker 2: of the doubt. The reason I feel this way is
Speaker 2: because I've had opportunities to interview, for instance, James Fishback,
Speaker 2: who's running to be the governor of Florida. I also
Speaker 2: had the opportunity, in fact, I did interview Mark Lynch,
Speaker 2: who's going up against Lindsay Graham to be Senator in
Speaker 2: South Carolina. Now I had audio issues with that recording.
Speaker 2: My levels were totally screwed up, so I had I
Speaker 2: was going to have to redo the interview, and I
Speaker 2: opted not to because the nature of the interview it
Speaker 2: just made me feel as if this guy, while he
Speaker 2: is obviously better than Lindsay Graham, it was just not
Speaker 2: a candidate that I was prepared to get behind.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: That's not to say I don't want him to win.
Speaker 2: I want Mark Lynch to win. I just didn't want
Speaker 2: to be put in a position of having to endorse
Speaker 2: him or go against him, because I just want him
Speaker 2: to sink or swim on his own merits and I
Speaker 2: wish him well. But there was certain aspects of the
Speaker 2: questions that I asked him about that just felt as
Speaker 2: if he didn't have the same worldview I did. So
Speaker 2: therefore I just didn't want to put my hand on
Speaker 2: the scale whatsoever. I feel similarly about James Fishback. James
Speaker 2: Fishback well. He gives good answers at times, and I
Speaker 2: appreciate his courageous willingness to touch third rail political topics.
Speaker 2: He also gives me the vibe of being a shape
Speaker 2: shifter to a certain extent that I don't actually know
Speaker 2: what his principles are. He is obviously using clickbait marketing
Speaker 2: and campaign attempts when it comes to, you know, increasing
Speaker 2: taxes against OnlyFans girls, and then talking about, oh, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to just tax them, I'm going to
Speaker 2: tax this, and I'm gonna text that, and I'm gonna
Speaker 2: use taxes to do this and that, and it's like
Speaker 2: I'm a libertarian like I'm not. Just because I don't
Speaker 2: like certain idle ills doesn't mean that I want you
Speaker 2: to become a right wing Democrat, which is just using
Speaker 2: taxation to try and sculpt the culture of the state
Speaker 2: of Florida. Moreover, James Fishbeck's rhetoric reminds me a bit
Speaker 2: of Obama, where it's very it's very polished, it comes
Speaker 2: across very good. If you're not astute political analyst, that
Speaker 2: sounds like I'm petting myself on the back too much.
Speaker 2: That's not what I mean. What I mean is sometimes
Speaker 2: you just get a bad vibe. And maybe that's how
Speaker 2: Nick felt about Casey Putsch. Maybe, and I share Nick
Speaker 2: Fointe's hesitation when it comes to backing Dan Bilsarian too,
Speaker 2: even though I think that Randy Fine is probably the
Speaker 2: worst congressional representative we have on the GOP side of
Speaker 2: the aisle, and I would love to see him gone,
Speaker 2: And ultimately I hope that Dan Bilzarian defeats him, or
Speaker 2: for that matter, Aaron Day, the other guy who's running
Speaker 2: against Randy Fine. I hope Randy Fine loses, is what
Speaker 2: I'm saying. That being said, I don't actually know what
Speaker 2: Dan Bilzarian believes in. I know that Dan Bilzerian is
Speaker 2: very aggressively against our relationship to Israel. I can appreciate
Speaker 2: and respect that, But beyond that, I don't actually know
Speaker 2: that we ideologically align. But this is where things get interesting.
Speaker 2: Dan Bilzerian and Nick Flints are in a fed jacketing off. Okay,
Speaker 2: that sounds a little bit weird. They're both fed jacketing
Speaker 2: one another. In other words, they're both calling each other
Speaker 2: federal informants or agents for that matter. And we need
Speaker 2: to dig into this because this is a very important topic.
Speaker 5: Nickquint is, Oh man, you're really trying to fucking stir
Speaker 5: the pot. If I'm going to talk about him, I
Speaker 5: think I need to give the whole picture, because they
Speaker 5: do think that he was one of the early pioneers
Speaker 5: of this stuff, and I do have respect for him.
Speaker 5: He's definitely an intelligent guy. My criticism of him would
Speaker 5: be that I think it's so obvious what the problem is,
Speaker 5: and he went on a bunch of big play platforms
Speaker 5: and didn't really use any of them to talk about
Speaker 5: the fucking Jewish supremacy problem that we all know about
Speaker 5: and maybe that's because he's talked about it so much
Speaker 5: that he's kind of bored of it. So I think
Speaker 5: a part of doing too much content is that you
Speaker 5: get bored talking about the real issues. So now we
Speaker 5: got to, like, you know, talk about why Epstein was
Speaker 5: a good guy and Stalin was good and like some
Speaker 5: crazy shit that I just obviously really disagree with, and
Speaker 5: it was just like a kind of like a steady
Speaker 5: stream of bad takes that he didn't understand.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, that's a very fairly mild critique to
Speaker 2: come from Dan Bilzerian towards Nick Funt is basically saying
Speaker 2: that he represents himself to be a very radical, fringe
Speaker 2: figure when he's on his own program or on smaller programs,
Speaker 2: but when he goes on to a larger show like
Speaker 2: Piers Morgan or Tucker Carlson, he moderates, and Dan Bilzarian,
Speaker 2: I guess, to his credit in some regards, sometimes is
Speaker 2: nothing if not a radical.
Speaker 5: I mean, honestly, the only real battle in the world
Speaker 5: today that I see worth fighting is fucking, you know,
Speaker 5: extreminating Israel. I mean, I would sign up tomorrow and
Speaker 5: go fucking put boots on the ground.
