Will Cain Country - Has President Joe Biden Lost Black America? With Hotep Jesus

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

Story #1: Everything is fake from the White House. Not only President Biden’s ‘Forrest Gump’ of a resume, but also the set, his followers, and even the support on OnlyFans. Story #2: Does Black America, for that matter, does any of America want a daddy or a ‘Momala?’ Will breaks that down as well as what is the ‘Hotep’ movement? A conversation with Host of The Grift Report and author of The Patriot Report, Hotep Jesus. Story #3: A rebuttal to Will’s conversation with David Sacks on the war in Ukraine with Senior Fellow and Director of Keystone Defense Initiative at the Hudson Institute, Rebeccah Heinrichs.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, everything is fake. Not only the resume of the Forrest Gump of the presidency, the most interesting man in the world. Joe Biden, but everything is fake from the set to the followers, to the support on only fans. Two, does Black America, for that matter, does any of America want a daddy? Do they want a

mama? We'll break that down. And what is the HOTEP movement within Black America with HOTEP Jesus? And three, a rebuttal to our conversation with David Suss. Sacks over the war in Ukraine with Rebecca Heinrichs. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page, always on demand by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify, or subscribe in the text link underneath this live stream on YouTube to the Will Kane show. You can watch the highlights, the YouTube shorts by subscribing on YouTube right here with the button for the Will Kane show. We've got a big show today. We're going to be breaking down the debate we had with the devil's advocacy I played last week with David Sacks, noted skeptic of the war in Ukraine.

that interview received a lot of criticism. One of those critics of the Hudson Institute, Rebecca Heinrichs, will be joining us just a little bit later here on the Will Cain Show because we intend to have an open forum for debate. We intend to be a home for critical thinking. We intend to be authentic. We intend to be real, which brings us to story number one. Everything is fake.

nothing is real. Earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Richard Hanania, an only-fans celebrity, an only-fans influencer named Farha Khalidi. In talking about how she made money on only-fans, talked about the way she built up her follower account, her subscriber base, while she was still in college and the different ads she took, and almost in an off-handed comment, She talked about taking advertisements, paid influencing programs from the White House. Listen.

TikTok was basically full-time for me. I was taking ads by the time I graduated college from, like, the Biden administration and Planned Parenthood and, like, dating apps and stuff. So it was like fully financially, you know, sustaining me. So you were getting, the Biden administration was buying ads from you? Yeah, I was doing full on political propaganda. And they would just, really with like what kind of like Biden created 10 million jobs? Yeah, honestly.

And the funny thing is, they're like, they're like, like do not disclose this is an ad because you know they're like technically it's not a product so you don't have to disclose it's an ad because i think they just wanted like some edgy girl of color to just tell people like when when they nominated like katanji brown jacks and they're like can you say like as a person of color that you feel reflected and it's like a white woman emailing this to me and she's like giving me this script and i'm like no and she's like please and i'm like no i'll say i'll like talk about the news of it but i'm not going to be like i'm not going to have a white person tell me to be like you know this is how i feel as a person of color like it's just so

I think that black filled me slightly on like, you know, political propaganda stuff. So the Biden administration sees, oh, here's this young. Yeah, I mean, you use like a conduit. It's not like, you know what I mean? It's not Biden, but it's like a third party. You know what I mean? It's like a media company. A media company paying her to talk about how great it was that Biden had nominated

Kintanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. That's courtesy of the Richard Hanania podcast. Everything just feels so manipulated. Everything is so fake. What is real? There's reports that show that much of the follower accounts for Joe Biden on various social media platforms are fake. And maybe that puts him in common company. Maybe that's not just every celebrity, but that's every politician who has some type of inflated influence by buying followers and subscribers.

And whenever I talk about something involving Joe Biden, not only do I feel like you get some inevitable pushback, but there are little antennas that go up in my head that say, listen, you know, isn't this par for the course? Don't all politicians lie? And of course, again, I think that is par for the course. I think the king of lies, by the way, is Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. But the antenna that should go up, the bit of self-awareness you always have to consider is the constant refrain of what about Trump? Well, listen, I don't think Trump is a bastion of virtue where you will only and always ever get the truth. Do I think Trump indulges an embellishment? Absolutely. I think if he caught a 10-pound bass before the story was over, it would be a 20-pound bass. I think that, you know, he's got probably a record number of holes in ones in golf championships. But, you know, as Bill Maher once said when talking about Trump versus Hillary Clinton, in the end, much of America prefers the obvious and shallow lies over the calculated, polished, and perfected deep lies.

I think that was a perfect way to describe the difference between the lies of Hillary Clinton and the lies of Donald Trump. When it comes to Joe Biden, from every issue over the past, certainly during his presidency, but even before his presidency, extending into the mid-2010s, everything felt so manufactured. Every story, every bit of concern trolling, every device. issue. It feels like it was concocted around a boardroom table at an agency employed by the White House. Everything feels so fake. Yesterday here on The Wheelcane Show, we went over the fake resume from Greek, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish synagogue, raised in a black church ethnic

resume, to driving an 18-wheeler hike in the Himalayas, arrested in South Africa, holding football records and graduating at the top of his class in law school. Everything from a noted and documented plagiarist just feels so fake. And so to hear an influencer have her support falsely manufactured just feels part of everything manufactured today in America. It's, you know, at a deeper level, though, it's fake support. It's a fake coalition. it's a voting base cobbled together with spit and duct tape but largely through lies to tell you that you're all on the same page because you have a common enemy

and of course that fake support either online or in people's hearts and minds is hammered home with a pillow by our fake celebrities you have to hear all of the inauthent intensity, and just stomach-churning vomit coming yesterday on the Drew Barrymore show. Watch this. I've been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now. But in our country, we need you to be mamala of the country. We need you to be mamma of the country. I mean, it is vomit-inducing.

It's also somewhere short of comedic and unintentional comedy, but it's also just so fake. Like, Drew Barrymore's fake concern and fake sincerity, we all don't need a hug right now, and we sure as high hell don't need a mama. Howard Stern, who used to fashion himself as a rebel, told Joe Biden that he was so proud to consider him now the father of the country. We don't have daddy issues. We as a country aren't looking to solve a single parent home.

We're not looking for surrogate parents. We're looking for a leader. Now, I don't know if the left is looking to replace broken homes or mommy and daddy issues by finding someone who can give them a hug, tell them it's all going to be okay, and provide them a safe space and some chocolate milk. I don't know if the left is looking for that when they vote for president. But as a country, I can assure you, I don't need the president to be my daddy, and I don't need the vice president to be my mamala.

And if that's the place that you've found yourself, you need to start considering maybe it's not your opponents who are in a cult. but maybe you have fallen into a cult maybe you are looking for someone to give you everything you need in life to forgive your student loans to provide you free health care

to pretend like your education is supposed to be a moment where you never hear hard questions but only have someone tell you that's right you're the best maybe you're trying to create perpetual childhood and never grow up. We're not looking for a mom alone.

We're not looking for a father. We're looking for a leader. And in order to find a leader, we need to find what is real. We're not going to be able to do it through this completely manufactured reality where everything from resumes to issues is 100% completely fake. Let's get into this in just a moment here on the Will Cain Show. We'll talk about what not Black America, much less the rest of America need a daddy and a mama. We're going to break that down.

Plus, what is the Hotep movement within Black America with Hotep Jesus? Next on the Will Cain Show. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager,

you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. visit td.com slash small business match to learn more conditions apply losing black america as joe bide and have the democrats lost black america that's next on the will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news youtube channel the fox news facebook pays and just hit subscribe as you're listening or watching right now at apple or on spotify or on youtube

What is the HOTEP movement in black America? Let's get into that with story number two. He is the host of the Gryft Report. He's the author of The Patriot Report. He's on X at Hotep Jesus. He's been a guest on Gutfeld and many other programs like Joe Rogan. He is Hotep Jesus, and he's now on the Will Kane show. What's up?

