The Daily Beast Podcast - Nick Fuentes Admits His Dream Wife Is 16 Years Old

Episode Date: July 16, 2023

Nick Fuentes knows the ideal age he’d like his future wife to be and, disgustingly, it’s sixteen. On this episode of The New Abnormal politics podcast, hosts Andy Levy and Danielle Moodie listen to clips of Republicans and right-wing figures saying stupid things, but this Sunday’s clip of Fuentes, a white supremacist and right-wing extremist, takes the cake. Also on this episode: Marc Garlasco, a military advisor at PAX Protection of Civilians and the co-host of The Civilian Protection Podcast, shares a dire prediction for what’s to come now that the White House plans to send cluster bombs over to Ukrainian forces. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. Welcome back to another bonus episode of the new abnormal, and we thank

you so much for being here. Today we're going to be joined by Mark Galasco, a military advisor at Pax and the host of the civilian protection podcast. He's here today to tell us everything you need to know about the U.S. recent decision to provide cluster bombs to the Ukraine. But first, let's have some fun. Are you guys ready to listen to some clips? Clip. Andy. Yes, yes. I'm sorry, Sorry, I wasn't, but now I am. Oh, good, good, good. Clips. Glad we're there.

Yes. So actual in-cell loser, Nick Fuentes, who you may remember from having dinner with former President Donald Trump and Kanye West, has previously confessed pedophilic ideation that we've played on this podcast. But this time, he needs to take it a little further. No, bitch. I want to drink it straight from the tap. I want it raw. I don't want to wait a moment. Right when the milk is good, I want to start drinking the milk.

Same thing goes to women. I don't want to turn 30 and find some 20 year old, 29 year old woman that I have something in common with. And it's like, hey, properly aged like wine. Women don't age like wine. They age like milk. They don't age like wine. That's not how their hormones work. That's not how they work.

Yeah, I got to find my 16 year old wife. Probably when I turn 30 or something. Because here's the thing. I don't want to be like, let's say I get married to do it. was the 18 year old now. Six year age difference. When I turn 40, she's going to be 34. Ew.

If I'm 30 and she's 16, 14 year age difference, when I'm 50, she'll be 36. When I'm 40, she'll be 26. Now we're talking here. Now we're cooking with gas. Now you can see an alternative vision for how things could be. I want a 16-year-old is untouched, untouched, pristine, untouched, uncorrupted, innocent.

That's what we all want. And all 16-year-olds want an older guy who's like capable and strong and everything to sweep them off their feet. That's what everybody wants. Oh, my God. Yeah. How is he not in jail? I'm not, like, how is he not in jail? How has he not been picked up and his laptops and his phones and everything fucking investigated?

I mean, my God. I do think the one thing you can say is that he's probably not in jail for this particular reason because no woman of any age. Come on. Would ever, ever, I don't even care about marry this guy, would ever fuck this guy. He's an admitted virgin. I know. I wonder why. I mean, oh my God.

By the way, again, these are the people who throw the word groomer around constantly. And literally everything he said there is that he wants to groom a 16-year-old girl. A teenage girl. Yeah. That was just horrific. A whole new level. But the thing I keep thinking about. as, you know, a former host of this podcast had the saying everything Trump touches dies.

But really, like all these crew, the Allie Alexander's, the Milos, they all, all have talked about grooming. Yeah. It's like every one of them, it's just always on their mind. The reason they yell about it so much is it's like their fantasy. Oh, yeah. Add Matt Walsh to that list. Oh, that's right. Matt Walsh, too.

Jesse, this may be the worst fucking clip you have ever played. You know what? I'm not going to defend myself. I think this is the worst clip I've ever played. I think it's the worst play deep clip you've ever played. I'm right there with you. I do like, however, that in the intro to this clip, you pronounced incel as in cell as if it rhymes with Excel.