Speaker 2: Now I'm gonna end that clip there, because if I
Speaker 2: were to take it another ten seconds further this episode,
Speaker 2: we'll get taken down. Dan Bilzarian is very, very aggressively
Speaker 2: anti israel I, would say I am more of a
Speaker 2: non interventionist. I do not want to go to war
Speaker 2: with israel I very much. Do want to cut them off,
Speaker 2: though when it comes to a munitions or military support
Speaker 2: that we've offered them for decades. In fact, my entire
Speaker 2: adult life affect my entire life. I would like to
Speaker 2: separate the two entities to deal with our own problems
Speaker 2: for once. And I agree with Nick Fuint's and Dan
Speaker 2: Bilzerian and Sneako and many others when it comes to
Speaker 2: that topic. I think, tactically we have our differences of opinion,
Speaker 2: and maybe that's all they this is. Maybe Dandlzarian and
Speaker 2: Nick Fuint does simply have tactical disagreements. Maybe, but it
Speaker 2: escalated to a point where you can't really assume that's
Speaker 2: all it is.
Speaker 3: They're going to do something much more subtle and much
Speaker 3: more subversive and much more calculated and complex, which is
Speaker 3: they're going to try to skin suit this movement. This
Speaker 3: is always the track that the political class will take.
Speaker 3: They did it with the Tea Party movement, they did
Speaker 3: it with MAGA, and then they slowly but surely brought
Speaker 3: us back to establishment conservatism. And they're doing the same
Speaker 3: thing with America first. And if you pay close attention,
Speaker 3: this was the hold Tucker Carlson moo. He brought me
Speaker 3: on the show, wrapped his arms around me and said, hey, look,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna listen to this kid who's got all these problems.
Speaker 3: And ever since we did the interview, he goes on
Speaker 3: every other show and says I tried to talk him
Speaker 3: in off the ledge and get him to stop being
Speaker 3: an anti semite. He hates women because he's afraid of women.
Speaker 2: Oftentimes, what I see Nick doing is he takes what
Speaker 2: could be sincere, genuine differences of opinion, which I think
Speaker 2: are really held by Tucker Carlson, Dave Smith, myself, a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of other people, Ian Carroll for that matter,
Speaker 2: and he he extrapolates it into us trying to steal
Speaker 2: his movement, trying to take away his I don't know
Speaker 2: his platform, whatever he's built, whatever he's created, we're trying
Speaker 2: to use it for our ends and discard him. Now.
Speaker 2: I won't speak for anybody else, but I will say
Speaker 2: that's not what I'm doing. I believe that Nick is
Speaker 2: directionally correct that we need to have a nation, a
Speaker 2: government that actually represents and concerns itself with the people
Speaker 2: that are born here Americans, and I think we can
Speaker 2: all agree on that, and then if we have differences
Speaker 2: of opinion beyond that, well then okay, that's fair. I
Speaker 2: also agree with him that our relationship to Israel is
Speaker 2: a massive detriment and it needs to end. I think
Speaker 2: Nick's problem has been that he alienates and demonizes basically
Speaker 2: anybody who doesn't agree with every single thing he says.
Speaker 2: For instance, I think it's absolutely insane to vote for
Speaker 2: Amy Acton in Ohio. And if he was prepared to
Speaker 2: do that, if he was prepared to use the nuclear
Speaker 2: option and vote for a Democrat in Ohio instead of
Speaker 2: a Aake Ramaswami, why would you not back up Casey
Speaker 2: push right? If you actually had an option that you
Speaker 2: thought was viable or at least preferable, wouldn't you back him?
Speaker 2: But you didn't do that, So you hate fa Vek.
Speaker 2: You're willing to pull the nuclear option and vote for
Speaker 2: the Democrat, but you also hate the America first guy,
Speaker 2: white dude born in Ohio, and you're like, don't want
Speaker 2: him either. I'm going to go with the Jewish Democrat, lady, like,
Speaker 2: I think it's fair for all of us to be
Speaker 2: a little bit surprised by that, right, And this is
Speaker 2: a trend that I've seen played out over and over again.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately with many of my friends like Dave Smith or
Speaker 2: Ian Carroll. I've also saw it, even though I'm not
Speaker 2: friends with him, but with Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson had
Speaker 2: him on his show, and then it seemed almost immediately
Speaker 2: afterwards that Nick started to smear Tucker. He started to say,
Speaker 2: I don't trust him. I think he's he's duplicitous, he's
Speaker 2: you know, he's a fed or whatever. And then Tucker,
Speaker 2: you know, naturally, in my opinion, naturally started to pivot
Speaker 2: against Nick two when he was questioned about him in public,
Speaker 2: and he's like, well, screw this kid, he's gonna smere me.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna try and defend him either. So they
Speaker 2: both started to throw each other under the bus. But
Speaker 2: I felt as if the first shots, as is often
Speaker 2: the case in these instances were fired by Nick himself,
Speaker 2: only to then in hindsight be looked back on as
Speaker 2: if you know, this was all his opponent's fault, Dave
Speaker 2: Smith's fault, and Ian Carroll's fault, and Tucker Carls. It's
Speaker 2: never it's never Nick, It's never something he did. I
Speaker 2: just wanted to make the point that Nick is right.
Speaker 2: He is right about this. If if no matter how
Speaker 2: bad the GOP candidate is, you are assured that you
Speaker 2: are going to vote GOP, You're gonna vote red until
Speaker 2: you're dead. As people say, it's the same thing as blue,
Speaker 2: no matter who I mean. It's if you are a
Speaker 2: partisan hack who is just going to vote for your
Speaker 2: preferred party no matter how bad they are, well, then
Speaker 2: you are not a viable consideration when it comes to
Speaker 2: electoral politics. You are a given. You are already a
Speaker 2: box that has been checked. The only way you can
Speaker 2: actually have demands that might get met is to not
Speaker 2: be a guaranteed vote. So now I'm not prepared to
Speaker 2: vote for Amy Acton in Ohio, but I do understand
Speaker 2: the tactical argument that you cannot always vote for the
Speaker 2: GOP no matter who they force feed you. You do
Speaker 2: have to have a red line where you say, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to back this guy or gal because I
Speaker 2: think that they are ultimately a plant or whatever. And
Speaker 2: I would take Nick a lot more seriously on taking
Speaker 2: that stand if it weren't for the fact that every
Speaker 2: time basically that I've seen, at least every time there is,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, a good America First option, he seems
Speaker 2: to either go against them, or have nothing to say
Speaker 2: about them, or certainly is not a loud proponent or backer.
