Join us in this episode of Dana Lash’s Absurd Truth Podcast as we delve into some controversial figures and their statements. We kick off by discussing the public discourse around Nick Fuentes and his polarizing views. Why do some media personalities seem to focus on Fuentes, and what are the implications of the messages he spreads? From admiration for controversial historical figures to questionable tactics for attention, we question the discourse and critique the substance of these conversations.
So what are some of the big podcasters talking about? I’m sure they’re all over this story, aren’t they? Let’s play it. Aren’t they all over this story? Let’s play cut 23. Let’s just see if they’re focusing on these very important stories as well. This is cut 23, please.
SPEAKER 06 :
He’s very interesting and he’s very smart. And on a lot of things, there is value to be derived from that guy’s messaging. I’m sorry, but he actually has a lot of things he talks about that you’re like, oh, this is not a bad point about our country.
SPEAKER 03 :
So that is and I’m friends with both of them, friendly with both of them, Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. And they’re discussing Nick Fuentes. Oh, and that was just yesterday, wasn’t it? I mean, that seems like there’s a lot of stuff happening that apparently they’re not talking about. That’s kind of interesting. I’m curious as to what is the value to be derived from Nick Fuentes? What specifically are the points that he’s making that are any good? Is it when he talks about how he effed TPUSA and then he gyrated on the camera like he was physically sodomizing it? Is that what he’s talking about? Is that the fair point that he’s making? Or is it when he’s talking about how much he loves Stalin and admires Stalin? Is that a fair point? Is that one that people find community with? Or when he praises Hitler and says Hitler was a cool guy. Hitler actually, he was a weak fag. That’s what Hitler was. And he was horrible at strategy, which is why he got his backside handed to him multiple times. And he got fooled by inflatable tanks because of the ghost army. But whatever. So. Really? We’re supposed to find great insight from a gay Nazi twink who talks about how much he loves Stalin and only understands just like the top layer, the top foam of history. OK, I mean, I guess anybody will do anything for clicks now. Good night. Or what about maybe I don’t know, maybe it’s later on. Let’s be fair. Maybe it’s later on in that discussion. Let’s go ahead and play cut 21. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 06 :
And then came Candace Owens. And that she really drives people crazy. She drives them crazy. They were very angry. I didn’t call her out for what she said about Israel possibly being involved with Charlie Kirk. Well, I didn’t call her out because I was totally fine with those questions being raised and still am. Like, I’m sorry, but I am. I’m sick of this bullshit. I am allowed to have questions about what if anyone aligned with Israel or from Israel might have had to do with Charlie’s death.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s a fake out. No one’s questioning anybody’s speech. They’re questioning the logic behind it. And a failure to be able to logically defend the motive. And that’s not that’s not anyone calling anybody out for using their free speech. They’re just pointing out that it seems silly and anti-Semitic for the sake of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t questioning either. She was just making declarations that were crazy, kooky and were completely and utterly debunked. Like, I mean, do we want to talk about all the plane stuff? Because she apparently couldn’t even read flight paths. I mean, it’s kind of embarrassing. And that’s probably why nobody’s listening to her podcast anymore. People listen to it a lot in the beginning, Candace Owens’ stuff, because it’s like, you know, you drive slowly past a car wreck or… For the same reason people watch the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. You were just wondering how far this nuttiness is going to go. But then, you know, after a while, especially when you fail to deliver receipts, that interest wanes. And criticizing that is not the same thing as criticizing someone’s speech on it and pointing out that someone doesn’t. doesn’t, I mean, regularly call out and isn’t consistent in this. And I think that’s the big thing. I don’t understand why people go after, for instance, Ted Cruz, if they don’t like something that he says, while proclaiming no enemies on the right, and that’s okay, but criticizing someone like Owens or Fuentes is apparently, that’s not allowed to happen. Because that’s the gatekeeping that’s happening. You’re being told that you’re not allowed to criticize the backwoods single-celled almost incestual product of thinking that is demonstrated by Owens and Fuentes on their podcast, you’re not allowed to criticize that. And if you criticize the people that platform it or that air it and they don’t even do their due diligence of asking tough questions about it, you’re accused of trying to cancel that individual or control their speech. People are just simply pointing out the inconsistency And the hypocrisy of criticizing some and not criticizing everyone or pretending that you’re a hard ass and that you ask tough questions. But then when you have someone that called your friend’s wife a jeet and you don’t even ask them about that, that seems like that’s cowardice. That’s not journalism. That’s being a female copulatory organ. That is being afraid that you’re going to lose clicks from that audience, and you’re being a digital prostitute, and you’re too afraid of losing that digital share, that slice of the pie for audience. People are talking about the inconsistency, and it is – I find it to be an obscenely intellectual dodge to complain that somehow asking for consistency is the same thing as trying to cancel someone. I mean, people need to stop flattering themselves. No one is calling to cancel anyone. They’re simply remarking accurately on the inconsistency and not asking hard questions of everybody. I feel like that that’s pretty safe. I mean, I don’t have to depend on anybody. I don’t have to depend on Qatari investors. I don’t have to depend on, you know, business partners or anybody else in order to make my bottom line. And I would never debase myself by trying to pander to the audience of a Nazi twink in order to make my daily bread so I don’t have to play those reindeer games, so to speak. So I just think it’s just completely unfair to present a refusal of consistent practice as it pertains to hard questioning as being canceling. It’s not. It’s not that at all. People should know better. You know, speaking as friends.