What's up, Will. Thanks for having me, well, how's everything? It's good. But as we go through this conversation, should I say, what's up Hotep? Should I say what's up Brian? Should I say what's up Jesus? Which will be awkward. But which would you, how would you prefer me to refer to you? Call me Hotep. What is Hotep? Hotep. What is Hotep? Hotep is ancient Meduneta. This is ancient language stemming from ancient Kemet or some might call it ancient Egypt. And it's a word that means peace or satisfaction. But right around the time that Barack Obama was in office and Black Lives Matters started to explode, there became this takeover, this liberal communist takeover of black intelligentsia, black corporate media, you know, Huffington Post coming in and buying out publications like the root and sort of derailing where black people were mentally.

And at that point, HOTEP became a pejorative. and so, you know, I was used to the word being seen in great light. So I wasn't allowed it. I wasn't going to have that happen on my watch. So we took the word back and started a movement out of it. So now we're Hotep Nation, Hotep Nation.com, and we support the homeschooling community. So I think this is what I assume you're going to take issue with. This is from Urban Dictionary.

Hotep, Afrocentric brother, usually insecure, who claims to be woke, but actually isn't, unless you are straight black men. In a HOTEP's eyes, you're responsible for the destruction of the black community, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, conspiracy theory officinado. He will fill your head up with so much pseudoscience

and ill-researched historical facts. You'll be ready to bash his head in with a Google search engine. That's Urban Dictionary on Hotep. That's perfect. That's a perfect definition. I love that definition. The reason why I love that definition

is you have to think about the author of that definition, right? And a few things they pointed out there where one of them was sexual orientation. The other one was science, right? So we just had a situation where a lot of people went out and got the experimental inoculation. Hoteps have told people for many, many years, if not decades, not to take that inoculation. We stayed away from it. So, you know, they fall in line with Gil Bates and the rest of them, right? George Soros, etc. The other thing is they're sexual

orientation. Well, what is up with that? You know, there was a time where, you know, in the black community, if you want to be pro-black, the only requisite was being black, right? Now it's like, oh, you got to affirm trans people. You have to affirm gay people. So it sort of shows you how the Marxism has came in and started to dominate black intelligentsia, black corporate media. So that definition doesn't bother me. It's perfect because now I get to show people, look, this is what these people are about. They're about something that has nothing to do with black people. So besides, of course, yourself, like who would you give us is a great, maybe historical example of what you would say is a leader of the HOTEP movement?

I mean, I don't, I wouldn't profess any level of expertise, but I've, you know, read a little bit about the movement. And it certainly does seem to have an anti-communist bent. It certainly has a self-reliance bent, a self-sustaining to the community bent, you know, a lot of which rings of maybe even Frederick Douglas or Booker T. Washington. But I don't know that you would claim those particular leaders as the best emblem of the movement. Who would be a great symbol? Probably Garvey. Marcus Garvey, you and I, yeah. Marcus Garvey.

Yeah, I mean, Marcus Garvey went to war with the NWACP. A lot of people don't know this, but NWACP, along with W.E.B. Dubois, you know, these sellout Negroes, basically what they were doing was they wanted to have, well, they actually got them extradited. They were snitching because they wanted to do things a particular. way. In one of his writings, he mentions how he goes into the NWACP office and everyone in there is white passing, right? So the NWCP was this white passing organization run by white passing and white people and really used to control the black mind. You know, it's controlled opposition. It's making sure that black people will never practice anything that could render them independent. Instead, it seeks dependence, dependence on government, dependence upon, you know, whatever committees they put together, concepts, ideas,

but it really doesn't fight for independence and teach independence. An example of that would be integration. People down south didn't want integration. What they wanted was represent. of their tax dollars, which they were not getting. NWCP came down there and said, we'll fight for this, but we also want integration. He said, no, we don't want integration. And then you see how terrible integration turned out to be.

You look now and the black families falling apart, black wealth is falling apart. There's no black banks. So the black family, the black family was much better off during the, you know, pre-civil rights era. pre-integration from a very economic standpoint, and even culturally as well. Well, you know, I've seen you talk about this. Okay, first of all, on one level, there's the cancer of victimhood. That's a cancer for both the individual and for a community. If you teach a community or an individual victimhood, and I've seen you say this,

you also teach them dependency. You can never arrive at self-sufficiency or even a sense of self-worth if it's always predicated upon someone else providing you that self-sufficiency or that self-worth. But you also said that this movement kind of, in your estimation, started kind of around Barack Obama where the black intelligentsia became more open to Marxism. And again, I don't hold myself out as an expert, but a little bit of historical understanding. You know, even dating back to the 50s and the 60s, a lot of that black nationalist movement was behind the scenes organized and funded by the Marxist movements that were spreading the tentacles of the Soviet Union across the globe.

They were looking to create this idea that black identity is intertwined with Marxism. This seems like something that, while it maybe have become more obvious in the last decade, it's been a half a century in the making. Yeah. So you have to delineate between Marxism or economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. What we're dealing with today is more cultural Marxism, where they're trying to disintegrate the culture of the black community and feed it nothing but letchery and debauchery. Now, during the time of, for example, the Black Panther Party, you're dealing with basically a bunch of kids. I call them a bunch of kids. These guys are like 20 years old, right? So you can't really expect too much, you know, intelligence from somebody so young. So, you know, and also at that time, it wasn't that many alternatives, right? You know, it was basically United States of America and it was communism, right? And it seemed like communism had great appeal. And in many ways, communism does but what i think it comes back to is communists like to um latch on to whoever the um marginalized group is whoever the the victim classes they they like to latch on to them

the issue is and this is where marx is right is the bourgeoisie the middle class tend to have a hands-off approach to the lower class and and when they when they act like that when they act like they're too good, they're going to receive animus from the lower class, right? Now, what happens is because nobody's speaking to these people, somebody is going to have their ear. At that time, the only people that gave them an ear was communist. They're the only people that said, hey, we know you're struggling. Let's talk to you. Had there been opposition to Marxism, then maybe Maybe there wouldn't have been Marxism, but at this period, we're talking about, you know, massive racism. For example, the Monack, when the Black Panther Party is out in California and they pass anti-gun legislation.

This is the Republican Party. This is Reagan, right? So there were many things going on that, you know, sort of hurt the black community, but only one was speaking to that. and that was Marxism. Today we have the internet. We have Milton Friedman. We have Soul. We have Walter Williams. We have Rothbard. So there's no excuse to be subject to Marxism, although I think Marx got a lot right. I think what happens with communism is they diagnose the disease, but their prescription is wrong, right? And their diagnosis, I wouldn't say, is 100% certain, but it's, It's pretty on point. And that's where we are today, where you have the option to go learn about economics and learn about, you know, how is money created in America and how is our financial system run. And when you start to understand these things, you see how Marxism can't serve you. And capitalism is probably the only means to create any sort of fair competition. and Marxism is going to hinder that because it's going to lend more credence to the government.