This is really bad since it's even my bad name. All right. On to more wholesome fuckery and stupidity. Rep Troinels here shows what becomes more obvious every day. The Republican Party has one qualification. loyalty to Donald Trump, no matter what he does. One of the interesting sound bites yesterday, and we've already played it today, was where he said, the director said, it's insane to say that I'm biased against conservatives,

given his personal background. He's a registered Republican. He worked during the Bush administration. He was appointed by Donald Trump. Do you think that turned any heads? Well, it may have, but right now, today he works for Joe Biden. He works with President Joe Biden today. And what we've seen with the FBI, you know, they always say there's an issue identified

and they're going to make change, positive change. They're going to make sure they don't do it again. They're not going to continue to violate American citizens' rights to free speech and censorship. One of the things I want to point out here is, like, I think people know this or sort of suspected, but don't really know it. There has never been an FBI director who has been a Democrat. Yeah. Every single one has been a registered Republican.

Why do you work in facts? I don't know. Every once in a while, I like to throw one in. Also, I love the Joe, like, however he said it was like Joe, like, however he said it just made him sound like a box of Kellogg's. Like he wasn't even a, like he's not a person, right? Like, he's just like a thing. You know, that thing over there in the White House? You mean the president?

Like, it's just. It's just really true. The inanimate objecting of Joe Biden is very strange. It's just they're so bizarre. That's why I say like, why do we even bother presenting with any type of facts? Because it just doesn't matter. Like to them, these Republicans are not real Republicans because they don't, I guess, have like a DT branded into their thigh. Like maybe that's the next, you know, maybe I'm just giving them ideas for 2024.

Maybe that's what we'll see on the House floor. I don't know. When even Steve Ducey is pointing things out to you, you're on another level, man. I mean, it is just crazy. But as Ducey pointed out, Ray was appointed by Donald Trump. Donald Trump said he was only going to appoint the best people. So you're either calling Donald Trump a liar. I imagine that.

How are you defending Trump by calling him a liar? Like, you've got to get your story straight, man. Andy, I think you just like busted my psychic eye open and I'm seeing the future. Jay Edgar Hoover was a Democrat because he was a dry queen. Oh, we live in now. Oh, my God. Okay. Here we have President Joe Biden ranting like he's senile and can't find his words.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This is Congressman Jim Jordan. That's exactly what happened with the decision. When it came to the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, decision with Mr. I drew a blank there, Sean, I apologize. I got a huge echo in my ear and I can't even hear.

Sorry about that. Go ahead. Pick up. But yeah, that's exactly what happened. They pre-bunked this story and Facebook specifically asked the FBI is the Hunter Biden story Russian misinformation. There was no

echo in his ear. What do you, like the echo was his bullshit trying to pull together like his latest lie. You ever see how Jim Jordan, like, his consistent, hostile voice is just like, and I got you? And you're just like, you got what exactly? Absolutely fucking nothing. He sounds so stupid as he always does. But just like this, oh, going after Joe Biden and the way that he speaks and going after this, they don't put together coherent sentences. They don't actually offer anything whatsoever. And it was not the echo. Maybe it's the echo in his head, because there's not a lot in there.

But it was not the echo, the feedback, you know, that's not what it was. I mean, it could have been one of the other voices in his head, too. Correct. There's a fairly, as someone who, you know, dabbled in TV for a little while, there's a fairly easy solution to when you are getting an echo in your ear, and that is to take the IFB out of your ear while you're talking. I'm not sure why he didn't do that. If you watch the video at one point, he kind of moves his hand close to his ear,

but he never actually reaches in it. and takes out the IFB, and it's like, if it's that bad, take it out and then put it back in when you're done. I don't know why I'm even bothering to say something like that. But I watch this and I'm just like, I know you're stupid, but if something's making bad noises in your ear and preventing you from talking, take the thing out of your ear that's making the bad noises. Maybe we should just look in all of their ears all of the time. Do you think that they always have IFBs then? Maybe that's what it is.