Speaker 2: My example, obviously, as you guys would expect, would be
Speaker 2: Thomas Massey. I think Thomas Massey is in a fight
Speaker 2: for his life in the great State of Kentucky, up
Speaker 2: against a total empty suit, and the Adelsins, along with
Speaker 2: a few of the other Epstein clients, are throwing twenty
Speaker 2: five million dollars to try and oust him in the
Speaker 2: GOP primary, and yet Nick doesn't deign it necessary to
Speaker 2: lift a finger to assist Thomas Massey. Thomas Massey, who
Speaker 2: in my estimation, is as America First as you have
Speaker 2: in Congress currently, and yet he's still not good enough
Speaker 2: for Nick. So my question to you, Nick, who, by
Speaker 2: the way, I have invited to be on the show before.
Speaker 2: He has never accepted, and that's fine, that's his prerogative.
Speaker 2: But I just wanted to be on the record that
Speaker 2: I have tried to have this conversation with him. He
Speaker 2: didn't want to have it or he didn't have the time,
Speaker 2: and that's totally his prerogative. But I think it's fair
Speaker 2: for us to ask at some point, who is good enough?
Speaker 2: Who are you actually looking for? You hate Vivek Okay, fine,
Speaker 2: why not Casey make it explicit. I know you don't
Speaker 2: like the Adelsins, so why would you not get behind
Speaker 2: the guy who they're trying to oust in Thomas Massey.
Speaker 2: I know you don't like Randy Fine, so not down
Speaker 2: bils Arian either. Okay, how about Aaron Day. I haven't
Speaker 2: heard you mention him. Joe Kent came out earlier this
Speaker 2: year and blew the whistle on our relationship to Israel,
Speaker 2: and it came to the lead up and the actual
Speaker 2: starting of the war in Iran. He resigned over it.
Speaker 2: You have already decided, because I guess he disavowed you
Speaker 2: when he was running for Congress that he is an
Speaker 2: enemy combatant too, So you don't like him. I'm just saying,
Speaker 2: like everybody that's got a shot at winning a position
Speaker 2: of power within the federal government that seems to at
Speaker 2: least be seventy to eighty percent aligned with you, it's
Speaker 2: still not good enough. And I'm like, I'm just waiting
Speaker 2: to hear, Okay, whom will you actually back, because it
Speaker 2: doesn't seem as if it's anybody other than yourself. So
Speaker 2: over the weekend this boils completely out of control, and
Speaker 2: you have Nick funt as well. I should say this
Speaker 2: did begin with Dan Bilzarian saying that he thinks that
Speaker 2: Nick funt Is is a fed. Basically, the reason he's coming
Speaker 2: to that conclusion is the same line of logic that
Speaker 2: I'm using. That it doesn't seem as if there's ever
Speaker 2: candidate that Nick really gets behind, especially in the America
Speaker 2: first one, and oftentimes he goes against them loudly, proudly.
Speaker 2: And Nick didn't take that kindly, nor should he. For
Speaker 2: the record, if Nick is not a federal agent or informant,
Speaker 2: then I would expect him to be very very angry
Speaker 2: about the accusation coming from Dan Bilzerian, which, by the way,
Speaker 2: you'll note I have not made that accusation, nor do
Speaker 2: I intend to. In this episode, but Nick Fuente's responds
Speaker 2: on May eighth, saying, the first time I met Dandilzerian
Speaker 2: at his house, he had us put our phones in
Speaker 2: another room, then asked me how difficult it would be
Speaker 2: to assassinate Israeli government ministers. Then he invited me to
Speaker 2: Dubai and Qatar, which I declined. On his way there,
Speaker 2: he was ambushed by the FBI. So let's pause there
Speaker 2: and see if this claim is valid. Does Dandlsarian actually
Speaker 2: take cell phones from house guests? That phone thing, Dan happened.
Speaker 2: I don't know why you did it.
Speaker 6: Do you deny that happened?
Speaker 7: That you and I sat down with Jake in that
Speaker 7: room and our phones are on the couch. There are
Speaker 7: such a fucking attention horror bro. I take people's phones
Speaker 7: in my house all the time. You also sign an
Speaker 7: nea by the way, dipshit. Uh So I just want
Speaker 7: to say that, Yeah, and Jake was there, and you're
Speaker 7: a fuck You're just like, I don't know if you're
Speaker 7: a fucking fed or you're trying to fucking like incriminate
Speaker 7: me for some shit that I didn't do.
Speaker 2: So Nick didn't lie about that. It's true, Dan, Bilzarian
Speaker 2: takes the phones of his house guests. Now you might
Speaker 2: find that odd, and certainly I think for normal people
Speaker 2: standards that would be odd. But if you're a very wealthy,
Speaker 2: powerful influential person who's also talking about third rail topics
Speaker 2: and doing so in a very aggressive fashion, I can
Speaker 2: understand wanting to have some precautionary measures in place. So
Speaker 2: Dan Bilzarian, in my opinion, was actually being smart about this.
Speaker 2: That if you're going to have people over your house,
Speaker 2: especially to meet them for the first time, and you
Speaker 2: only know them because of their Internet persona, it would
Speaker 2: be wise to make sure that they can't record what
Speaker 2: you have to say. That maybe they signed an NBA
Speaker 2: so that they can't, you know, rat you out to
Speaker 2: the New York Times or something crazy like that. So,
Speaker 2: while I agree it's not the most normal thing in
Speaker 2: the world to do, it's also understandable for someone in
Speaker 2: Bilsarian's position this kind of I don't know if he's
Speaker 2: a billionaire, but one hundred millionaire playboy who's undoubtedly kind
Speaker 2: of under the watchful eye of the intelligence agencies, I
Speaker 2: think would be fair to say. Lucas Gage responds to
Speaker 2: Nick Foint to his post, and he says, Holy fuck, Nick,
Speaker 2: I swear to god he did the same thing to me.