Right. And I didn't want to get into some of the politics of today, but I'm too fascinated by this particular part of the conversation. So, like, in your estimation, and I have a response I'm thinking through as you're talking, but in your estimation, what did you get right, Marx? The middle class. The middle class attitude is absolutely atrocious. you know, they look down on their downtrodden, you know, they scoff at them, they actually don't do much to help them. And then what happens is in today in capitalism, in the communist practices and policies, the middle class is actually squeezed so much so that they can't help the lower class. For example, what we dealt with during a pandemic, where small business was shut down. So now small business is middle class, but they're barely surviving, so they don't

have enough to even hire. Another communist practice or socialist practice is something called minimum wage. And minimum wage makes it so that the middle class can't hire the lower class because they just can't afford to. But it's usually what I liked about Marx's assessment was the attitude of the middle class. And I see that from anecdotal evidence just within my own family, how they look at poor, how we look at the poor in our own family, how we have a hands-off approach and not a hands-on approach to dealing with the poverty in our own communities. Gentrification, gentrification not only hurts black people, but also hurts white people. You have rich whites moving out poorer whites in places like Pennsylvania.

Do people care about other people? And it seems like once people make it to that middle class, upper middle class, you know, they put their chin up to the sky. And also, there's Marx talks about the bankers. What's that? No, no, I'm finished that thought. No, no, go ahead. I was going to say, okay, there's Marx in theory and Marx in philosophy and then communism in practice.

So my thought as I'm listening to you say that is that a fundamental, this is not an endorsement, it's a diagnosis, that a The fundamental condition of humanity is that the merely poor want to be separated from the very poor, and the middle class want to be separated from the merely poor, and the above-average income want to be separated from the middle class, and the merely rich want to be separated from the above-average middle class, and the truly wealthy want to be separated from the merely rich. It truly is that that is just sort of some fundamental condition of humanity. We can dive deeply into why that might be the case, but it really crossed.

It crosses race. It crosses culture. It spans the globe. Now, that's not endorsement again. That's a diagnosis. Now, Marx's understanding that and seeing that is sort of like step one. Step two is whether or not there's any governmental mechanism that can correct that. And I think that after you know, a century of practice, we've seen that communism is a failed exercise in trying to alleviate that human condition. All it really is is pointing out a division in society to place another group of elite at the top who is your savior, who is your statist, who can solve all of your problems. And that's just a failed experiment. And so the question is, well, if we want to try to address the lower class, and I agree with you, that's a problem.

We should. We want to try to help fellow man. The only real solution, or the best we've come to any real solution, is empathy. It is volunteerism. You know, it's through human beings connecting as human beings and saying, through my charity or my time, or through my heart, I volunteer to help you. Not because it's been commandeered by the government, not because there's some big program that's proven to be successful,

but ultimately you have to impress upon the better angels of humans. Yeah, I totally agree. Government's role, though, is about removing some of the regulations. Like I said, as long as minimum wage exists, it's only going to exasperate the problem. I mean, you go look at the story of Thomas Soul. Thomas Soul is another person, another soul, no pun intended, that started out as a socialist. And how does his story go?

His story goes, he joins the Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., right in the middle of the swamp. And he's like, I want to try and tackle this minimum wage thing. So he does a whole bunch of research. He comes back with the data and he finds a solution to the problem where he's asking questions about the problem. problem. And when he asked those questions, they didn't want to give him the data to those questions because if they did, you'd find out what the true problem is. And he was like, that's when he realized he was following the wrong doctrine of socialism and that government is not the answer to these things. So, you know, the more they raise minimum wage, the more they're going to alienate the middle class and the greater the lower class is going to become. Communism in practice just does not work. It only works within your household. or small communities. Exactly, within small communities or within your household. That's so wonderfully well put.

So that brings me to this. I've seen some of what you guys have said. I think you put out a video like Hotepistan. And you know, you talk a lot about like we got to build black businesses. We in the black community. We've got to build black businesses. We got to build an internal community of support to build the foundations of wealth and success in society. and you can look at other communities, ethnic communities, racial communities, who have done that.

I'm curious, like, is that, if someone at, are you a black separatist? I'm not suggesting that that description of what you might idealize is black separatism, but I do think that someone that was listening who's, like, inclined to think that way would wonder, hey, are you talking about black separatism? Okay, yeah. So let's deal with that. So in Hotep Nation, there are many white members. So we just did a show called The Grifties. This is our yearly award show. Our program director is white. Our video director is white. In fact, we did it because of our video director. We had Sam Tripoli on that stage. So you have white friends? shame cashman, Chrissy Mayer. I'm not a black separatist, right? Like, even Chrissy Mayer's gotten backlash to some of the things she said, right? I don't really care about race.

What I'm saying is I'm dealing in reality, okay? And if we were to deal with this thing at a very simplistic level, you have Nation A, you have Nation B, right? Nation A has X amount of resources and Nation B has X amount of resources. There's going to be some exchange there. And if there's not a fair and even exchange, then something's going to go wrong. Okay. So if this nation is dependent upon this nation for sustenance, let's say it's grain or whatever, and there's no two-way situation, well, what happens when you're the dependent in a situation? Look at a child and father relationship, child and parent relationship. If they're the dependent, then you have to follow the rules of the master, right?

Look at the relationship between America and China. We can't really do too much with China because 90% of the goods in Walmart come from China. Our microchips and all this other stuff comes from, right? So when you're dealing in trying to create power, independence, freedom, you have to at economics. So when I saw black people complaining, you know, Black Lives Matter and all this other stuff, I'm like, well, the first thing we need to do is we need to check our GDP and our GNP of black people and then decide, you know, what's going to, you know, what's the next move? For example, the other day I saw somebody complaining because they're dealing with

hair care products in a beauty supply store and they're saying that Chinese people won't sell to them or they sell to them at higher prices, marginalizing them and basically, you know, kicking them out of the industry. This is why black hair beauty supply stores always go out of business because they can't keep up with the Chinese because the Chinese control manufacturing and distribution. So this is something I tell people, you know, this is basic economics. Who manufactures the goods and who handles the distribution? The same thing in the music industry. You have people complained about the music industry, but who handles the distribution, right? So if you're not looking at, you know, from farm to table, so to

to speak, then you're not really understanding the situation and you can see how black people have been behind the April. And that's why integration has killed is because we had our own banks. We had our own farms. And now today, it's just not that. So the core of human civilization is about economics. What are you producing? What are you exporting? What are you importing? What are you importing? It's nothing really to do with race just has everything to do with just basic functions of humanity. I keep thinking I want to transition to ask you about the conversation I led today with the Will Kane Show, Joe Biden, but I have to just keep following my own curiosity based upon what you say.

So you tweeted this, which I found fascinating, he said, there's no such thing as a black or a white people. These terms erase the memories of African or European lineage. Then the juxtapose, then the juxtaposition creates division, war, know thyself. So, like, I mean, I think I totally get what you're saying there. Like, this superficial manufactured coalition of people, right? Oh, you're black, I'm white. It's both a false divider and a false unifier, right, at the same time.

It's like, I don't know if that's what you're saying. But you also are talking about unifying black America in a self-sustaining way. I assume what you're talking about there is, like, whatever your ethnic heritage, you know, black is part of it. West African, North African, East African, whatever mine is, white is only a superficial descriptor of, you know, Scotch Irish, whatever it may be, tracing me back to my lineage. And now we've divided this society based on these things that are really cosmetic. Yeah. So let's look at the nation where it is today, right? Absolutely mess. Everybody's complaining, you know, drag queen's story hour, all this stuff, right? So what happens is we've lost our way.

Now, when you go by the term white and I go by the term black, how far back can we retrace our steps? Because if you're trying to figure out where we went wrong, you have to retrace your steps. So if we're talking about black and white, that stops somewhere. But if you say, yo, I'm Irish and I'm Italian, well, we can trace those back really far all the way and into Europe. and we can begin to study who we are and how we acted with African people. We can trace that back. Oh, I'm from Africa. Well, what were the customs and how did we deal with our problems?

