Tucker Carlson, Transcript of 🐂💩

Video: Why Is Nick Fuentes So Popular? Nikki Haley's Son Explains. Nov 19, 2025. The Tucker Carlson Show.

How Anti-Racism Promotes Tribal Narcissism (which is today intersectionally expressed in terms of its' victimology to white racism). Minus FJ aka Joe Conservative 🐂💩 11/19/2025.

Tucker Carlson Video Transcript - Organized.

Introduction: Why Interview Nick Fuentes.

Well, it looks like all the screaming about Nick Fuentes on the internet is finally dying down a little bit. It couldn't go on forever, though it seemed like it might. And that's a good thing because, after all, there's a lot else going on in the world, some of it important, and watching people day after day stand up to basically make the same point, "I'm a good person, unlike him", not that interesting or edifying or even really informative.

I mean, we definitely learned that there are quite a few professional conservatives who are not that conservative in any sense that really matters. Some of them are fraudulent or sad or kind of stuck in nonprofit jobs because they can't get another, and your sympathy goes out to them, but listening to them talk day after day really didn't teach us anything.

But it doesn't mean that there aren't lessons to be learned. In fact, there's one really important lesson, and this was really the reason to interview Nick Fuentes in the first place, and the lesson is that a lot of young men in America, mostly white but not exclusively, listen to Nick Fuentes really carefully.

And the lesson that our professional betters in Washington have drawn over the past few weeks is that means they're as bad as Nick Fuentes. They're Nazis too! But of course, they're not Nazis, by and large. They're just American young people.

So the question is, and it's a pressing question if you care about the future of the country, why have they been listening to Nick Fuentes? Sincerely, like what is this? Why aren't they listening to somebody from the Heritage Foundation or The Daily Wire? Why do they believe Nick Fuentes more than they believe the people who think they ought to have a monopoly on the attention of young conservatives? That is a really important question.

And what does it say, not simply about their attitudes, but about the problems they face, the society they grew up in, the future they imagine for themselves, what does it say about all of that that Fuentes is so popular among young men?

After all, young men really are kind of the basis of our hope for continuing as a country. So if they're off in some direction that you don't understand, it's probably incumbent on you to try to understand it, to the extent you can. You know, it's hard to understand other people's motives, and it's even harder when they're in a different generation, but making a good-faith effort to figure out what is this, well, that's on us, us being, you know, everyone with a job who's not in that generation, all the beneficiaries of a stronger, more cohesive America, the America we grew up in, which doesn't exist anymore.

It's our responsibility to look at newer generations and say, "What's going on with them? Can we help in any way?" If we care about our country, if we care about our own families, our children and grandchildren, we probably want to do that, and it's probably not enough to call them names.

The Counterproductive Nature of Name-Calling.

It doesn't work, for one thing. It just makes whatever we claim to dislike even stronger. If there's one lesson of the Trump 2015 announcement and everything that's happened since then, the last 10 years, it's that. And the lesson, obviously, is that when every power center in the country declares war on you, you become a power center. Doesn't destroy you. It makes you stronger.

Certainly true for Donald Trump. Would he have become president in 2016, in 2024 if all the cool kids hadn't denounced him as a Nazi? Probably not. Would he have been reelected if the FBI hadn't raided Mar-a-Lago and gone through his wife's underwear drawer? We can debate it, but maybe not. Maybe this would be the Ron DeSantis presidency, probably.

So attacking people, particularly when you attack them ad hominem, when you don't try to deconstruct or rebut the arguments they're making, but just calling them names, Nazi! That's counterproductive every single time. You expose yourself as hysterical and shallow, and you elevate them in the minds of everybody else. They're important enough to be yelled at by every trustee at the Heritage Foundation or whatever, they must be important.

So again, it doesn't work, but it's also, on a deeper level, kind of immoral. It's immoral to dismiss the concerns of your countrymen as beneath consideration. I don't have to listen to you because you like some guy who's got ugly views.

And by the way, it's not a defense of all of Fuentes' views. We interviewed him on this show and said it is totally immoral to hate Jews as a group 'cause it's totally immoral to hate any group, period. That's always wrong.

But it doesn't mean that everything Fuentes says is wrong. It's not wrong. And more to the point, what he says on the air and his huge popularity, which has only increased the more these people scream at him, says a lot about the people who are listening and their legitimate concerns, and the factors in our society, in America and the West that gave rise to their attitudes, like how did this happen?