Maybe there's a little mini-trump in his ear screaming out of him all. I think that man is on his mind a lot. All right. Now we reach the part of our bonus episodes where I do our weekly segment. Here's a crazy right-winger saying the quiet part loud. This is a Moms for Liberty event, and they're going to cheer when a certain someone's name is mentioned. Anyone want to guess beforehand who they may cheer? Yes.

Who would you like? Hitler. Dig, dig, ding. Here we go. There's always a reason. There's always a reason why something happens. right? Yes.

One of our moms. I stand with that mom that quoted Hitler. Wow. I don't even know what to say anymore. Yeah. The real thing to say is this is where we've descended to is openly saying Hitler rocks. The initial whoop really got me. I know.

I didn't like, is it going to be like in Vegas where they put the faces of the celebrity and you're, putting them up and down in the audience. Like, was that a Hitler pep rally? Because that's what the fucking sounded like. But again, we have moved from a place where we can agree on anything. Like, we used to be able to agree that the sky is blue. Water is wet. Facts, you know, truth and all of those things. And now Hitler was the thing that we could say, yes, we all agree. Terrible, horrible human being. Executed 6 million plus Jewel. people, like a terrible figure in American history. Now we don't agree on that. And that's fucking wild. Once you're cheering for Hitler, I don't know where to go with you. And these are the

same people, by the way, who are always screaming, debate me, debate me. And it's like, no. Like, there are certain things that shouldn't be debated. RFK Jr. should not be debated on whether vaccines cause autism. They don't. You shouldn't be debated on whether it's a good idea to quote Hitler. I don't want to be in your world, buddy. Go away. Just leave me alone. Well, I personally found some... Don't cry, Andy. I personally found some good here. I've been once again inspired by one of the hosts. I'm going to pitch Newsmax for a new sitcom, maybe a family drama this fall. Hitler Pep Prowly coming to Newsmax this fall. Oh, God. All right. The only good thing about Hitler is he killed Hitler.

Yeah, that's good. Folks, I am. very happy to welcome to the new abnormal Mark Garlasco, who is a military advisor at Pax and the co-host of the Civilian Protection Podcast. Mark, the Ukraine has never left the news, but most recently the U.S. has made headlines with a particular type of ammunition that they have decided to provide to the Ukraine defense against Russian aggression. It has been something that has been talked about over the entirety of the war. But now the decision has been made to provide the Ukraine defense with cluster ammunition. And so first, before we go into what this actually means, in terms of the U.S. making this decision, talk to us about exactly what this is and why it is

big enough that there was a hearing on it earlier this week. Sure. And hey, thanks for having me on, Danielle. I really appreciate it. So I've been recently, searching cluster bombs for the last 20 years. The first time that I came across them was in Iraq in 2003, which, oddly enough, is the last time that the U.S. military actually used cluster bombs. Now, cluster bombs or cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells, and within them, they contain dozens to hundreds of smaller bombs. And the military calls these either bomblets or submunitions. And excuse me, depending on what term I use, it's really interchangeable. the military likes these is because you send one bomb over, for example, and you've got many

hundreds of little bombs in it. So it's an economy of force, right? You're using few for a big effect. And one of the other things the military likes about it is it covers a huge area. So the way they work is the cluster bomb goes over the target. It opens up and then you have these dozens to hundreds of small bombs come reining down. Wow. And yeah, and they cover about a football field. Oh my God. Okay. Yeah. It's a satire. weapon, and that's great for the military, right? So you're covering a huge area. Not so great for the civilian population, though, because if you use it close to a populated area, you're not only getting that tank or those soldiers that you're trying to shoot at, but you're also potentially hitting