SPEAKER 01 :
And now, all of the news you would probably miss. It’s time for Dana’s Quick Five.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, so we’re still talking about 3i Atlas. It’s approaching the sun. A new image now shows that it’s glowing green.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s glowing?
SPEAKER 03 :
Green.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, God.
SPEAKER 03 :
It’s glowing green. I’m just saying. You know what? Maybe it is like an alien space turd. And they got close to us. And then they saw how we were so idiotic. And they’re like, nope. No. They’re doomed. I wouldn’t stop by either. Let me be honest with you. Let’s see here. I think I did the wrong headlines. Did I do the wrong headlines? I think I did. Hold up. Let me go back to my correct ones. Apologies. So… Apparently, U.S. population growth is projected to slow further than it has already slowed. They said the population is forecast to start shrinking after 2056. So I want all the people that I like to have more kids and all the people who think things like driving into ICE agents is okay. To not have kids. You know what I’m saying? Like, I’m totally fine with that. I’m totally fine with those with that kind of a setup. But yeah, we need to not. And you know what? The answer to this isn’t to pay people to have kids because that’s welfare. And we already have that for these. quote-unquote Bush League compassionate conservatives that we have in the Republican Party already. It’s actually to make it economically better in the United States so that you don’t desperately have to have two full-time incomes in order to support just a normal-sized American family so that people can afford everyday basic things and go on vacation every summer, things like that, right? You don’t pay people to have kids. You make the economy better for everybody. That’s how you do it. That’s the way to approach this. uh also let’s see here the um i got a couple of other things oh a woman received a letter in the mail 72 years after it was sent yeah 72 years after it was sent she finally got it that sounds like how mail works here in texas because i just got a christmas card that a member of my family sent like weeks ago not kidding Listen to this. This doesn’t help. This is cut seven. Governor Tim Walz, who, by the way, is trying to save his fat ass because he’s implicated in this fraud. You know how many people are implicated in this fraud? Before I play this real quickly, I want you to realize this is what this is a distraction for. It is a distraction for the insane amount of fraud. Do you know that the Attorney General Keith Ellison, this is from the Wall Street Journal, I said this yesterday, A.G. Keith Ellison, his councilman’s son, his nepo baby, the mayor, Jacob Fry, Ilhan Omar, and others directly received cash from the Somali fraudsters. Their cut came out of the $250 million scheme of, quote unquote, feeding our future. Each one of these lawmakers personally met with the fraudsters. They did events with them. They dined with them. They knew them personally. So this is one of the reasons why they’re clinging to this so hard as a tool of distraction. Now cut to Tim Walls. This is cut seven. This kind of language doesn’t help. Listen.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I said this yesterday. We’ve never been at war with our federal government. I think in this case that the National Guard is their main mission. They have a dual mission. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
You’re not at war with your federal government. Although, you’re not at war with the federal government. They want to be. They desperately want to be. They need this. No one loves violence more than the left. No one loves it more than the left. So, I don’t know. Someone said, well, you know what, this woman, give her the Ashley Babbitt treatment. Just saying. Ashley Babbitt, though, wasn’t armed. I mean, it’s horrible. This is, you know, that’s what Tim Walz says. I want to counter contrast him with Tom Homan. This is cut 33. You want to hear a voice of reason? Listen to this. This is cut 33.
SPEAKER 01 :
I think the city of Minneapolis is on edge. I think the country is on edge right now. You say the investigation is ongoing. Investigations just started. Just started. You say you can’t comment on the video, which many Americans are seeing and reacting to.
SPEAKER 05 :
I’m not going to make a judgment call on one video when there’s 100 videos out there. I’m not… I wasn’t on the scene. I’m not an officer that may have body cam video. I’d be… It would be unprofessional to comment on what I think happened in that situation. Let the investigation play out and hold people accountable based on the investigation.
SPEAKER 03 :
There you go. Right there. What can be said. I’m fine with it being investigated. I have no problem with that. Yeah, that’s common sense. Me looking at it right now, unless there is something else to be seen. I mean, this is entirely justified. This is self-defense. There’s no other way that it plays out. Well, he shouldn’t have been standing in front of a car. She shouldn’t have been blocking in ICE agents, you dumbasses. What are you talking about? She was the one blocking in ICE agents. Do people not understand this? I don’t get it. What is there that you don’t understand about this? She was blocking in ICE agents with her car. This is not hard. And then you have people like AOC doing everything that they can to incite this. This is cut 10.
SPEAKER 08 :
What we saw today was a criminal, a criminal murder a woman and shot her in the head while she was trying to escape for her life. And I think what we saw today was a manifestation of every American force.
SPEAKER 10 :
Do you believe you should be arrested? The officer involved?
SPEAKER 08 :
I think what we saw was a murder today, and I think that we need, of course.