Let's, for once, in the last 20 years, look back and ask ourselves an honest question: How did this happen? Let's do what we didn't do when we withdrew from Afghanistan or declared a truce in Iraq or carted away the rubble from 9/11. We never asked, "How did this happen?" And no one was ever held responsible for allowing it to happen or the bad decisions that made it happen, not one person.

And so of course, inevitably, disasters followed disasters because if you never take the time to take responsibility for what you've done or even understand it, you're apt to repeat it. It's the most obvious observation in the world. It's the basis of good parenting. It's why you make your kids apologize, of course.

Factor 1: Anti-White Discrimination and Rhetoric.

So let's, in the case of Nick Fuentes, focus not on Nick Fuentes, but on the people who watch Nick Fuentes. What kind of world have they grown up in? These young white men! Well, they've grown up in, over the last 10 years, a world that hates them, and not in a subtle way. Openly, with a Hutu-like directness and ferocity.

They've grown up in a country that has systematically, in law, excluded them from the workplace, from education, from federal grants, and has told them again and again and again, "No, we're not discriminating against you, and yes, you deserve it". Imagine growing up like that.

And again, this isn't behind the scenes. This is way out in the open. And not only has it done exactly that to young white men, of course, white men being the one group who are officially excluded under DEI. There's only one. It's white men, white straight men. They start whining.

And by the way, this happens to be the one group in America who, by and large, have been taught for cultural reasons, "Don't whine. Don't talk about yourself so much. No one wants to hear your story. And whatever you do, don't be the victim". All of that's good advice, by the way.

But this group has not only been excluded with the force of law by the Justice Department in every state and at every college and university, with maybe 3 exceptions. They've been mocked and attacked and lectured and harangued and screamed at. Every bookstore in America had books on display, "Whiteness is the problem".

Well, what if you're white? You know, what if you're like 19 and you're thinking about, "How do I make my way in this increasingly competitive, maybe even ruthless country? And everywhere I go, people are telling me I'm bad because of the way I was born". What effect would that have on you?

And then you flip on the tube or the internet and all these people with big jobs, making big salaries, who have the implied moral authority of their positions are telling you you're bad because of your skin color.

Video Clips of Anti-White Rhetoric.

[The transcript includes video clips here with these statements]

Joe Biden: We have systemic racism in the United States of America. It exists today. And it's a white man's problem. White men are responsible for it, not Black men.

Michael Eric Dyson: And we have stood by to see mediocre, mealy-mouthed, uh, snowflake white men who are incapable of taking critique, who are willing to dole out infamous repudiations of the humanity of the other, and yet they call us snowflakes, and they are the biggest flakes of snow to hit the Earth.

TIm Wise: American history is one in which white Americans, uh, by and large, have been taught to have indifference or even contempt for Black life. We have defined the country as a white nation where people of color are here on a guest pass.

Donny Deutsch: One in 3 Americans are racists. One in 3 Americans are terrified- Mm-hmm. that this country, by the year 2040, is not going to be majority white.

Jasmine Crockett: There has been no oppression for the white man in this country. A- And don't let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us, people of color on this side of the aisle, that, that y'all are the ones being oppressed.

Don Lemon: Wake up, white men. What the fvck is wrong with you? And you're just eating it up. "Oh, that, my God, sh- Look at what they're doing. All of a sudden, my heritage is going to be over, that I won't Uh, I want to live in a country where, where white kids go to white schools and, and white people marry each other. What is wrong with that? I want to grow up in the country that my great-grandfather grew up in." That country doesn't exist anymore, asshole.

Tucker's Response to the Clips. My response.

So you can see why there probably are some Nick Fuentes viewers who are a little confused when they hear themselves attacked as racist. Racism is wrong. Of course, it is wrong. But they've grown up in a world where one of the leading CNN anchors is looking right into the camera and saying, "What the fuck is wrong with you white people? You want to be near other white people? You want to have a heritage? You want to have white children? How dare you!"

The CNN anchor's married to a white guy. Whatever. But it's a little hard to tell people that racism is wrong when you're committing it.

And again, it's not just a few people. Our entire ruling class was lecturing us about how whiteness is a disease, it's a plague, it's inherently sinful, it's the source of all evil. The President of the United States stood up and said, "Racism is the problem and it's only committed by whites. It's a white man problem".