homes and people and just, you know, all the stuff that you have in the city. And that's the first problem. And then the second problem with a cluster bomb is the dud rate, so, you know, the rate at which they don't explode. The specific munition that the U.S. is going to be providing to the Ukrainians is called a DPICM. Dual purpose improved conventional munition. It's called dual purpose because it has both an anti-armor and an anti-personnel capability, right? So the DPICM has a shaped charge inside of it, and that shaped charge will punch through about two and a half inches of armor. And then the outside of it will perforate and explode and basically shred whatever personnel are in the area. And it's very effective on the battlefield, right? But it's also effective where civilians are. And so the U.S. is sending what's called

the M864, which is a specific artillery shell. And inside of it, it has 72 of these DPIMs. And so you've got 72 of them. And we're going to be providing hundreds of thousands of these shells to Ukraine. Now, if you look at the dud rate, and this is where it gets a little complex, because the White House has made some claims, and they don't actually stand up to scrutiny. They've stated that they're going to be sending Ukraine munitions with a dud rate of 2.35%. I mean, even though U.S. law requires that munitions have a 1% or lower dud rate for cluster munitions, President Biden's going to waive this, and they're going to send ones with 2.35. The reality is, according to U.S. Government Accountability Office testing, and the documents are online, anyone can Google this and find it. These specific munitions have a 14% dud rate. Oh, my.

Yeah, at a 14% dead rate, for every 100,000 that we send them, that's a million unexploded bombs. And so now you can start to see the problem, right? So you've got basically fields of landmines that are being created. And not only is that a problem, but let's think about it also from the Ukrainian military perspective, right? So I'm a Ukrainian soldier. We're prepping the lines with this DPICM, these cluster bombs. And now I have to assault through it. And guess what?

I'm going to run through a minefield. So these are highly problematic. And, you know, they have a very high level of foreseeable civilian harm. And so needless to say, the NGO and human rights community is up in arms about this. You have a 14% dud rate, which means that you are just littering, littering fields upon fields with, I'm assuming, you tell me the sizes that we're talking about. Yeah, so it's the size of a debattery. Okay, just littering fields with bombs that are not going off at that particular time,

but it doesn't mean that they're not going off at some time. There are still people now being killed in Laos and Vietnam from these munitions. Okay. From the Vietnam War. So, yeah, they last a while. So they last a long time. So that's number one. Number two is the U.S. had tried or said that they were not going to provide this type of ammunition to Ukraine.

What has changed their mind? Is it just the length of time that this war has been going on for, that they're like, we need to do something else. What was the shift? Look, so first of all, not only did the U.S. say, hey, we're not going to provide these to Ukraine, you know, months ago when the request first went in, but when Russia was first discovered to be using cluster bombs in Ukraine, okay? The White House put out a press statement that called it a potential war crime. Okay, potential war crime, right? Not just bad or, hey, you shouldn't be doing this, but something someone needs to go to prison. for. But now, hey, we're going to be providing it to somebody, which is just morally bankrupt,

if you ask me. So what has changed is that the Ukrainians are running out of artillery shells. They're popping between 6,000 to 8,000 shells every month. And there's only so much that is left. And so, you know, they're on the offensive right now. And apparently they're running, they're running low on ammunition. And so this is an idea to bridge the period from when they're running low to when we're able to restock them. And my response is, hey, you know, I appreciate that they're running low. And I fully support the Ukrainians in, you know, their fight against this unlawful war, this illegal invasion by Russia. You know, I train Ukrainian war crimes teams. I was a UN war crimes investigator in Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya on three different missions.

I go in and train Ukrainian war crimes team. So, you know, I've got an investment in these people, right? But there have to be limits. And this is a weapon that has been banned by 123 states, including over two-thirds of NATO. So some of our closest allies like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the newest member of NATO, Sweden. And it boggles my mind that we would provide weapons that we months ago considered to be war crimes. And now we're saying, hey, you know, got to do what you got to do. So if we do it, the big we, the United States, if we do it, it's not a crime. If another country does it, it's a crime. I mean, this is essentially do as I say, not as I do. We're good at that, right? I mean, look, let's also look at it from the legal angle.