So it's about understanding tradition. And I think today where we are, it's time to go back. You know, we've gotten a rise somewhere. It's time to go backwards. And when you're dealing with black and white, you erase memories. And that's really what this is just. design and do is designed to erase the the memories of African and European peoples for for and it also it also does is it wants to create homogeneity of minds right because then the communist system can insert their mind virus easier like we can just inject this thing into all white people but if you said yo I'm Italian and I'm Irish and I'm French and I'm German well they have to take time to reconstruct the mind virus for all these different cultures, right? And then once you create that

homogeneity of whiteness and that homogeneity of blackness, now you can put those two things at odds and create this divide and conquer type situation. But at this point, I'm curious, at this point in America, what would you say to the idea that there is a distinct African American culture now separated from? whatever historical origins got us to this point. So, you know, I was in sports for a long time, and this is not just in sports, but it's something you hear a lot in sports, you know, for the culture, right? For the culture.

And I've actually seen you say this as well, where you've talked about black conservatives, and you've kind of said, you know, black conservatives are pretty far removed from black culture. So even though you're advocating for this deeper understanding of who we are as kind of as individuals, although also kind of understanding as individuals where we feel. into these historical tribes, you are at the same time acknowledging a culture of African Americans. And, you know, I don't know what your response would be to that because you've said that many black conservatives are too far removed from that culture. And you have others that say, you know,

constantly for the culture. Yeah. So you can take the microscope and you can zoom in or zoom out however you want. I mean, if you were to take the microscope and zoom all the way in, You know, we're talking about what is the culture of Hoteb Jesus as a man born in New Jersey, right? Like, New Jersey has its own culture. I'm from Central Jersey. Central Jersey has a different culture from South Jersey, right? So we can zoom in and zoom out as much as we want. But when we're dealing with blanket terms like black and white, that's zooming out, right?

So it's like, okay, if you want to zoom out, let's zoom out. what is black and what is white really what you're doing is you're replacing european with white and you're replacing african with black and that's a a very 1984 thing to do right where they like to swap words out on you know orwellian you know type situation happening here and this is erasing memory and that's what they're trying to erase your memory so you can't remember who you are So, and then what happens is when you can't remember who you are, you don't have an identity. So now you're walking around without an identity looking for one, and now you have so-called Europe or Europeans running around calling themselves so-called white people.

And what is a white people? There is no such thing as a white people. So you're just the wandering lost. And that's why the country looks the way it does because people don't know who they are. Black people, you know, you say we have this thing for the culture, because we are searching for an identity, and we can't find our identity because our memory has been erased. Oh, that's really, really fascinating. So let me, so I want to get your thoughts on this statement. This, it's not a statement.

It's really kind of how I have viewed race relations, Hotep. I've always thought, okay, A, the idea of colorblindness is ridiculous. nobody can be truly colorblind so not only to your point do you acknowledge who you are you acknowledge who other people are and we don't pretend that there are no differences we acknowledge each other's differences now the goal should be you know not in just the modern day DEI sense of celebrate our differences but yeah I mean that was kind of the cool thing about the idea of America like we were going to take the best from every culture and incorporated into this melting pot. But we're also going to identify and reject the worst from these cultures. So that

acknowledges a level of cultural color acknowledgement. And then on the individual ethnic level, we just acknowledging reality that we all see each other's differences. But then once we do that, and maybe that ties into your idea of our memories, what we, this is the part that I've always held in highest theme, what we try to do after that acknowledgement is not, leave them behind, not forget, but move beyond into seeing each other as individuals. Because whatever those memories are are superficial differences, I don't know how much of the pie graph they make up of us, but I don't think it's the majority because you're still a dude.

I'm a guy. We are still going to have our commonalities. Maybe it's sports. Maybe it's music. Maybe it's our values. Maybe it's the way we treat our families. And we're going to have our differences. And those are much a bigger part on an individual.

individual level of how we should go about, you know, interacting with each other as Americans. Yeah. So I want to refine what you said. You said after we recognize our differences, we move forward. But there's an intermediate step there. The intermediate step is sharing the culture, right? When we look at the culture in a black community of tap dancing, that has Irish origins. When we look at jump rope in a black community, something called double dutch. That actually comes from the Dutch. So there are European pieces of culture that has been shared with the African body. And at some point, this is proof of cooperation.

The other thing that is proof of cooperation is disintegration. What do you call it? segregation. Segregation is proof of so-called black and white cooperation. Because if black and white people naturally separated, you wouldn't need to legislate segregation. They legislated segregation because we were cooperating. Because I recognized your culture. You recognized mine. And I said, well, here's how we cook our pie. And you said, well, here's how we cook our pie. Here's how we dance. Here's how we dance. And then through these things, we create new culture. that is an amalgamation of both of our cultures, right?

Which borne a new thing, right? And that's what America was supposed to be about. But instead, what we get is government hopping in and creating division. All right, I led into this conversation with Joe Biden and the black vote as a pretext. We ended up saving it for the very end, in because, to be honest, everything was much more interesting to me. But does Black America,

in your estimation, want a mamala? That's on one level, and I have imagined how you're going to spike that volleyball. But is Black America, I want to ask this on two levels. Is Black America abandoning Joe Biden, but that would be something particular, Joe Biden, do you think there's a movement of Black America actually abandoning Democrats? Yes and no, right? Because again, like black America is not homogenous, right? What I like to do is I like to break it up into segments. So what you're talking about is the black voting block, right? And the black voting block skews older and female. Now, are segments of the black voter block leaving the Democratic Party? party, yes. But black people in general have a huge distrust of government to where we don't participate in politics, right? Like, I don't vote because I don't want to participate in a garbage government, right? So I'm one of that, I'm part of that demographic that's

like, yo, Democrats, Republicans, they're pretty much the same to me. They're both communists at the end of the day, right? So we generally don't deal. in politics. So I can't say the black community is walking away from the Democratic Party. What I can say of those who are voting this year and have voted in the past, we are walking away from Joe Biden and voting Democrat. I think what it is is we're held ransom. This is the biggest racial or racist systemic racist problem in America is black people are held ransom, to buy the Democratic Party. Like some people say it's a Democratic plantation.

No, it's a prison. We are locked in because if I don't agree with those politics, guess what? I can't take care of my family because I can't get a job. If I speak out against this, I lose my endorsements. Think about all of the entertainers, whether they're actors or musicians, that are silent because they are afraid. to lose their livelihood. We are held ransom by the Democratic vote. And only those who have achieved ultimate wealth have the ability to have an independent voice. The other thing is they have such a stronghold over black media now. Remember that black media takeover I was telling you about

that they'll have your own people looking at you like you're the enemy. Malcolm X talks about that, how the media make the hero look like the villain and the villain look like the hero. So not only would you be canceled by the corporations, you'll be canceled by your own people because the perception is if you vote for Trump or you don't look at Democrats, then you're some sort of sellout. So currently, we're in like a psychological prison, a physical prison, a financial prison, and we're being held ransom. And I just want to know what the cost is so we can get out of it. what a fascinating conversation man this is the first time we've got to speak i've seen you a few

times um both on various platforms and on fox news but i really appreciate this i hope we can do it again i've loved this conversation great great questions some people ask me terrible questions those are great questions great conversation thank you awesome all right thanks otep there you goes hotep jesus uh again you can uh you can check him out on X, Hotep Jesus. He also hosts the Gryft Report, and he's the author of The Patriot Report. All right, coming up, last week, we had this conversation with David Sachs, skeptic of the war in Ukraine. It received a lot of pushback. One of the people that gave us pushback was Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute. So, coming up in just a moment, we'll be Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute on Ukraine.