Is racism only committed by whites? No, and everyone knows that. Hating other people is a human problem, one that every person struggles with. Hopefully struggles against, 'cause it's wrong. It's always wrong. Anti-Semitism is wrong. It's every bit as wrong as what you just saw. It's every bit as anti-black racism or anti-Malaysian racism. It doesn't matter.

Hating people for how they were born is wrong. It's called a universal principle. This country was founded on universal principles. They apply to everyone, equally. That's the promise of America. That is Western civilization.

If you could sum it up in a sentence, what is Western civilization? Well, it's a civilization governed by universal principles. Everyone can be saved, no one is damned by his nature. And hating any group, because that's true, hating any group is by definition immoral.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It happens all the time, of course, 'cause it's the default setting in the human heart. But we need to struggle against it. Maybe not ban it. Hard to ban attitudes, and once you go down that road you become totalitarian immediately. But say it's wrong.

And if it's not wrong in every case, then it can't really be wrong, can it? If it's not a universal principle, then it's not a principle. And so how can my racism be worse than your racism? Well, of course it can't.

So the people lecturing Fuentes' viewers for something that is wrong, hating all Jews is wrong, totally wrong, don't have the moral authority to make the case because they've been engaging in this, in public and in private, for the entire lifetime of Nick Fuentes viewers. So, it's hard to take them seriously.

The Danger of Tribal Warfare.

And by the way, you can tell exactly where this is going. It's going toward violence. Tribal warfare. That's the last thing you want. That's why this is a great country. That's why it's exceptional, 'cause we haven't had that.

And why haven't we had that? Because we have self-consciously and out loud said, "These are universal principles that apply to every human being, because every human being was created by God in God's image". That's it right there. That's a Christian understanding of the human soul.

[Ad break for Audien hearing aids]

Lack of Consistent Opposition to Discrimination.

So Bill Ackman is all upset about Nick Fuentes and anti-Semitism. Good. I agree. But where was Bill Ackman when Harvard was systematically, as it is today, discriminated against people on the basis of their race? Straight white men, Harvard discriminates against them. There's no guessing about that. There was a lawsuit about it. We have the numbers. No one said a word.

Where was Paul Singer? These are now big Republican Conservative donors. Were they upset? Did they say anything? Did they do anything meaningful? These are billionaires. If anybody could have weighed in effectively against systemic racism, real systemic racism causing harm, promoting one group over another on the basis of race, it would've been guys like this. They said not a word. Or they certainly didn't do anything about it, that's for sure.

Now they're all upset! Well, that looks like self-interest to people watching. These, for the 5th time, are universal principles. The continuation of the United States depends upon those principles. They must be vigorously defended, above all by the most powerful people in our society, the people who not simply have a voice but have power to enforce those principles.

The meritocracy is not just some goal that we should strive toward. It's the whole point! You have to judge people on their behavior, not on their blood. Otherwise, you move very quickly into collective punishment.

This is why what Israel is doing in Gaza is immoral, not simply because it's a bloody war where civilians are being killed. That's very common and very sad. But what makes this different and worthy of comment is that Israeli politicians are saying out loud, and Mark Levin is joining them in saying out loud, and a number of other Americans are saying out loud, "It doesn't matter if they die because they're stained from birth by this sin".

It's the opposite of universalism. It's tribalism. And it's certainly not unique to the Middle East at all, and anyone who thinks it is is an idiot. It's the human condition. It's the state of man. It's like the deepest, most obvious sin that we exhibit. But it's the whole problem, and you see it in this country too.

"Oh, that's outrageous!" Really, Donny Deutsch? Is it outrageous? Did you say anything about the racism all around you in the elite institutions that you're so proud of being a part of? It was the basis of those institutions. "We're gonna help some people and hurt other people based on what their parents look like".

So, why don't you sit this one out, actually? Why don't you be quiet for a moment and think about what the core problem is? That's the core problem right there. It's not a defense of racism or anti-Semitism. It's all the same. It's the only reason to oppose it.

If it applies to you, it applies to me. You should defend that principle as vigorously as I do, and let's hope - There's no evidence that's happening, by the way. Everyone's just retreating into their own little group being like, "No, I don't want my people to get hurt!" No, no, no. You don't want any person in our country ever to face that, ever.

That's why segregation was wrong. That's why the Nazis were bad. I mean, really? We have to have this conversation? Apparently, we do. It's not an attack on everyone to point that out. It is not an attack on anyone to point that out. It is instead a defense of everyone. It's not an attack on anyone. It's a defense of everyone. It's the only defense of everyone, and it's the only way forward.