Okay. So international humanitarian law to Geneva Conventions, also known as the laws of armed conflict, put certain requirements and obligations on states and militaries for how they use weapons. And among those obligations are they, you always have to use them in a discriminant and proportional manner. And the problem with cluster bombs is particularly when used in an area of a concentration of civilians, which are, you know, populated areas and whatnot. You really cannot use them in a discriminating way, meaning I'm going to only target military, right?

Because it covers just such a huge area. But let's just say that we trust the Ukrainians, right? They said that, hey, we're going to give you written assurances that we're not going to use them in popular areas. Let's just let that go and say, yes, absolutely. But then you still have the proportionality problem. And proportionality under the law states that any action that you take, right, the civilian harm cannot outweigh the military gain. And here we're saying that the potential civilian harm from sowing fields upon fields of basically landmines across Ukraine is just, you know, potentially unlawful and is highly questionable,

if not morally bankrupt. I'm just so livid with the White House and Department of Defense and how they've tried to squeak around some of the numbers and requirements. So the munition that we're talking about here has a 14 percent, you know, published that rate. In my work in the last 20 years, it's more like somewhere around 20 to 23 percent. But let's go with that 14 percent. So what they did was they said, hey, we're going to retest these bombs, right? We haven't used them, by the way, in 20 years. We're going to go retest these bombs and check what the dud rate is to see if it's really 14%. So they took them out to Yuma, Arizona, to a testing ground, and in completely unrealistic conditions, drop them in areas where you have completely flat and hard earth and asphalt,

no vegetation, no wind, and, you know, unsurprisingly, they operate much better. than when you use them under actual battlefield conditions. And it's just quite shocking that they went to just that level of detail just to get this weapon out that they want. What do you say, then, Mark, to those people who will defend this, right? Because I'm with you. I am not a studied expert in war or civilian protection like you are, but I'm a person with common sense. And I believe that the harm that is going to be caused over decades does not then allow for there to be this great military success. Like I think that it's disproportional. I think that that's basically what you're saying is that, you know, we're looking at this and folks can say, well, Putin is killing all of these people, including his own soldiers, putting them into harm's way. He's blowing up hospitals. He's blowing up orphanages. I mean,

We've seen the pictures, right? We've seen the videos. The United States's reaction is, well, there's nothing else that we can do. We have to provide them with a rugged defense. There are things that we could do, though. Okay, there are options. Ukrainians have been winning this war using precision weapons throughout. And they've been asking for things like attack them's, which is a long-range rocket that we have.

They've been asking for F-16s to defend themselves. And guess what? There are other countries in the world that should be assisting as well. I think we should be using our diplomatic offices to be pushing for that. The economic sanctions against Russia have Swiss cheese holes in them that, you know, you could just drive a truck through. And we could certainly tighten that up. I mean, look, the Russians are still able to sell oil on the market, which is ridiculous.

You know, we should certainly be putting the squeeze on them. But there have got to be limits on what we're willing to provide, you know, particularly when a weapon is just so morally questionable. And look, let's take a look at the Russian use, right? And a lot of the response that I hear is, hey, the Russians have been using cluster bombs, why shouldn't Ukrainians? And the Russians are using a lot of stuff. You know, Russian cluster bombs have about a 40% dud rate, so even worse than the stuff that we're going to be sending. And so the country's already contaminated, Mark, why are we worried about putting more stuff? And my response is, yes, the country is contaminated. And someday when this is

all over, there's going to be a huge effort to clean it up. We do not need to contribute. to that contamination with millions of submunitions that turned into landmines on the ground that are eventually going to kill and maim, you know, children, people were turning home, the professional deminers that are going to go in. There was a 2000 study, a year 2000 study put out by the international community of the Red Cross, where they looked specifically at the DPICM. And the Red Cross stated that this is the most dangerous and most volatile of all cluster bombs. So when this munition is released from its carrier, there are a staggering number of steps that have to occur in order for it to arm properly. And if one of them fails, then the weapon doesn't initiate correctly.