This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant. You're building something big, and Square's there for all of it, giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in-person with Square kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to. Visit square.ca to get started.

rebuttal to our conversation with David Sacks over the war in Ukraine. It is the Will Cain show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page, and always on demand by subscribing at Apple, Spotify, or on YouTube. I just got a text. It makes me feel much better. I've done this three times. Three times I have done this that I can think of in my life, maybe four, where I have smelled in the air someone, a woman. It's perfect. perfume. And I have said, hey, do you mind me asking? What is that perfume? And I ask that question because I want to go purchase it for my wife. In this case, Mother's Day is coming up. And so I thought, hey, that might be a nice gift to get my mom. Now, a lot of people told me, dude, you're definitely

walking the HR line. That's kind of creepy. And I'm like, I don't think so. I don't think that's wrong. Well, there is someone at Fox News. that I have, that I recently asked, hey, what's that perfume you're wearing? And she told me the name of the perfume. And I forgot. So I texted them over the weekend. I said, hey, one more time, what was that perfume? And I didn't get a response for two days. And so, Hague, Seth, on Fox Fern's Weekend said, oh, man, you are totally toast. Welcome to the email from HR. And I said, it can't be. We can't be in that spot. And I just got the text, hey, sorry, I didn't have this work phone with me over the weekend.

It's YSL Libre. Awesome. Thank you. I will be on the lookout before. Mother's Day. So I think that I'm in the safe zone. I think that's an okay thing to ask. I'm going to hold firm here. It's okay to ask. Hey, what is that perfume? Last week here on the Wilcane show, we had tech venture capitalist, former CEO of PayPal David Sachs to talk about, and I played devil's advocate with his position on Ukraine. He said this. You know, when you actually start to examine the case for Putin being an aggressor, it really falls apart. Now, in terms of the Russians wanting a sphere of influence in their backyard, I suppose that there's some truth to that. But that doesn't mean Russian domination of these countries in the manner of the

Soviet Union. What was Russia looking for in Ukraine? They were looking for neutrality. They simply wanted Ukraine to remain neutral. So that was what David Sachs said in an hour-long discussion last week on The Will Kane Show. That clip made its way on to X. And it received a ton of pushback from both the left and the right. There are many people that didn't appreciate that particular point, and maybe not even his point of view, and maybe not even him being platformed here on the Will Cain Show. Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute tweeted this in response to that clip. She said, what a tragic disaster that this guy got a platform with otherwise thoughtful people. I said in response to Rebecca, why don't you come on and lay out your point of view

instead of criticizing the fact that he was platformed. So I'm grateful that she accepted. that invitation because joining us now is rebecca heinrichs a senior fellow and director of keystone defense initiative at the hudson institute who joins us now well thank you for being here rebecca thanks for having me appreciate it so so let's start with sort of what i had to say to you on x i think it's it's necessary for me if i'm being real and authentic to sort of clear the air what i did not like about your response rebecca was that i thought that you were sort of adopting the language and the positions of so many on the left that if you encounter something you disagree with, then that whole point of view shouldn't have been platformed. And you used the

word platform. And I really didn't appreciate that you thought it was wrong for me to have that conversation with David Sacks. So that's not what I meant, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. My, what I was expressing was a frustration that David Sacks, who is welcome to have a different view about the wisdom of U.S. policy on this or that foreign policy issue. But that he would say something, make such an egregious claim, that Russia is, in fact, not the aggressor in this situation. But that Sachs has really gained a very prominent. When I say platform, I don't mean that he's allowed to speak. I mean that he has an elevated opportunity to speak into especially I'm a conservative and especially to right wing or conservative viewers and is

pushing in fact things that are false. And so I was lamenting that that this had sort of gotten into the bloodstream of right wing media or of conservative media. But I mean, I disagree with people all the time. I welcome debate and discussion. And so I'm not I'm not at all pushing away this notion that we can't listen to different viewpoints. People can have different viewpoints. But that's another thing when you're actually pushing something that is morally confused or just factually wrong, which is what I was lamenting in the case of David Sachs's view, that Russia was in fact arguably, credibly arguing that Russia was not the aggressor versus Ukraine. Okay. I appreciate that. Just a couple of quick questions, and then I think we should address the

issues that he brought up. And these aren't gotcha. I'm genuinely curious. When you saw that tweet, Did you watch the video clip of what he had to say? Yeah, I mean, I watched that clip. I watched the clip that was pushed on. I did not watch the hour-long interview of Sacks. I have been casually watching Sacks' views on the issue, especially leading up to the supplemental, the big national security supplemental. I've been watching what he's been saying because then I've been busy trying to make sure

that people understood what was real and what was not to educate the conversation a little bit better. But I did not watch the hour-long interview. That was my second question. So I appreciate you clarifying that. The reason I ask you that is I feel like that a lot of people who, and I got a lot of pushback from people that otherwise, I think, agree with me on many issues, took particular exception to that one line, that the case for Putin as an aggressor falls apart, I think without listening to his explanation, or more importantly, probably listening to the entire conversation where I played devil's advocate to some extent, but I'm sure for someone of your particular point of view, I would have failed to adequately play devil's advocate. But I should tell you, I think two things at the outset. One, I do think David Sachs is very thoughtful and smart. That doesn't make him right on everything. But I think that his point of view is one that is worthy of consideration. Second, I think that in the bloodstream of conservatism right now, there is not a monolithic position, certainly in support of the U.S.'s continued funding of the war in Ukraine. And there's a great

amount of skepticism for a variety of reasons which we can discuss about whether or not this is wise. So this is in the bloodstream, and this needs to be discussed. Now, his case in particular, the one that made everybody mad, that Putin isn't the aggressor, he says the case for Putin as the aggressor falls apart, he made the case to me, Rebecca, that the West was the provocateur, in essence, by flirting with NATO for Ukraine, continuing to grow NATO's presence to the east and making Putin insecure about what has been a historical sphere of influence. I told him, look, hey, Putin's got clear motivations. He wants that sphere of influence across Eastern Europe. Now, whether or not that's in response to history or whether that's in response

to current, you know, growth of the West and NATO towards his borders, or whether or not that's an offensive move on his behalf to reestablish some kind of imperial control. control is the debate. But Sachs makes the question that he's not looking to roll tanks like Hitler through Poland. He's just looking to defend his fear of influence from NATO's growth. Right. And I would just say that that is a, that particular perspective would have to ignore, I think, the chain of events that happened from the NATO founding act. And even really before that, I mean, Gorbachev himself said that there was no discussion. about the enlargement of NATO when East and West Germany were unified, that now Gorbachev makes

sort of an argument, he made an argument that it was implied that NATO would not expand militarily, but that was not initially part of the discussion. Now, you fast forward to 1997, the NATO Founding Act. And the United States worked with our NATO allies, worked really hard to come up with security understandings to satisfy Russia's, I would argue, paranoia, paranoia about NATO's threat to Russia. And so anytime the United States and NATO with NATO began discussions with other countries to bring them into the alliance, and they had to ask and they were welcomed in if they met certain requirements, that at the same time in parallel, there was always security consultations with the Russians and that was

certainly true in 1997 with the NATO founding act now you know when I worked on Capitol Hill in the 2005 2006 2007 I mean at the time the big issue with the Russians was you know the Bush administration wanted to put a missile defense system in Europe and the Russians you know through a fit about that it was a defensive system against the Iranians and And again, we dealt with the same thing, Russian paranoia, military systems in Europe. And again, I watched the U.S. government work really hard to have these conversations with the Russians to demonstrate that Europe, you know, that NATO pose no offensive threat to the Russians.

