Back to episode — Episode 3003 CWSA 10/29/25
Context —
zuela. So that would bring the number to 14 narco terrorists who were killed in the strikes with one survivor. Oh, I think that was just this strike. 14 on just this strike. But that would be also 14 boats that they've taken out, right? So 14 shows up twice in this story. 14 being the number they killed this time, but also the total number of boats they've taken out is a little unclear, but the pa…
← Previous segment →it was useful though. The training was useful.
All right, let me get in trouble here. I'll get in trouble. You ready? I haven't gotten in trouble yet today, so we'll do it right now. I have to say this so carefully because this is going to be clipped. I was watching Tucker Carlson interview Nick Fuentes. So Tucker Carlson had Nick Fuentes on. Now, I've been trying to figure out which things Nick Fuentes has said that are so over the top that I would have to say, "Oh, okay. I'm not on board with that." And so I've been sort of fascinated by watching his journey. And what I didn't realize and what he told Tucker, this is really interesting, is that when he got really cancelled is because he sort of flipped to a view about culture relevant to immigration. And his argument was, which other conservatives have as well, his argument was that if you're not watching the cultural change that immigration has, you might lose your country.
Now, that of course what the Democrats do is if you say you have a problem with the rate of cultural assimilation, which I think would roughly describe Nick Fuentes. Now, he wouldn't say it's only about the rate. He would say it's the type. But let me give you this mental experiment and you tell me if this is racist or just common sense. Suppose Saudi Arabia opened itself up to some level of immigration. I don't know if they do, but let's just use this for our magical thinking. So let's say Saudi Arabia wanted to accept some immigrants and there were two immigrants. One was a European atheist wanting to immigrate to Saudi Arabia. The other one is already Islamic but from some other Islamic country and also wants to immigrate to Saudi Arabia. Which one would be better for Saudi Arabia that they allow the guy with a completely different culture, the European atheist, or they let in somebody who's already on the same culture? So there's no assimilation. You don't have to wait. They're pretty much already there. Wouldn't common sense tell you that one of those is easier to digest than the other? And if you were watching it from the outside and you saw that Saudi Arabia prefers people who are already Islamic and they discriminate against people who are not and you know that it's an Islamic country that's protector of Mecca and all that, would you have a problem with that? Would you say that oh Saudi Arabia is being really racist?
But suppose that they did let in both, but they let in a lot more that were the easy to assimilate. So they let in almost every Islamic person who didn't have a criminal record. But if you were a European Christian or atheist, you could also get in but at a lower rate of flow because they know that would be harder to digest. Would they be racists or would that just
Context —
be common sense? So the problem is that most of these conversations are about power. They're not really about what's right or wrong. It's about who gets power. Democrats get power whenever they say that Republicans are doing bad racist things. So it doesn't even matter what the topic is. If you can blame the Republicans for doing bad racist things and you can make that stick, then you can get ele…
Next segment → →