Speaker 2: He walked me and Jake up to that room with
Speaker 2: the batting cage. We put our phones on the couch
Speaker 2: and went up to that seclude room with the big TVs.
Speaker 2: He asked me about where Ben Shapiro lived and how
Speaker 2: he could be taken out. Nick responds, this is getting
Speaker 2: really weird, man. I wonder if anyone else has had
Speaker 2: similar experience. Seems like his move was to invite all
Speaker 2: of the prominent JQ influencers to his place in twenty
Speaker 2: four to twenty five. Maybe the whole thing was like
Speaker 2: an Epstein style honeypot. I just thought he was really dumb.
Speaker 2: Lucasen response, I've only told one person about this and
Speaker 2: they can confirm. Now it's important to understand the Lucas
Speaker 2: Gage role in this. Lucas Gage was kind of a
Speaker 2: Nick point Dizzy and Dan Bilzarian level figure in the
Speaker 2: JQ alt right, whatever you want to call it. And
Speaker 2: he has come out over the past week basically disavowing
Speaker 2: all of his opinions when it comes to Jewish people
Speaker 2: and Jewish influence and all that. So he has made
Speaker 2: the big pivot. But Nick is essentially teaming up with
Speaker 2: Lucas Gage to smear Dan Bilzarian, who's going up against
Speaker 2: one of the most ardent Zionist congressional members in Randy Fine.
Speaker 2: Just it's interesting, Bedfellows, is it not? And it gets
Speaker 2: more interesting in that Tim Poole seems to be backing
Speaker 2: up Nick Fuentes over Bilzarian as well, largely on.
Speaker 8: Issues of race and but he made a few important points.
Speaker 8: One he called out Candice Owens for lying. That's good,
Speaker 8: but he also pointed something else out recently, Tucker Carlson
Speaker 8: meets with heads of state in Middle Eastern countries. This
Speaker 8: is not something a podcaster does. This is something a
Speaker 8: government actor does. Tucker Carlson is not just journalist or podcaster.
Speaker 8: He is of worldly affairs, negotiating and cutting back round
Speaker 8: deals and advising.
Speaker 2: Found this admission by Tim absolutely fascinating, especially since he
Speaker 2: and I have been I don't want to say beefing,
Speaker 2: but we've been, we've been throwing internet blows at one another,
Speaker 2: kind of like stop. But Nick has fed jacketed Tucker
Speaker 2: many times. He has said that, you know, his dad
Speaker 2: was Air America, and he's a CIA agent, and it's
Speaker 2: highly likely that Tucker is either an agent or an
Speaker 2: asset himself. And I just think it's absolutely unbelievable that
Speaker 2: Tim is backing up Nick Flines on those accusations against
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson and his evidence being that Tucker Carlson meets
Speaker 2: in private with foreign heads of state when Tim Poole
Speaker 2: very famously met with bb Net and Yahoo I think
Speaker 2: about a year ago now in private with Chathamhouse rules
Speaker 2: where you're not allowed to report on the actual things
Speaker 2: that were discussed at that meeting. And I'm like, Tim, really, like,
Speaker 2: are you saying I mean, what he's saying there is
Speaker 2: that his own actions put him in the category of
Speaker 2: being a government asset of some variety. So if he
Speaker 2: actually believes that about Tucker, why is it applicable to
Speaker 2: Tucker but not to him? I don't understand. And what's
Speaker 2: even weirder about the accusations from Tim is that obviously
Speaker 2: Tucker Crawlson is not just a podcaster. He was the
Speaker 2: number one nightly news guy on Cable TV for like
Speaker 2: a decade, so he is big time. He's much bigger
Speaker 2: than podcasting. Even if he is a podcaster at this point,
Speaker 2: but he is also the most successful right wing political
Speaker 2: commentator and podcaster that exists today. So the fact that
Speaker 2: he is going around and doing things that maybe Barbara
Speaker 2: Walters would have done on twenty twenty when I was
Speaker 2: growing up, Yeah, that makes sense. It makes sense that
Speaker 2: you're going to have a guy like Tucker Cralson that
Speaker 2: has the clout, the gravitas to actually get a meeting
Speaker 2: with a foreign head of state as he did with
Speaker 2: Putin and other foreign dignitaries like that is valuable journalism.
Speaker 2: So I don't view that as evidence that Nick Foint
Speaker 2: is this correct and that Tucker Carlson is some sort
Speaker 2: of government asset. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, just
Speaker 2: means that that's not proof of that. So I found
Speaker 2: it absolutely jaw dropping that Tim would say that, yeah,
Speaker 2: he's not just a journalist, that makes him a government
Speaker 2: agent of some variety. And to be honest, what got
Speaker 2: my hackles up was a few days prior to that,
Speaker 2: when Stephen Crowder weighed in.
Speaker 9: I interviewed Nick quents I would do it again. I
Speaker 9: thought it was I thought it was productive. I thought
Speaker 9: we got some important questions. I think you're allowed to
Speaker 9: interview whoever you want. Tucker walks it back, but he lies,
Speaker 9: or at least no, he lies.
Speaker 10: While walking it back.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 11: I wish I hadn't a flint his interview because really, yeah,
Speaker 11: it was totally not worth it. I mean, it was
Speaker 11: a kind of interesting, I guess, but it was used
Speaker 11: as I added to the distraction. What I really wanted
Speaker 11: to talk about was where we were going in this
Speaker 11: war with Iran.
Speaker 9: But Ron and I searched the transcripts, you guys, can
Speaker 9: it only came up once once. In other words, there'd
Speaker 9: be nothing precluding him. He also sat down Nick told
Speaker 9: us about this with Nick Fuentes for dinner for I
Speaker 9: think two or three hours beforehand. Throughout the entire interview,
Speaker 9: the only reference to Iran I could find was Iran
Speaker 9: is not as big of a threat to us as OnlyFans.