And they would continue to, you know, the Russians would throw up this complaint. And we can go back and forth. And every time this would happen, these are defensive systems posed no threat to Russia. The Obama administration, this is my first. final point for you can kind of get me into your next question it was the obama administration that tried really hard remember russia reset and this was a series of of issues that the obama administration really laid out and tried to appease the russians withdrew the bush administration plan for that missile defense system and did a series of other things remember the the pictures of

medvedev the russian president eating cheeseburgers with baroque obama etc and and things were in a better place sort of uh diplomatically with the russians And so we've gone back and forth with this on this issue with security agreements. And so I find it really amazing that David Sachs would continue to put forward this idea that the Europeans pose some sort of offensive aggressive threat to the Russians when just the historical record over and over again was NATO and the United States in particular. I think bending over backwards to appease the Russians and the Russians responding with more aggression and provocations. Well, you know, I'm going to do with you the same thing I do with David Sachs, which to play devil's advocate to some degree at the risk of being called a Putin puppet or something like that. And by the way, Rick, I think that's another thing that undercuts much of the argument from your side of this issue is the constant ad hominem attacks and censorship. I'm not accusing you of that as a person.

But if you dismiss every person who disagrees, proverbial you, as a Putin apologist or a Putin puppet or in worst cases censor them off the Internet, It really does belie, in my estimation, a weak argument. It creates more skepticism. It makes me look at the issue sideways. No, first of all, I want to say, too, I completely recognize, and this is where I push back hard, hard, hard on those who make that argument, that this is Russia, that every disagreement is Russian disinformation or, I mean, especially on the, with the Democrats, I said, you know, until the Democrats understand that part of the skepticism going on. the right on the issue of russia and ukraine is due to the russia hoax it's due to the weaponization of the intelligence community for political purposes and especially on the point that the democrats argued that it was the russian government that made donald trump's um election legitimate

election to the presidency you know that they said that was essentially how how how how trump got elected and that we're still feeling the effects of of that politicalization of the intelligence community and then you have all these former i see officials who who can continue to feed that and so i i actually completely recognize uh the the skepticism of that claim and so it's not the one that i make i really try to stick with what do we know empirically is true and what have what can i bring forward to show skeptical people that know this is real russia poses a threat to the united states and to nato and russia is in fact the aggressor against ukraine I want to come back to the substantive point in just a moment.

But one more on this note. The marriage in popular American discourse between Russia and Trump, not just Russia hoax, but the left seeing Putin almost as a proxy for Trump is also something that breeds skepticism. It explains to me in some way the enthusiasm of the left for something they've never been enthusiastic before, which is sort of like imperial war machine, war in general, I mean, I'm shocked at the Ukrainian flag has really stood side by side, literally was sort of the in this house banner, you know, the trans flag and in this house, love is love. The left's enthusiasm for Ukraine is something that I think is tied to their hatred of Trump.

But I would ask you, like, explain to me the passion on the right for this particular war. Like, that's another thing. Like, oh, you're a Putin apologist in censorship, but I'm also, something that puts my antennas up is like, why is this such an egg? You just said, this is about, not just Ukraine, this is about America. Like, this is this existential thing for America. And I've been clear that I don't see very strong America first arguments. And admittedly, that's my prism through which I see issues.

Does it serve America first? Not the global hegemony, but America first. I've had trouble with that argument. And so, therefore, I have trouble with the passion. on the right? So here's why I, where I think that I don't think it's existential at this point. These are my primary assumptions. And this is where, you know, this is why whenever I look at somebody like David Sacks

and I try to untangle for my own benefit, why he's saying what he's saying. And so you try to figure out what are his fundamental assumptions that he believe are true. And then what is his logic that brings him to certain conclusions. So these are my assumptions. You know, Russia has been, if you've been, if you've, watched that interview with with Putin and with Tucker, which I actually found very helpful, because Putin himself made his case. And he began with Russia's grievances against the West back in all the way the 9th century. So there is something in Putin's mind where he makes

claims to peoples, to Russian peoples and geography that he believes are his, that the United States and other democratic sovereign nations that have existed, you know, borders change, over time, but after World War II and then after the Cold War that are internationally recognized sovereign nations, he makes claims to them erroneously. And his big claim, he really, he really, he hates the United States and the West. I use that word very deliberately. There is a loathing there. And you could see it even in the interview with Tucker. And I actually, you know, found myself just, you know, sympathizing with Tucker as the American hoping he got out of there safely out of that interview. Because there is a loathing.

against the West in the United States for many reasons. I think they go back that, you know, Americans have a hard time appreciating cultures and histories and just a long memory that that countries have. But, but Putin has it. And so, so my assumption here is what I believe to be true is that Russia is seeking to weaken the United States, not just, you know, in Ukraine. It's not just about Ukraine. I mean, I completely reject the idea that it would stop, that Russia would stop if it could just take a piece of Ukraine and be done. The arguments that Putin makes are about peoples and territory that belong to sovereign democratic nations that are pro-America, the Baltic countries, Estonia, Lithuania,

Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, obviously, are just to name a few. And so I believe that it's good for the United States of America if our allies and a major economic area, Europe, European continent, where we do conduct lots of trade, is safe, where Americans travel freely with it and not I mean right now I mean you've got like since the Biden administration has been in power I mean you've got U.S. embassies withdrawing you have Americans being held captive in Gaza and elsewhere I mean it's not a safe place abroad for Americans to be relative to where we even were four or five years ago and so and and my my belief is that part of U.S. strategy to keep Americans safe here at home is that when our

allies are being attacked by shared adversaries that the best way to keep that conflict away from us is to support our allies and try to help them win that conflict as quickly as possible at the lowest levels of violence so that we don't have horizontal or vertical escalation meaning a nuclear weapon or some other come you know wmd use and so you you want you want to keep that violence far from us and you want to keep our allies and our major trading partners in areas safe and stable. And so you can't let adversaries take a little or more or more because they'll continue to escalate, which is what we've seen with the Biden administration. So I think that the energy comes from... So I asked... Go ahead.

Well, I was going to say, so I think that the energy comes from those of us, I mean, I can just speak for myself. You know, I believe that Russia is a major adversary, a major chronic chronic acute adversary of the United States and they would seek to harm us in any way they could get away with. And they pick at where those areas where allies and partners they can get away with and he'll continue to push until he's stopped. And I see him increasingly collaborating with the Chinese. And so, you know, from my perspective, Americans are safer and more prosperous, the sooner and more effectively we can get these imperial adversaries back in their box. Okay. So I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, like you've tried to psychoanalyze David Sacks, I asked him to psychoanalyze you, not you in particular, but I asked him the same thing I asked you. How do you explain the passion for the hawk? His answer to me was that he believes, he gave a couple of different reasons, but his primary reason was that he believes that the, again, not you, but the point of view that I think that you do.