So, that's the environment that these kids grew up in. "Racism is wrong! Anti-Semitism is wrong!" How would they even know that? How would they know that? Because you've been committing it. Probably had no idea.

Factor 2: Attacks on Masculinity.

The second thing to remember about this audience, and I'll just say, I'm 56, so, like, how well do I understand Nick Fuentes' audience? I don't know, probably not that well. But I've made some effort to try to understand it, again, 'cause it's just objectively important.

The second thing to remember is that they have been attacked, again, not making them victims, not making excuses, just trying to explain how we got here, for the last 10 years because they are male, because they are men or boys.

And not just subtly with the overwhelming emphasis on female achievement in school, and, "What about the girls? How are girls doing?" Well, actually, girls are doing great. It's the boys who are withering and dying, turning inside, internalizing the hate against them and, as is so often the case, exhibiting it as self-hate.

Not just ignored but attacked out loud for being male by some of the most powerful people in our society. Again, in case you've forgotten, here it is.

Video Clips About "Toxic Masculinity".

[Video clips with statements like:]

"The level of misogyny online, everything from literal threats against women in the public arena to the demeaning of women, to men with very large platforms who espouse a kind of toxic masculinity connected with violence, brutality even, sometimes rape, is so shocking but it's a reality".

"There's too much toxicity, masculine toxicity out there and we've kind of confused what it means to be a man, what it means to be masculine".

"When they talk about Republicans and their success online, they have been successful because they have also been very clear, especially digitally, about what they believe, that women are inferior, that they do not deserve equal rights, that they believe that LGBTQ Americans are subhuman, and they are able to radicalize and target and exploit a generation of young boys in particular away from healthy masculinity and into an insecure masculinity that requires the domination of others who are poorer, browner, darker or a different gender than them".

Tucker's Response.

And now for today's lecture on masculinity from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Doug Emhoff. I mean, you're tempted to dismiss this as, once again, the unhappiest people in our society spreading their own personal pain to the entire population. And of course, on one level that's exactly what it is.

People with dysfunctional, incomplete, sad personal lives probably shouldn't be telling anyone else how to live, in the same way you probably wouldn't take real estate advice from a homeless guy or investment counsel from Bernie Madoff. Only listen to people who have demonstrated success in whatever area they're lecturing you about. I mean, this is just like the most basic life lesson.

[Ad break for Poncho Outdoors]

The Broken Relationship Between Men and Women.

But there's more going on here. So one of the saddest things that you learn when you talk to people under, say, 35, unmarried people, and most are. The average marriage age I think in this country is around 30. It was in their early 20s not that long ago. People aren't getting married, and maybe you think that's a great thing. Certainly if you're a Democratic politician you think that's great because that just means more voters for you.

But if you're like a normal person who cares about human happiness and thriving and children and continuing your country and civilization, that's a bad thing. So the question is, how did it happen?

And if you talk to young people, it's not exactly clear what the answer is, but you notice immediately that the relationship between men and women, boys and girls is broken on a level it's hard to see how you can fix. I mean, contemptuous of each other, suspicious of each other, at some point dismissive of each other. That's really what you pick up. There's hostility. Men feel hostile to women. Women feel hostile to men.

Could there be anything sadder than that since men and women are designed for each other? It's hard to become fully complete without the other. That's not even a theological point. It's a biological point. It's true for all species. Male and female, that distinction is encoded in all of nature in plants and animals. It's in the universe, you might say. It's just a fact.

And you can ignore it and pretend that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. You can come up with any slogan you want. You can externalize your childhood trauma in any way you want and write all the books you want about how dad is bad, but you can't get around nature because you didn't create it. You don't make the rules.

You either live by them and thrive or you ignore them and are destroyed. That's the choice that we face, period. I mean, you could say, "It's snowing outside. I'm gonna wear my underwear because I should be able to". Well, you're gonna freeze to death 'cause it's not up to you.

And the same is true for the relationship between men and women. You can say, "I hate them. I don't want them", but you're not gonna thrive, period. You will be miserable. And you just saw 3 miserable people right on the screen.

Our society has systematically, knowingly or not, it's hard to know exactly how much was intentional, poisoned the relationship between young men and young women, and they've done it in a bunch of different ways. We could go on for hours on this topic. But the results tell the story. They're not getting married because they don't like each other, they don't know how to communicate with each other, and above all, they think they don't need each other, and that's a lie. It's a lie.