Speaker 9: I think he did Nick dirty.
Speaker 2: Now I'm gonna lose some of you on this part,
Speaker 2: and that's fine. You don't have to agree with me.
Speaker 2: But I don't trust Steven Crowder. I don't think that
Speaker 2: his analysis is sound, and I think that he behaves
Speaker 2: in a way that makes me feel as if he's
Speaker 2: got inside track information periodically, especially when it comes to
Speaker 2: mass shootings or the Charlie Kirk assassination. There are many
Speaker 2: instances where he is fed information in the twenty four
Speaker 2: hours after a major event that makes me know that
Speaker 2: he's got inside sources that it makes me doubt his
Speaker 2: full independence. I'll put it like that. So I find
Speaker 2: it interesting that Crowder would use Nick Fuentes as kind
Speaker 2: of a wedge issue to try and attack to Carlson,
Speaker 2: while simultaneously Nick is actively attacking Dan Bilzarian. It just
Speaker 2: seems as if there's a lot of and maybe it's
Speaker 2: all just organic power struggles, as people want to be
Speaker 2: the biggest right wing voice and this is how they
Speaker 2: get notoriety and clicks and listeners and viewers. Maybe that's
Speaker 2: all it is. Maybe, but I think it's fair to
Speaker 2: wonder aloud if it might be something bigger than that.
Speaker 2: And just to give you an example, here's Alex Jones
Speaker 2: talking to Nick Wantz as well as Owen Sroyer, who
Speaker 2: I just did a four on four debate with him,
Speaker 2: and Kevin Mcinness and Josie and a bunch of other people,
Speaker 2: and it's an absolute barn burner. Will be out in
Speaker 2: a couple weeks I can't wait for you guys to
Speaker 2: see it. But anyways, I got to meet Owen, great dude. Anyways,
Speaker 2: let's hear what Alex had to say.
Speaker 4: Charlottesville was mainly a bunch of homosexual leftist addressing up
Speaker 4: like Nazis who'd all formerly worked for Obama or Hillary
Speaker 4: part of their art club, and then they learned a
Speaker 4: bunch of reporters there and some real white supremacist so
Speaker 4: the police could stand down and collide them into the folks.
Speaker 4: I pointed out that some of the same leftist foundations
Speaker 4: are funding the white supremacist that are funding real white
Speaker 4: supremacis in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I got sued for that, even.
Speaker 4: Though it's you know that they tried to say that
Speaker 4: I said some cameraman killed the girl. I did to
Speaker 4: say that the cameraman killed them. I said it was
Speaker 4: all part of leftists coming out to come to this
Speaker 4: big event. Hope there was some big crisis out of
Speaker 4: it to demonize the right in general and tie us
Speaker 4: the Nazis.
Speaker 2: So Alex, as is often the case, Alex Jones was right.
Speaker 2: He got it right, and that was seven eight years ago,
Speaker 2: and he's talking about what we now know to be
Speaker 2: true that there was SPOC, there was funding that was
Speaker 2: being pushed to the more radical elements when it came
Speaker 2: to Charlottesville to try and get it to boil over,
Speaker 2: to try and get it to be a big story
Speaker 2: that could be used to attack the nationalist right wing movement,
Speaker 2: the fledgling young movement at the time. I've already covered
Speaker 2: this extensively on my show, but I think a similar
Speaker 2: dynamic happen at J six. You had hundreds of plain
Speaker 2: clothes Capitol police that were at that event, iron you
Speaker 2: had Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes and Owen Troyer, I
Speaker 2: think owing to we're all present on J six, and
Speaker 2: in fact, Nick very famously grabs the bullhorn and he says,
Speaker 2: you go into the Capitol, we're taking it, taking it
Speaker 2: over for the people or whatever.
Speaker 5: Is disregard of the LAE.
Speaker 2: And he didn't get any jail time over that, which
Speaker 2: already had raised concern amongst people that maybe he was
Speaker 2: an asset or informant. I don't know, I'm not making
Speaker 2: that accusation. I'm just saying the reason that this is
Speaker 2: a persistent concern is that we do know that this
Speaker 2: is a thing that happens, and it's inevitable that some
Speaker 2: of the high profile people, and that could include could myself,
Speaker 2: Ian Carroll, I'll use my people so that I don't
Speaker 2: look as if I'm just throwing shade at my competitors
Speaker 2: or whatever. That you could suspect that someone in our world,
Speaker 2: and probably someone's plural, are assets, they're agents, their informants, whatever.
Speaker 2: So when you have Dan Bilzarian making that accusation against
Speaker 2: Nick Wentes, and Nick Fuentt is returning fire with that
Speaker 2: same accusation, particularly given that Nick has also made that
Speaker 2: acquisition against Tucker Carlson and others, you start to wonder, well,
Speaker 2: who whom of you? Which it's not none of you
Speaker 2: that I'm pretty confident of. I just don't know who.
Speaker 12: I think that Dan Bossarian saw that his popularity being
Speaker 12: this you know, well known, you know, playboy, cool guy,
Speaker 12: et cetera, this kind of is waning. People are not
Speaker 12: paying attention to this anymore, nobody cares anymore. So what
Speaker 12: he did instead of that is he invented this new
Speaker 12: persona where he's this super America first, you know, like
Speaker 12: big person He's he's drifting into the Palestinian thing. I
Speaker 12: think massively, and I don't think that it's authentic.
Speaker 2: Do you can count asmen gold in the front des
Speaker 2: camp I personally, I don't agree with him. I think
Speaker 2: then Bilzarian comes across as if he's sincere on these topics.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean that he's not some sort of federal asset.
Speaker 2: If you're to listen to Laura Lumer, he is in
Speaker 2: fact a cooperating witness for Trump's DOJ But that's also
Speaker 2: a Lumer report, which I take with a grain of salt.