represent, sees that the American border does not, you know, end at the Rio Grande or the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, that it does see the American border is somewhat imperial. Now, this is where we get into, and we're going to do it in a minute with Putin, but we get into sort of an impossible motivational thing to parse. You describe it as like trade and friendliness, allies and friendship. And, you know, I think what he would describe it as is more forced imperialism. I said to him, one of the most compelling America first arguments made to me over the importance of Ukraine was, well, we should have control over those minerals, those precious earth, rare resources, and not China and Russia. And he said, why can't we accomplish that through

trade? You know, why does that have to be done through war? And, you know, I think his primary point, though, is it's a view of America, not as a nation state, but as a global empire. He's trying to ascertain your motivations. But America as a global empire, maybe utopic and vision, maybe we're the best person to establish this empire over other alternatives. But he thinks that that's probably what is the driving passion motivation of people on the left or the right to see this as very important to America, because they see America as a border that extends all the way to the borders of Ukraine. And when you do that, the criticism would be you forget the issues that are important right here, like our own southern border, or our own

problems at home as we pour $61 billion or whatever it is now, $95 billion, yet in the latest fund over to Ukraine, that you can't do both. You can't, like the Roman Empire. You can't extend the thing all the way through Europe and not take care of what's happening in Rome. So I want to push back pretty hard on a couple big points. So I'm a conservative internationalist. So I'm very sympathetic to a lot of national conservative arguments that the United States must make a correction away from multilateralism for the sake of itself. back to defending American sovereignty. I've been making that argument very aggressively. I thought that the Trump administration did a great job in many ways at reshoring and reasserting American

sovereignty. And so I would disagree. I might disagree with fundamental assumptions with my friends on the left, and I don't want to just sort of monolithically sort of paint them a particular view, but most of them, I would say, are liberal internationalists, very, very different than what I'm arguing for. I believe that the nation state is the fundamental actor in global affairs. the UN. It's not, it's not, you know, it's not some other multilateral organization. Not NATO. Not exactly. It's not, NATO is a security alliance. And so made up of sovereign nations that are welcome to join independently. And by the way, you know, I would say in 2001, Putin was

asked himself if he would mind if the United States and NATO brought in other, other members of NATO. And Putin said at the time in 2001 that countries were going to have to make security decisions for themselves. So, you know, there's some there's some counterfactuals to the argument that that Putin always perceived NATO as a threat. But I am a huge advocate of the United States getting control of its own border. It must. It must. And so I don't perceive American allies as part of an American empire. They're independent nation states. But they're allies. They benefit the United States. The United States, I mean, they don't belong to us. They act independently, but that the United States is safer when we have independent allies who want a

world in which the United States is the strongest power and not a China or a Russia, which do have completely different ideas about how we should conduct trade globally. So this is an important point. I do believe that diplomacy and trade and commerce should always be the norm. That should be sort of the normal tools that we reach for to engage with other countries. But all of them are backed by and empowered by hard power, American military strength, which is only possible by American economic strength. There's a little bit of chicken or the egg thing there. But I don't believe in this naive view that we're going to have kind of successful trade in

argument you know disagreements or agreements with the chinese if the chinese are able to simply just push us out of the region which china is doing it right now i mean they're using water canes against philippine fishermen all the time in international waters so you know i want the united states of america to be able to move in the world on terms most beneficial to the american people and we do that when we're the strongest military and economic power so this is going longer than I anticipate it going, but it's going longer because I want it to go longer. I have a few more areas than I'm enjoying this conversation. So can we, so I think Sacks falls short with some level of naitivity to think that you can accomplish everything simply through free trade if

others on the world stage are disrupting free trade. You know, China's not a free trade player. And if Russia is disrupting your ability to make trade agreements inside of Ukraine, various ways, right, corruption or election interference, then it makes it impossible for you to play on the field of simple diplomacy and free trade if the other side of the equation is being nefarious. But I also think that you have to acknowledge, I don't think it's naive. I think you have to acknowledge some reality that we're not simply also conducting business as though we are just buddies and friends with all these countries as well.

And this is going to lead us back to Putin in just a moment. We have done things, and you could call them defensive or offensive, and welcome to the world, I guess, now of tribal warfare. But, like, have we not interfered in Ukrainian free election? You talked about NATO being a self-reliant. Everyone can vote on their own and choose their own path. But it isn't like we played a hands-off role in these countries in influencing the outcomes of their self-determination.

I mean, we'd have to take each case-by-case basis. I tend to be a little bit skeptical of the notion that it's always some sort of, you know, three-letter agency that's orchestrating, you know, elections in other countries. But I do want to agree with one, I think, the thrust of the point. But don't use always, real quick. Don't use always as an escape hatch. You know, I can't defend always. But I feel pretty safe historically to say, oh, yeah, that's definitely happened.

Okay. I mean, that might be true. But I guess what I'm saying, though, is, I mean, if you, but I think it matters. I think sort of broad, you know, we have to be careful, though. I get very sensitive to this idea that the United States has any kind of equivalence historically at all with meddling in elections to the degree of what we see on the level of authoritarian countries. But I will agree with this point that I think it has merit, this particular issue I think has merit, which is that I do think that the United States must take a lighter touch inside Democratic nations in terms of even what we do in the open. totally above board in trying to create incentives and disincentives for things on social policy, marriage, abortion, things that irritate the American people, that the Democratic Party,

and in fact the State Department, has conflated with what is, quote, unquote, American interests. It aggravates conservative countries. And it's completely unhelpful when we're in this contest with the Chinese and the Russians to have countries who would prefer the United States be the strongest power over them. So I want to agree on that point. I mean, what I've already for is geopolitical pluralism in the free world. But the last thing, well, I think this is really important. David's, I mean, you're sort of, you know, making his point for him in his absence. So if this is not exactly what he thinks, I apologize in advance. But this idea that we can have trade without hard power sufficiently bolstering it. I mean, that is the argument that the liberals have been

making for decades that I've been contending with. That, and it's really the big problem that the U.S. has had since we welcome China into the WTO. This was Clinton. idea, that we could just replace realities about human beings and countries with just trade. But it's the American Navy Army, Air Force, Marine Corps that enables the United States to even have safe passage and trade and commerce to begin with. And so I think there's a fundamental disagreement about what creates a secure and stable environment, even for the most fundamental thing like trade. So I, and I'm not doing a semantic thing with you.

You know, to be clear, I didn't make the argument that America was equivalent to what China or Russia might be doing on the world stage. But I'm making the argument that America is not pure as the driven snow. And the point of that is not some type of self-hatred. The point of that is to take us back full circle to this conversation where we began. And that is that you made the argument that Putin is paranoid. Now, paranoia implies an irrational belief or an irrational fear. And I think what we've been setting up is it's not about right or wrong. It's about what is.

And I think you kind of helped lay out the case that I would make to you when you talked about Putin's interview with Tucker. And I don't think it's just Putin. I think, like you said, it's the Russian people. I think it's people at large have deep cultural memories. And, you know, while you can talk to him about the security arrangements that were attempted to be arranged between and, you know, Medvedev and Obama, whoever it may be throughout time, the broader arc of history shows that Russia's paranoia is kind of well-founded. And I'm not, this isn't, America's the bad guy. That's not the argument. It's like Napoleon marched to Moscow, marched into

Russia. Hitler marched right through, you know, Eastern Europe into Russia. Fifty, what are we looking at. 50, 60, 70 years of a Cold War, there's a reason that he, and I think you're right, I think he does loathe the West. I think he does loathe America. And I think 50, 60, 70 years of the Cold War, which he grew up in as an agent in the FSB and KGB, show his mindset. But I don't think that suggests it's paranoia. I think it shows somewhat he is a creature of history and his life. And if he sees then, therefore, if we acknowledge that reality is my point, then if he sees, NATO growing west or east, if he sees NATO growing east, if he sees America fiddling in Ukrainian elections, if he sees these different things, he is going to want to protect that

sphere of influence. He is going to want to meddle in Latvia. And then we can have arguing about offense versus defense and all that. That's fine. But it is an understanding of who he is and whether or not we need to really be concerned he's going to roll tanks through Poland. So let me just a couple of pushbacks. One though, though, but you can look at reality. You can actually look at the military power in these NATO countries versus the very credible strong military that the Russians have, not even include, I mean, we haven't even talked about their nuclear weapons. They have more nuclear weapons than anybody else in the world, and they use them for nuclear saber-rattling. They're at the range of, they're at the range of sovereign,

democratic, pro-American countries, and they threaten with them all the time. And so if you just look at the reality, though, the empirical facts, I mean, we did not place military, permanent military presence of NATO presence in Poland. And we didn't even start putting anything that could resemble anything that look like serious defensive NATO troops in Poland until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. And so if you just look at the reality, I mean, my argument is the reason that Putin finally chose February 2022 to invade Ukraine is not because NATO was so strong and threatening, but because it was weak and it was a temptation that he could do it. He thought that

he had an American presidency that would not impose a cost sufficient that would make him decide it wasn't worth it. And that's why he did it. And it was because, so there was a temptation there that it was just too strong for him to turn away from. But so it is, it is smart. It is smart for us to try to understand our adversary as he understands himself. That's to kind of inoculate ourselves from this American mere imaging that we can fall into, thinking that everybody thinks the way we do. But that's not the same as granting legitimacy to the claims. And that's where I fundamentally reject what Sachs was saying. Russia is quite obviously the aggressor.