So, anyone who is promoting that view is at fault, and when you're powerful and have a platform, a megaphone where other people are watching you and taking cues from you, when you have the power to convince other people of something and to live a certain way, boy, you're guilty. That's your fault.

So, when I hear people say, "Well, you know, the thing about Nick Fuentes is he's a misogynist. He doesn't like women". Well, maybe there's some truth in that. And that's bad, but it's not so much immoral as it is depressing.

That's the other thing. This is a group of people whose imagination, whose moral imagination is so limited, and they're so narcissistic in the way they see the world. It's all about them. Every person's sin is an opportunity for them to gloat about how good they are, that it never occurs to them that this is a tragedy.

If you hear a young man say, "I prefer porn to girls", or "They're all sluts and they want money, and they're all basically prostitutes", which is kind of the argument that you hear, you should be very upset by that, very sad about that, and mindful of what that's going to mean in 20 years on every level.

On the most obvious level, like who's gonna make the babies? But on a deeper, more human level, like how much misery is that? A lot.

So, if you're adding to that, if you're attacking young men, once again, for how they were born, you are the problem, and you share some of the responsibility for the results, for the bad attitudes that inevitably will form in the face of your hectoring. It's your fault, too. It's our fault, too. That's just true.

And now we've reached a point where it's like an actual crisis, and our leaders are not responding in a way that's going to make it better, because again, they're caught up in their own dramas, their own tribal dramas, their own personal dramas. It's all about them always.

You watch this Mamdani thing going on in New York, hardly an endorsement of Mamdani. I mean, please. But like, what do you hear about the guy? 80% of the criticism of Mamdani is like his position on Gaza. Who cares? What does that have to do with anything in New York City? Who cares what he thinks of Gaza or Bibi? That's far away and not relevant.

This is a guy who said out loud on camera, and then once again out loud on camera defending the first time he said it, "I'm gonna tax White people more because they're White". Did anyone even notice that? No, because the people who don't like him don't care, because they don't see a connection between what happens to those White people and what might happen to some group or cause they're interested in.

They're unwilling to defend the universal principle, and so it's just more self-interest. "How dare you say that about Gaza?" Wait a second. This is a mayor of the biggest city who said he's gonna tax White people more? "Well, you're just saying that 'cause you're white". No. I'm saying it because I'm a human being and a Christian, and that's not acceptable.

Your leaders can't talk or think that way or else it all just falls apart. And in a country that's the size of a continent with 50 component parts, it could fall apart really, really fast and become super, super ugly, and we are right on the brink of that. Why are they misogynists? Maybe because you told them the hormones they were born with were toxic. What are they supposed to do with that? Transition? Well, a lot of them did. Cut your d!ck off. The ultimate sign of bowing before authority. You're right, I'll self-castrate. And again, a lot did.

But what about the ones who didn't want to self-castrate? Where are they? Well, they're pissed, and they're pissed at you. They're mad at you and they have every good reason to be mad at you. Period.

Factor 3: Economic Destruction of Young People.

The third lesson we should take from the fact that Nick Fuentes - who everyone's busy saying, "Nick Fuentes, he's the problem!" Right, yeah, he's the problem. Some 27-year-old. "He's the problem". No. You're the problem actually.

And the third factor in his popularity is the fact, the uncontestable fact, that the economy, the rest of us in our 50s, 60s, and 70s, people who have all the money have created, is destroying young people. It's just a fact.

And it's not just that they can't have the place in Greenwich and the place in Jackson Hole. No. They can't have any place. They can't have anything. They don't own anything. Can't own anything.

And rather than even spend a day thinking through like, "How do we fix this?" The answer is, "Well, we'll just import people who are grateful for what they're getting here", because the differential between what they got at home and got here is pretty big. Like, if you're from Oaxaca or Bangalore, not owning a home in your 30s is fine. You never expected to own a home anyway.

So you're just happy to be here, and you're grateful to the people who brought you and you'll vote for them. That is literally their thinking. And it's demonstrable, it's their thinking. But for people who are born here, what a betrayal. What a terrible betrayal.

Housing Crisis Statistics.

And worse than a betrayal, here's just an overview of it:

"Buying a home has never been harder. The average first-time buyer is now 40 years old and it's more expensive to own. Nationally, the median price of a home is $415,000, up more than 50% since 2019. If you buy that average price home now, the payment is roughly $2,000 a month. When you pay it off in 30 years, it would have cost you about $657,000. Just 6 years ago, you'd have paid $1,500 a month and about $563,000 total.