Speaker 2: There's been no evidence provided. It's just my inside sources
Speaker 2: who knows who knows what she's actually saying. But I
Speaker 2: do find it fascinating that you have so many of
Speaker 2: these figures that all seem to be coming together around
Speaker 2: flent Dez and going against Bilsarian. It's just an interesting dynamic.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, there's real reason to question Bilsarian.
Speaker 7: And by CIA op, I just meant a person that
Speaker 7: is a fucking asset of them, and there's tons of
Speaker 7: them out there. I know a friend that's a fucking
Speaker 7: CIA asset and he doesn't need to be, and he's
Speaker 7: worth like fucking hundreds of millions of dollars and you
Speaker 7: would never think in a million years of the guy
Speaker 7: work with a CIA, but he fucking does. I don't
Speaker 7: know if he wants to think he's fucking James Bond
Speaker 7: or what the reason is, but the CIA can definitely
Speaker 7: offer people shit and all they have to do is
Speaker 7: do something back in return. So it's not a normal relationship.
Speaker 7: It's not like this guy went to the fucking federal agency.
Speaker 7: It's not like he's fully employed. But he absolutely could
Speaker 7: be a fucking asset, and if he is, he would
Speaker 7: be doing exactly what he's doing.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 7: First of all, fuck America first, dude, there is no America.
Speaker 2: First. So Dan says that he knows the CIA asset
Speaker 2: who's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, which a lot
Speaker 2: of people immediately jumped to Tucker Carlson. But I don't
Speaker 2: know that Dan Bilzarian is friends with Tucker Carlson or
Speaker 2: is making that claim about Tucker. So I'm gonna leave
Speaker 2: that one aside. What I did find fascinating is that
Speaker 2: is coming from those are Quintez supporters, grippers that are
Speaker 2: clipping that and the end of that, what you noticed
Speaker 2: was they misclipped it. They clipped it really hard to
Speaker 2: make it sound as bad as possible for Bilsarian, But
Speaker 2: my research says that what he was actually saying was
Speaker 2: when he said fuck America first, it's America only. So
Speaker 2: that was the clarifying point he was trying to make,
Speaker 2: not to say that he actually against America first. So
Speaker 2: I think a lot of this is just internescing battles,
Speaker 2: This is just ego stuff. But it is important to
Speaker 2: understand that this is going to be a dynamic that
Speaker 2: we're going to deal with moving forward forever. And there
Speaker 2: are real members of the opposition that are really funneling
Speaker 2: major money to create this discord. So everybody needs to
Speaker 2: kind of put down the weapons and start to think
Speaker 2: a little bit more critically.
Speaker 13: I'm also the founder of an organization called bright Mind.
Speaker 13: What we do is, let's call it digital assets that
Speaker 13: serve the Jewish people in a more strategic manner. We
Speaker 13: got to close to three billion views since the beginning
Speaker 13: of the war. Completely organic. We work with communities of
Speaker 13: over sixty thousand people around the world that make our
Speaker 13: content viral, but also help us report anti Semitic rhetoric
Speaker 13: and fake news for Take it Down and other actions
Speaker 13: that do serve the narrative. We also create content for
Speaker 13: non Jewish influencers that collaborate with us.
Speaker 2: I've already educated you guys about Project Esther, so you
Speaker 2: already know that there are hundreds of millions, if not
Speaker 2: billions of dollars that are being funneled into the propaganda campaign,
Speaker 2: the propaganda war against you and your mind, to try
Speaker 2: and make you put a foreign country before your own.
Speaker 2: This is a dynamic that isn't going away. What she's
Speaker 2: describing there is digital assets, which I would guess means
Speaker 2: bot networks, and she explicitly says that they create content
Speaker 2: for non Jewish content creators to put out, which means
Speaker 2: that they are feeding talking points to some of the
Speaker 2: people that you probably listen to and respect, and you
Speaker 2: don't even know that that's happening. So you need to
Speaker 2: be aware that this is serious, that this is real,
Speaker 2: that this is a real thing. That doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: Dandel's Aerian, Ornate Flentes or Stephen Crowder or Tucker Carlson
Speaker 2: or anybody else is necessarily a federal informant or agent
Speaker 2: or asset or whatever else, but it does mean that
Speaker 2: there are efforts to create that dynamic.
Speaker 13: I offered Hamas's isis, and I offered why, and I
Speaker 13: gave a short one o one on how we can
Speaker 13: garner attention and traction around that narrative, and that worked.
Speaker 13: So in three to four days it became the most
Speaker 13: viewed a narrative online. It became viral for almost three
Speaker 13: months around the world, in some places even more, and
Speaker 13: it even got to Biden's speech.
Speaker 2: What you noticed at the end there is that she
Speaker 2: says a narrative that they created, which you have to
Speaker 2: imagine is a lie, because why would you have to
Speaker 2: create the narrative if it's just the truth. It was
Speaker 2: repeated in a speech by President Joe Biden. So this
Speaker 2: was in the early days of the war, after October seventh,
Speaker 2: because Trump wasn't empower yet. And I've already shown you
Speaker 2: the clips in prior episodes of bebing Thattna, who's sitting
Speaker 2: down with American influencer brigades, dozens of them, just talking
Speaker 2: about how you're the most important weapon in our fifth
Speaker 2: front of the war, eighth front of the war, whatever
Speaker 2: it was, and he's just saying, like this is where
Speaker 2: the next frontiers of propaganda fights that we no longer
Speaker 2: are listening to corporate news, so there is now another
Speaker 2: battlefield that they have to prevail in.
Speaker 14: We have seen the deterioration of it support for Israel
Speaker 14: in the United States almost I would say it correlates
Speaker 14: almost one hundred percent with the geometric rise of social media.
Speaker 15: They have very much shifted away from Israel. Look at
Speaker 15: this net favorability of Israel among men under the age
Speaker 15: of fifty in twenty twenty two. Not too bad, but
Speaker 15: not too hot to trot either, at minus three points.
Speaker 15: By twenty twenty five, again down we go minus twenty
Speaker 15: two points. That is just that is a nineteen point
Speaker 15: shift in just three years time. But it gets even worse.