Do you think, just real quick on that point, to bolster that, Sachs says he thinks Putin would have been content with neutrality from Ukraine. So your argument is no, he would not have been. He would have seen the weakness from NATO and wanted to take it based upon his historical understanding of either the Soviet Union or the sphere of influence of Russia. Absolutely. We saw that in the Minsk agreements, Putin, I mean, Russia never even withdrew their heavy equipment, which was a fundamental requirement of the Minsk agreements. And so, I mean, Russia repeatedly and constantly does not abide by agreements and treaties

of which it claims to sign up for. And so we've seen it again and again. I mean, this is not some global conspiracy that Russia still has imperialism. claims. It's why the intelligence communities of the Baltic countries and of Poland and of the Brits come to the same conclusion that the U.S. government has, which is that Russia is not going to stop unless it's made to stop, which is where, you know, my argument is we should bolster Ukraine's ability to push Russia out and not keep this war along protracted war, but should fundamentally shift our strategy to enable Ukraine to push them out. And then, frankly, I'd pull the United States out of the NATO Founding Act. Russia has constantly

violated its agreements. And so I think at this point, the United States and NATO have a strong argument that now it's time to bolster. Now do the very thing that Putin has claimed that we were going to do, you know, and which we didn't do for years and years and years, which is now we're going to be strong because weakness clearly provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine in this full scale invasion in 2022. And, you know, my argument is we have no reason to believe Putin would stop, even if he, you know, conquers or subjugates Keev, which is still Russia's objective at this point. Okay, so last two things. I think this first one's not a question. It's more like, let me see if I understand. So, okay, if I grant you all your premises, if I grant you, you know,

Putin's motivations, if I grant you a crystal ball of what will happen in the future, an American should care whether or not he reestablishes subjugation of the Baltics. He already has Belarus, of Ukraine. America should care about Russia's relationship to Eastern Europe. You're telling me because America, A, is friends with these countries, and B, we need to protect our trade interest in the free travel of Americans throughout the world that would be inhibited if he reestablishes those, you know, Russia slash Soviet. empire areas of Eastern Europe?

I mean, I would go, I mean, I could give you more reasons why it's important that the United States abide by our security commitments. We have a security commitment. I mean, Estonia is a great pro-American country that's done everything that the United States would want it to do to be a, you know, rule of law, free governing nation that does not want to be subjugated by the Russians. And so I think that the U.S. word and commitment matters. And I think it will have ramifications globally. I mean, I think that this does have a cascading effect. If the United States global commitments don't mean anything, I think it'll be a disaster for Americans here at home. So, yeah, I mean, in general, I think that that's a fair articulation.

I think that's a very fair point to add to what I had to say. So finally, last question, how does this end? I mean, the accusation is it's a forever war that will continue to drain America or rack up more debt. And for, America, while we've already addressed whether or not we ignore our problems at home, something you do not advocate for, obviously. But certainly it's going to cost us a lot of money at a minimum. At a minimum, it's going to cost us a lot of money. So how does this end? Well, I mean, first of all, I would say that one of the silver linings of this terrible tragedy is it has forced the Department of Defense and the Congress to actually start rebuilding our defense

industrial base, which is completely atrophied since the end of the Cold War. We were focused on the global war on terror. We were not focused on having the ability to produce lots of weapons in case we had a war with a China or a Russia. So we are, that's an improvement. The interesting thing about that is your critics would say, that's the point of the whole war. It's a payoff to the military industrial complex. And it's kind of interesting that your response is, well, that's actually a good thing. No, my argument is I think that Americans working is good. And I think America's being safe and secure is good. I don't, I mean, I don't think that the argument is that it's the military industrial complex that's driving this.

I mean, it's been atrophied since the end of the Cold War, and it's been weak. And so even among my, my, you know, populist friends who don't think we should support Ukraine, they've argued, like Senator Vance has argued, we should rebuild our defense industrial base. I think that's a fair, true, good thing. And I fully agree with. But my point, though, is that this war has actually forced us to begin to move in that direction faster than we otherwise would because we've been naive and had, you know, wrong assumptions about sort of the end of history, which I think never happened, of course.

We've got countries that contest the United States. States and don't want us to be the strongest power, China being number one. And so I think, I mean, I'm not, I have no reason to believe that this current administration has the sort of constitution, sort of like lower case C, to be able to do what is necessary to enable Ukraine to exact cost on Russia to get Russia to get out of Ukraine. I think it's going to be the next administration. You know, President Trump himself has said that if Russia doesn't take a deal that he would try to strike with Ukraine that more weapons that Ukraine has that we would send more weapons to Ukraine than we've ever sent thus far. And so, you know, I'm encouraged that that that door is

open in a potential next Trump administration. So, you know, Ukraine is going to be, it has to be allowed to hit Russian oil and gas. It has to be able to do things so that it can convince the Russians they're not going to succeed. And I think that's how this ends. And then I think in order to make sure that Russia doesn't try this again in a couple of years, you're going to have to make those Baltic countries stronger, make Poland stronger, and you're going to have to move what used to be the front of NATO, you know, thinking of Germany. It's now these eastern and central European countries. And so NATO has to adapt. And that's how I see that we get to the end of this. And then you're going to have strong, stable European countries that can help us with the China

problem. But they're not going to be able to help us with the China problem if there's just constant instability in warfare in the European continent. All right, listen, very, very thoughtful. It's going to give me a lot to think about, truly. So I'm glad to be not just exposed, but interact with your point of view on this. I am somewhat of a skeptic on the motivations and the interest for America in this war. But, I mean, I'm very appreciative of the ability to have this interaction. And I think for anybody watching and listening, I think it's going to be valuable for them as well, whether or not they agree or disagrees.

So I appreciate you being willing to do this and hanging out for so long and talking with me. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. You know, one last thing, none of our problems here at home are going to be made any better if the world continues to fall apart. And it really began with the U.S.'s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. So, you know, we got to close our border. But, man, I mean, the biggest demographic of people coming across the border right now illegally are Chinese nationals. And so a lot of these problems that the United States is having with our adversaries,

broad. I mean, they are bleeding into really close to home problems here at home, so we've got to do both. All right, Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute, senior fellow and director of the Keystone Defense Initiative. Thank you so much for doing the Will Kane Show. Thanks for having me on. Okay, take care. There we go. That was a long episode today. I didn't expect it to go that long, but I'll admit a personal level of indulgence there on both of those conversations with Hotep Jesus and Rebecca Heinrichs. I don't know. Give me a lot to think about something to consider. I hope for you as well.

Leave a comment underneath. In fact, let's review some of your comments tomorrow about both of these conversations on YouTube, on X, on Instagram. Follow the Will Kane Show. I'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app.

It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.