1:03:00 All right, when I announced this morning that Nick J. Fointes was joining us for about an hour and a half live today, which we appreciate him doing, the popular firebrand, the populist firebrand, I saw a lot of commenters saying, oh, what are you going to cover? The Trump green card, the debate coming up tomorrow night, maybe he can pop in at the end of the debate, give us his take. Lebanon, Jamal Bowman, and what just happened with AIPAC taking him out. And yes, we're going to get to that, but I want to cover 35,000 foot view stuff and get Nick's take on that because I see him talk about history and big other world events and he done his homework. People can say, what do you got Nick Fuentes on this Nazi? I wouldn't call him a Nazi, but I'll explain. Where I stand is 100% clear.
1:03:48 When the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Democratic Party, the major media literally says you're bad to be white, in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, CNN, everywhere. And my six-year-old daughter, now seven, was at a summer camp last year for a sports camp. And during lunch, they had on loudspeakers that white people are inherently bad. And she said, am I bad because I'm white? It is healthy for white people to stand up and say, I'm not going to take this anymore and I'm not going to be guilty. Now you can go to an extreme then of hating everybody else that isn't white. In my view, most people that aren't white are not out to get us and they're good people. But a large group are being brainwashed and whites are a minority 7% worldwide. So overall, I've been thinking
1:04:30 compared to the ADL's total supremacy, anti-Western, anti-Christian stuff, well, what do you expect you're going to conjure with what you're doing? And so in an Overton window, Nick Fuentes moves it over here away from all whites are bad and we're the devil and we should pay reparations and kill ourselves with, you know, Nick over here saying basically the opposite. I see a larger 35,000 foot view of divide and conquer and trying to counter it. We'll get his take on that, but I wanted to ask him about this incredibly insane Supreme Court ruling that's totally cut and dry. And Justice Samuel Alito eviscerated and said, I'll read the quotes here in a moment. This is the most important Supreme Court case ever. It's cut and dry, the states and the Congress have all the evidence. And the Supreme Court said this doesn't exist, that none of this is going on. The government's not surveilling and censoring, but they can do it.
1:05:23 Were they blackmailed? There's major pressure on the Supreme Court. Are they waiting for one of these other big cases to shoot down the censorship there? But this is 131 days from the election. They stole 2020, they were able to mitigate and steal a lot of Republican wins and water that down two years ago. This is a huge deal. So let me read a few quotes and we'll get to Nick. Here's Alito rails against White House and social media case dissent. All right, that's the Hill newspaper. And let me just read the quotes out of his dissenting and I've got the full order here as well. Vermont's high ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook, this is one area they focused in on to suppress Americans free speech during an election I would add. Alito wrote, because the court unjustifiably refuses to address the serious threat to the American First Amendment, I respectfully dissent. He went on,
1:06:20 With more of the quotes, I assume that a fair portion of what social media users had to say about COVID-19 and the pandemic was of little lasting value, Alito wrote in dissent. Some was undoubtedly untrue and misleading, and some may have been downright dangerous. But we know now that valuable speech was also suppressed. Continuing, here's the key quote. If the lower court's assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach the court in years. And why does he say that? Because I've now scanned over the ruling. They refused to look at the merits and the evidence and said, and I have Fox News reporting around here, that the Supreme Court did not believe this conduct was happening. Says it right here. The justices appeared broadly skeptical that the claims were even happening.
1:07:17 You've seen the hearings, you've experienced it, you've seen the emails, you've seen the documents, my God. So this is what they do, they deny this is happening. It's like the UN replacement migration, saying we're gonna get rid of the West, it's not compatible, white people aren't compatible. 2000 document, 2001 document, now it's official policy of the NGOs. And then when you publish it or show it, they censor you saying it doesn't exist. And Sacha Baron Cohen at the ADL event says you'd be put in jail if you talk about it. So they can't address this head on because it destroys these arguments, it's total tyranny. So they just say it's not happening. Now, Nick, I just did a long four minute intro, I apologize for that. I'm gonna give you the floor now on this situation.