Speaker 15: Look at this for Israel minus forty seven points. That's
Speaker 15: a forty four point shift away from Israel on the
Speaker 15: net favorability amongst young men.
Speaker 2: And that's net Nyahoo on sixty minutes just last night.
Speaker 2: And what he's saying there is that Israel is losing
Speaker 2: support and they believe that it's a consequence of social media. Now,
Speaker 2: I would argue that as a consequence of the corporate
Speaker 2: narrative no longer applying that the government propaganda narratives no
Speaker 2: longer actually get traction that the American people and the
Speaker 2: people of the world are getting too much truth, and
Speaker 2: that is the real reason that support for Israel has
Speaker 2: declined so precipitously. But I also think it's all the
Speaker 2: more reason to believe that there are additional assets or
Speaker 2: financial mechanisms that are being deployed to try and control
Speaker 2: that narrative, to try and get in there, to push
Speaker 2: both censorship but also bought networks, so compromising political commentators,
Speaker 2: figures that become very popular in this arena, in this lane,
Speaker 2: that then get used to that end because they have
Speaker 2: already built up credibility within the dissident network, and then
Speaker 2: all of a sudden they start to push a different message,
Speaker 2: and it's like, well, why is that happening. Is that
Speaker 2: just an organic shift or were they compromised in some fashion.
Speaker 6: We look at hundreds of posts, accounts, you name it,
Speaker 6: like for example, Nick Twentday's, so he's a very well known,
Speaker 6: really revolting neo NASI social media influencer, but banned from
Speaker 6: the platform, which I don't think you don't get much
Speaker 6: credit for me for banning Nick one Day's. I mean,
Speaker 6: it's kind of common sense. But whereas they banned him.
Speaker 6: We found hundreds of accounts that continue to push out
Speaker 6: his videos, So whereas his account isn't there, we found
Speaker 6: accounts with well over a million followers pushing out his
Speaker 6: groyper videos on a daily basis. So continues to populate
Speaker 6: and propagate his poison on Instagram despite this sort of
Speaker 6: cosmetic kind of policy that they've taken. They're not even
Speaker 6: forcing their own policy. They get overall one hundred accounts
Speaker 6: with millions of followers pushing out Nick Flentte's garbage every
Speaker 6: single death.
Speaker 2: That's green blad over at the Adel talking about funt Is,
Speaker 2: and not just funt Is but his supporters, and if
Speaker 2: you want to talk about ORWELLI in nineteen eighty four crap,
Speaker 2: that's about as high level as you get. That they're
Speaker 2: not just concerned about Funtez, They're concerned about deplatforming his supporters,
Speaker 2: his viewers, his listeners. He wants to nuke the accounts
Speaker 2: of people that just boost funt as organically that also
Speaker 2: cannot be permitted. So Tuntes is a serious threat to
Speaker 2: the establishment, or at least he had been. I think
Speaker 2: it's interesting that he is. He is pushing the support
Speaker 2: of Democrats, which I think the establishment will love. Why
Speaker 2: would they not? So the real question here with his
Speaker 2: backing of amyac And as the governor of Ohio, is
Speaker 2: is Nick Fuent is doing that because he is a
Speaker 2: brilliant five D level chess tactician and technician when it
Speaker 2: comes to politics. It's possible, and I mean that sincerely.
Speaker 2: Maybe he thinks that if he demonstrates that he can
Speaker 2: get amy Acton to prevail over Vivek Ramaswami, that he
Speaker 2: will have additional political clout and capital that he can
Speaker 2: wield in the twenty twenty eight presidential election. Maybe that's
Speaker 2: the angle that he's playing at. But I'll tell you,
Speaker 2: I don't look so much at what people say as
Speaker 2: much as what they do. And to me, I would
Speaker 2: take funt As a lot more seriously if he was
Speaker 2: using his limited political capital as we all have. He's
Speaker 2: got much more than I do, but I respect anyone
Speaker 2: who wants to use it intelligently. That's what I'm doing
Speaker 2: when I'm not backing up Fishback or Lynch or these others,
Speaker 2: is like I'm going to only put my finger on
Speaker 2: the scale on things that I think matter tremendously and
Speaker 2: to me, the most obvious and existential campaign or race
Speaker 2: that we have this year is Thomas Massey in Kentucky,
Speaker 2: and if he prevails, then I will I will take
Speaker 2: my little victory lap. Ultimately, it doesn't save the country
Speaker 2: or anything, but at least is a step in the
Speaker 2: right direction. What I find fascinating about Funt is that
Speaker 2: it doesn't seem to be He doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: interested in deploying any of that political capital to actually
Speaker 2: get a win for his movement. And by that I mean,
Speaker 2: is it a win to see Amy Acton become the
Speaker 2: governor of Like No, what he's saying is it's a
Speaker 2: win to see vivek lose. Okay, sure, sometimes it is
Speaker 2: a win to see your opposition lose. If that's your worldview,
Speaker 2: I can respect that. But when do you intend to
Speaker 2: deploy that political that limited political capital on an actual win,
Speaker 2: an actual step in the right direction. I think that
Speaker 2: Thomas Massey is clearly that. I think it's It could
Speaker 2: easily be argued that Casey Putsch or Dan Bilzerian or
Speaker 2: a handful of others Mark Lynch could all be the
Speaker 2: same thing. I haven't seen Nick Funt is back any
Speaker 2: of those options. So I think it's fair and I
Speaker 2: hope that he'll take this in the good spirited, open
Speaker 2: minded way that I'm conveying it. Tell me what the
Speaker 2: plan is. Lay it out a little bit more explicitly,
Speaker 2: because if the plan is to just destroy the GOP
Speaker 2: by voting for the Democrats and then you expect to
Speaker 2: what in twenty twenty eight, if you win these races
Speaker 2: by putting Democrats into the power in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: do you expect the pendulum to swing more aggressively towards
Speaker 2: the America First side in twenty twenty eight? Okay, maybe,
Speaker 2: but I don't. I don't see how that A leads
Speaker 2: to B to C. Like I don't see it, and
Speaker 2: I think a lot of your supporters are probably feeling similarly.