And not only that, and this is the killer, there's a nylon ribbon that hangs on this debattery. And so they get caught in trees. They get caught in bushes. And people go over and pull on them, and they get killed. And I've seen this in Iraq. I've seen it in Lebanon. I've seen it in so many conflicts. And it's just stunning to me that we do not learn lessons.

You know, it's just what you said about short-term versus long-term consequences. You know, it's just like the issue with climate change, right? We don't want to do the long-term fixes because the short-term is just so much more palatable and easy. What strikes me just to my gut is the fact that we make this decision, the United States, makes these decisions that is going to drastically affect a civilian population. And these are things that we don't have to deal with in America as of right now. We don't have to worry about children, people, adults moving through different areas and potentially blowing themselves up or everybody around them. This is not an issue that we have to deal with at all.

But we're totally okay with providing these munitions and then under the guise of, well, it's all we can do. And what you're saying to me is that no, because they've asked, Ukrainians have asked for precision rockets. They've asked for other things that cause less damage. The goal is to have direct effect, not just to have, not to just blanket areas because then you're harming the very people that you're trying to save. And look, this also has a diplomatic effect on us, right?

So Australia, France, Germany, Switzerland, and our very close ally, the United Kingdom, have all sent the U.S. letters, demarches, and expressed their concern about sending these weapons over. To have our closest allies now questioning us because we're willing to send a weapon that they have banned is shocking to me. And we've got a very strange situation right now in Congress when you look at the way the response is to the Biden administration's choices. On the one side, you've got some progressives, very forward-leaning. putting forth legislation to try to make sure that we cannot transfer cluster munitions to anyone. So, for example, representatives Jacobs and Ilan Omar put legislation forward with that. And then on the other side, you've got Freedom Caucus folks like Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gates,

who've also put forward their own legislation saying, hey, there should be no transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine. So we have a really weird confluence of the right and the left going on in Congress. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any of this stuff is going to go anywhere. But, you know, there is a recognition, at least with some lawmakers that this is not the right thing to do. And we had a briefing from the National Security Council to NGOs the day that this was announced. And it was one of these things where, you know, it almost felt like they wanted to make the NGOs feel good, right? Just, hey, we're doing our best. The Ukrainians promise they're going to track it.

they're going to map it. We're going to know where the duds are. Everything's going to be safe. And when we ask them specific questions, you have a published dud rate of 14%. How did you come to your new numbers? When we asked them specifics on munitions, how many, they could not answer. And I was really shocked that we had such a poor representation from the White House on this when we were coming to them with very specific questions and asks. And they did not show the same level of expertise. And it is very upsetting. Yeah. Look, there are people are going to die. And even if we do not think, you know, if you're not concerned for the civilians in the country, which, which I definitely am, how about those soldiers, those Ukrainian soldiers who are going to have to assault through these

fields of cluster bombs that are basically landmines? And my concern is, honestly, cluster bombs are not very good against trench lines. And the Russians have a whole lot of trench lines. And I'm worried that more Ukrainian soldiers are going to get killed by these than Russian soldiers, to be honest with you. I just, I worry that this is a stopgap move that is not going to work that has foreseeable harm for both the Ukrainian military and the civilian population. And in the end, this is going to come back to bite us in the ass. Well, Mark, we will have to leave it here today, but I am so appreciative of your expertise and the ability to explain a very complex. And I don't even know. I guess the word is troubling

I will use, which is a complete and total euphemism, to what the Ukrainian people are going to be up against with this decision by the U.S. But Mark Garlesco, thank you so much for making the time to join The New Abnormal. And folks, to check out more on this issue and others, check out Mark's podcast, The Civilian Protection Pod. Thank you so much. Hey, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going.

This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.