SPEAKER 04 :
You said that she was fleeing for her life. Do you know that, that she was fleeing?
SPEAKER 08 :
I think we saw this vehicle. And listen.
SPEAKER 03 :
She wasn’t fleeing. She blocked them in.
SPEAKER 08 :
Part of the due process is to allow an investigation of what transpired and what occurred.
SPEAKER 03 :
They say this. They pay lip service. Oh, we should have investigated. They don’t mean that the way Tom Homan means it. They don’t really care. They don’t care. She wasn’t murdered. She was trying to flee and escape for her life. She blocked them in. She was the one who, according to witnesses, was stalking them all day. All day. If you would like the receipts on that, this is why you need to sign up for my newsletter at Substack, because those people got that this morning. All day. So the lead car blocking them in, and then the moment they’re going to arrest her, she decides to run them over. Entirely justifiable. So as you know, yesterday, members of Congress began the hearings questioning Minnesota lawmakers about the massive fraud, billions and billions of dollars. And even though I think he’s a millennial, I think we need to claim him for Gen X. Congressman Brandon Gill from Texas, simply because of the way he questions people. It’s just so reality bites. I don’t know how. Right. It has that whole aesthetic to it, which makes it comical. So this is Representative Gill grilling these lawmakers and they’re trying to they’re trying to push back with a lame semantics argument that he’s not having. Watch this.
SPEAKER 09 :
Let me ask you, does large-scale Somali immigration make Minnesota stronger or weaker?
SPEAKER 10 :
Certainly stronger.
SPEAKER 09 :
Certainly stronger. Do you know what percentage of Somali-headed households in Minnesota are on food stamps? No.
SPEAKER 1 :
54%.
SPEAKER 09 :
Do you know what that number is for native Minnesota-headed households?
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, to be clear, a majority of the… It’s 7%.
SPEAKER 09 :
There’s a big difference between 54% and 7% as they’re not… Excuse me, sir.
SPEAKER 10 :
Could I answer the question?
SPEAKER 09 :
Let me move on. We’ve got a lot of questions here. What percentage of Somali-headed households in Minnesota are on Medicaid?
SPEAKER 10 :
I don’t know.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s 73%. Do you know what that number is for Minnesota native households?
SPEAKER 10 :
Again, you’re using the phrase Minnesota native households.
SPEAKER 09 :
The number is 18%. That’s quite an astounding difference. I think we would agree.
SPEAKER 10 :
Can I answer the question, please?
SPEAKER 09 :
Let me ask you one more, and then we can go on to that. What percentage of Somali-headed households are on welfare in general? I don’t know. It’s 81%. What about, let me just ask you, after 10 years of being in the United States, what percentage of Somali immigrant households are on, continue to be on welfare?
SPEAKER 10 :
I don’t know.
SPEAKER 09 :
The number is 78%. So even after 10 years, 78% of Somali immigrant households continue to be on welfare. Do you know what that number is for native Minnesota-headed households? Non-Somali immigrant-headed households.
SPEAKER 10 :
If I can just answer the question, you’re using the phrase native Minnesotans. The majority of Somali Minnesotans are as Minnesotan as any of us. They were born in the United States. It’s only 8,000 of the 108,000 Somalis.
SPEAKER 09 :
Nevertheless, the welfare usage is astoundingly different. Let me ask you again, does that make Minnesota stronger or weaker?
SPEAKER 10 :
Again, I’d like the opportunity to answer the question here. Again, the majority of Somali Minnesotans are born in the United States, as I understand it.
SPEAKER 09 :
What percentage of working-age Somalians who have been in the U.S. for 10 years or more, 10 years or more, how many of them speak English very well?
SPEAKER 10 :
I don’t know.
SPEAKER 09 :
About half. The answer is about half. That seems pretty low, doesn’t it? Again, I keep trying to sound like something that makes our country stronger to me. And I think most Americans would agree with me on that.
SPEAKER 03 :
The guy keeps trying to do the semantic. Well, when you say native born, I mean, some of them were born here. OK, but why can’t they speak English then? Why is it that the majority are on welfare? I mean, that’s the point that the guy and Congress McGill is not allowing this guy. And this guy, by the way, was a former DOJ prosecutor under Biden, Harris. And he also worked with DOJ under Obama, Biden. And he’s in Minnesota. He was trying every which way that he could. And he actually ended up making it worse for himself because he’s like, well, we’re talking about people born here. Well, that makes it even worse that if they’ve been born here, if they were born here or if they’ve been here for over a decade and they’re still on welfare. to that extent, or they still can’t speak English, to that extent. I cannot imagine going to another country and demanding to be taken care of, refusing the language, rejecting the culture, and demanding to be on government assistance. I can’t even imagine that. That is just heinous. That’s so awful. So that was an excellent line of questioning. I don’t even know why. The guy should have just sat there and said, hit me. That’s what he should have done.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thanks for tuning in to today’s edition of Dana Lash’s Absurd Truth Podcast. If you haven’t already, make sure to hit that subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Absurd Truth: Tucker Carlson’s Gay Maduro Blame