1:08:03 Yeah, well, you're absolutely right. This is a totally ridiculous situation and it's extremely disappointing because we actually have a conservative majority on the court. It's supposed to be at least a 5-4, at most a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court at least since 2020. And in spite of that, we keep getting all these terrible rulings. And it's like you said, all the evidence is there. It was the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, they found all this evidence that over a dozen federal departments and agencies were in direct contact with social media companies advocating for them and in some cases directly ordering them to suppress particular individuals, groups, in some cases even particular posts relating to the pandemic. It's about as cut and dry as you said, in your words, it's about as cut and dry as it gets. This is government censorship, which means
1:08:56 which makes it a first amendment issue. Because you know for a long time they said well when Twitter or Facebook suppresses free speech, of course that was before Elon Musk acquired Twitter, but when they were suppressing free speech people would make the argument that well these are private companies, it's their prerogative to do it, it's freedom of association, they can choose which content they want to publish or not. And you know putting aside that argument for a moment At least that was maybe tenable at one point. But in this case, it's very cut and dry that the government was directly advocating for certain posts to be terminated. There were even specific examples where the White House press office was sending an email to Facebook saying, hey, delete this post. And Facebook replied by email and said,
1:09:42 Right away, we deleted it right now, absolutely, per your request. There's even quotes where, and we have to delay this, about the cuss. It's like, god damn it, why the fuck haven't you taken this down? It's been 24 hours. I mean, they're cussing at them saying do it. Exactly. And so it is as cut and dry as it gets. I mean, they're literally ordering them to delete things and remove certain users. And I was actually so I was I was a little bit pleasantly surprised that the lower court ruled that this was wrong because, you know, so rarely do we get a victory on issues like this. But it seems like in the past few years, it's been a bit of a by the way, to lower courts just in this case. I mean, I'll write the Supreme Court. Yeah.
1:10:21 Yeah, and so the Supreme Court then acquiring this with the majority and with Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh siding with the government in this case and basically giving them the green light. And it's always on the technical grounds. This is where the conservative court always fails us. They always say, well, you didn't do it exactly correctly or, oh, you don't have legal standing or something like that. This is the constitutional issue maybe. of our lifetime. As we know, the First Amendment is the most important amendment because it's what protects our freedom of conscience, what protects, I mean, really the foundational rights, assembly, speech, and so on. And we know that there's been a big problem with big tech and government colluding. Rather than relieve the injury on this, they're going to side with the government? It's really shocking. It's really outrageous and offensive. And it begs the question,
1:11:07 Can we rely on institutions like the Federalist Society and the Republican Party to put up judges like this in the future? Because, you know, that is one of the things that is considered one of the best parts of President Trump's legacy from his first term was that he transformed the face of the federal judiciary by appointing a record number of judges. That includes the three Supreme Court judges that he nominated. But we see over and over again these judges especially on the Supreme Court, especially Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett giving these terrible decisions. And not just on this, on gun rights, on the 2020 election, in some cases on immigration. I don't think that we can rely anymore on the expertise of the Federalist Society, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell to pick these people. And as always, it all goes back down to personnel. Who are going to be the people that are making the decisions in the judiciary? Who are going to be the people making the decisions
1:12:04 in the Senate and in the potentially the next Trump administration about who these appointees will be. That's always the operative question. And it just goes to show that we're not going to find the right people from Yale, Harvard, and from the Republican Party. They disappoint us time and again in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. So it's just the latest disappointment. I'm not, I'm not I'm not totally surprised that it went this way. And unfortunately, there is one other major decision they have yet to rule on. And it makes me a little bit nervous about that. As you know, there were two major free speech laws
1:12:40 Florida and Texas that were meant to remedy big tech censorship. They're both slightly different. There was one law passed in the Florida state legislature and that specifically applied to people seeking office. That they could not be banned from social media or else the big tech would incur a fine. And then in Texas there was a similar law but it was about viewpoint discrimination that you know if you were banned for expressing a particular ideology and if you could prove that in court. You could get some. legal relief for that. And so both of these laws were challenged by Big Tech and a firm that represents all the Big Tech consortium of the Big Tech companies. That is one of the other forthcoming decisions that the Supreme Court is going to hand down probably later this year. And of course relating to similar topics, Big Tech and free speech.
1:13:29 Based on this decision, I'm not very optimistic about this. And you brought in something which I think is extremely relevant. As you said, the election is 130 days out, 132, 130 days. We're not long before the next presidential election. As we know, social media dictates the outcome of these national elections, especially the presidency. You know, and I don't love Charlie Kirk, but he had a good tweet about this the other day. He said in 2016 it was the Twitter election, in 2020 it was the Instagram election, in 2024 this is the X and TikTok election. And the reason for that, these are two huge platforms that are growing faster than any other platform, and they are because they're free speech, because they totally liberalized community guidelines, terms of service, they've allowed people like you and I back on the platform, at least on X, I think you and I are both banned on TikTok, but our content proliferates there on TikTok regardless.
1:14:22 And so it's these free speech platforms that are now defining this right wing comeback. It's defining this consciousness raising, I think we talked about it last time. And it seems like now in the 11th hour, right before the moment of decision and the all important remaining six months, the debate is tomorrow, the conventions are coming up. Now it seems like these courts are coming in and they're trying to undo what has been done, the progress that has been made. by Elon Musk acquiring Twitter and by TikTok, which through their proprietary algorithm is a lot more competitive. So we have the, no I agree, I was going to say that before you came on, you're thinking the same thing, it's obvious, but it's so crazy. The Supreme Court is like putting their finger on the scale, last minute we're winning, landslide, and they run in for the deep state and the establishment and do this.