Speaker 2: So if there is a tactical way that that is
Speaker 2: a net benefit that Amy Act and being the governor
Speaker 2: of Ohio over a casey push or of a Ramaswami
Speaker 2: lay it out, I'm all ears And until you do that,
Speaker 2: I would, I would hope, or I would encourage not
Speaker 2: just nick literally everybody. I'm imploring everybody to stop calling
Speaker 2: everybody a federal agent or asset unless you actually have
Speaker 2: proof of that.
Speaker 16: Nick went does. Obviously he's a federal informant. It's ridiculous
Speaker 16: people that don't understand that. It's ridiculous that people just
Speaker 16: keep following him despite the overwhelming evidence. I mean, this
Speaker 16: guy took a meeting with Dan Wilks's partner after years
Speaker 16: of screaming about Ben Shapiro and talking about Israel, and
Speaker 16: he took a meeting.
Speaker 2: With Defend Texas Liberty. Because that's exactly what Operation Gladiol was.
Speaker 2: For those that aren't familiar, Operation Gladiol was a CIA
Speaker 2: project largely in Italy during the Cold War where they
Speaker 2: would try and sew discord and the way they did
Speaker 2: that oftentimes was to fed jacket sincere members of the opposition.
Speaker 2: So I'm not saying that I know for a fact
Speaker 2: that quant Does is a real boy, or Dan Bilzerian's
Speaker 2: a real boy. I don't know. I hope that they
Speaker 2: all are to be honest, and I mean that sincerely.
Speaker 2: But this is what fed jacketing is. This is actually
Speaker 2: its origin labeling people who are genuine dissidents as federal assets,
Speaker 2: agents informants, that is Gladiol, that is CIA. So be
Speaker 2: very cautious before you start playing that game, because in truth,
Speaker 2: you are doing your enemy's bidding if you are doing
Speaker 2: so improperly. And just to be clear, I am not
Speaker 2: just levying this against Nick Fuentes. I'm saying this to
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson. I'm saying this to Dan Bilzerian, both of
Speaker 2: which have made similar accusations against Nick about him being
Speaker 2: a fed. Until you guys know, please stop. Please. If
Speaker 2: no one knows who to trust, then no one knows
Speaker 2: who to back. If no one knows who to back,
Speaker 2: then it makes it almost impossible for us to defeat
Speaker 2: the duopoly, and I think that's exactly playing into the
Speaker 2: hands of our actual enemies. If you guys enjoyed this episode,
Speaker 2: please do it the like button, subscribe, hype it, share around.
Speaker 2: Let Nick know that I talk shit about him, even
Speaker 2: though I don't think I did. I try to be
Speaker 2: as open minded and even handed about all of this coverage,
Speaker 2: and I hope I did that to your satisfaction. I
Speaker 2: did my best. I do have, you know, my own
Speaker 2: biases and things like that. I don't like that he
Speaker 2: constantly attack Stape Smith and Ian Carroll, who are two
Speaker 2: of my buddies, But you know, I try and set
Speaker 2: that aside and just be like, all right, net positive
Speaker 2: net negative, Like, let's actually parse this out and let's
Speaker 2: see how we can actually win. And if you if
Speaker 2: you don't want to back up Thomas Massey, tell me
Speaker 2: the fuck why I want to know? Nick is there's
Speaker 2: nobody else that's more America first in DC. It's not
Speaker 2: even close. Tell me why I'm all leayers. All right,
Speaker 2: leave a comment if I got anything wrong down below.
Speaker 2: You want to support the show at Liberty lock pot
Speaker 2: on X, you could subscribe there. I will follow you back.
Speaker 2: It's only five bucks a month. I wanted to say briefly,
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed my appearance over on Julian Dorry's show
Speaker 2: Good Dude, and I had. I really The feedback has
Speaker 2: been incredible. I think I got like over three thousand
Speaker 2: new subscribers just by doing that appearance, which is the
Speaker 2: most I've ever grown from a single guest spot. So
Speaker 2: the Julian Dory bump is real. When I say that
Speaker 2: he's the young new iteration of Joe Rogan, I ain't lying.
Speaker 2: And last but not least, inspired by Julian, who made
Speaker 2: his platform what it is, who started to do YouTube
Speaker 2: shorts or shorts more broadly. Back in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: I talked to him about it. He's like, that's how
Speaker 2: you grow, dude. That's like, that's how I was like,
Speaker 2: I don't have any clip channel whatsoever, and he's like,
Speaker 2: you gotta get one. So now I do Clint Russell Clips.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna link it in the description below. Just put
Speaker 2: out the first few shorts today. If you're watching this
Speaker 2: right now, please help me out get it to a
Speaker 2: thousand subscribers, just so that it can actually have some traction,
Speaker 2: because as of now it's got like one subscriber me.
Speaker 2: But yeah, Clint Russell Clips. That's the handle on YouTube,
Speaker 2: and Dan Smott's is running it for me with dis
Speaker 2: Media and he is the best in the game. So
Speaker 2: you will not be disappointed. If you ever miss an
Speaker 2: episode or if you just want a short version of
Speaker 2: this show that you can share more readily, that'll be
Speaker 2: your way to do so Clint Russell Clips. Make sure
Speaker 2: you subscribe. Appreciate you guys, See you some peace.
Speaker 10: Clint Russell did a show on that the other day
Speaker 10: and that was just it was perfect. I just thought
Speaker 10: it was great. Clint's the man. If you guys don't
Speaker 10: watch his shows. One of the best shows out there.
Speaker 6: Still.
Speaker 10: I always say Clint's criminally underrated. I've just been saying
Speaker 10: that for years, but then he really blew up, so
Speaker 10: I don't know if I could keep saying he's still underrated.
Speaker 10: He deserves more than he is. Just excellent show, Liberty Lockdown,
Speaker 10: one of the best podcasts out there.