The dream of owning a home is causing some Americans to rethink important milestones. A new survey by Coldwell Banker finds 71% of aspiring homeowners are postponing at least one life decision like getting married, having kids, or making career moves until they can afford to buy a home".

Tucker's Analysis of Housing Crisis.

So, they can't afford houses. Probably the top issue for young men in their 20s and 30s, or a lot of issues, by the way, at a time when they can't buy a home, the idea of sending money to a foreign country, particularly Israel, but all countries, any country - Sudan, France - pretty offensive 'cause it is, after all, their government. They pay for it. You know, why wouldn't it offend them?

But not being able to buy a home, if you ask any young person or at least the dozen or 2 I've asked, number one, like, "I grew up in a home, not an apartment, not Section 8, not a rental house, but like a house that I own. Not a huge house, but just like a house. Could go to Home Depot, buy a garden hose, fix the gutter".

Like, that's kind of the dream, actually, for most men. "And in that home, I have my wife and my children and my dog". Like, it's not - these are not crazy aspirations. These are the most human aspirations men think about when they go to sleep at night. It's like, "My little house". There's nothing more male than that. You know, it's "My cave". And they're being denied that, so they're upset.

And increasingly, they feel nihilistic, and why wouldn't they? But the question that too few ask is, "Well, why can't they buy a home? What is that?"

And you often hear dumb people say, "We just don't have enough homes". Okay. Don't have enough homes, so we need to take like Yellowstone and build Section 8 or something. Morons.

And of course supply and demand is real. And so there are fewer homes than we would like to have, and so the price rises. Okay, but that's not really the whole story.

There are a bunch of factors:

1. Big companies buying homes and turning them into rentals. Why would you ever allow that? If you want a revolution, keep that up.

2. We just have more people. Density is a real thing. This is a great country 'cause it's not an overpopulated country. It's not Bangladesh, not just because we're better than the Bangladeshis, but because there are fewer of us in a bigger piece of land. You don't wanna live cheek to jowl. It makes people crazy. It makes rats crazy and it makes people crazy. Nobody wants that.

But we're getting it, and we're getting it through immigration, illegal and legal. We're being flooded with people from outside the country. Everyone's like, "Oh, wow, that's a racial thing". Okay. Maybe for some people, there are racial elements, for sure. Certainly a lot of cultural elements that are important. But at root, it's a very simple question that has nothing to do with ethnicity or even culture. It's like, how many people do you want living near you? So many you can't afford a house?

That's kind of an overlooked byproduct of stuffing the country full of people who are here because they're inexpensive to employ and grateful to be here. It's a massive byproduct.

The Debt Crisis.

But there's another factor that's never mentioned, and that's debt. Young people are totally in hock. They are completely indebted. They have student loans, they were required to get a degree or told they're required to get a degree to get some job that no longer exists 'cause it's been eliminated or H-1B'd or whatever. The jobs aren't there. Unemployment among recent college grads is outta control, out of control.

Are they becoming more moderate once they leave college? Like, hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, they followed every instruction they were given dutifully, 'cause young people are actually pretty dutiful. And in this country, young people, some of them are really smart, for real. Talk to them. Tons of losers, of course, there always are, but the smart ones are really smart and very aware of what's going on, and they know that they've been completely betrayed.

They did what they were told to do, and they're shafted. They're literally shafted 'cause they don't have enough income. In some cases, any. So what are they doing? They're going into debt. They have student loans, they have credit card debt, and of course now there are all these other ways to borrow money that are disguised. Buy now, pay later. What's that? Going into debt, of course.

The Lender vs Borrower Dynamic.

And what's so interesting about this, and this is a problem primarily on the right though not exclusively, is that no one has sympathy for them at all. Conservatives -- hate to say this out loud but it's true -- conservatives have been trained to blame the borrower, not the lender. It's like a feature of the mindset.

"Well, you took the loan, you gotta pay it back. It's your moral duty to pay it back. Pay back what you owe. Don't be a deadbeat". Okay, fine. Get it. Like it. But is it really that simple? No, it's not.

Because the relationship between borrower and lender is inherently symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other. What other relationship is like that? What other fraught, sad, diseased relationship is like that? Well, addict and pusher. Of course. You can't be a drug addict unless someone sells you drugs. And yet we understand the complexity of that relationship and we punish both. In fact, we punish the drug dealer more harshly than we punish the drug addict because we understand that the drug dealer's making all the suffering possible, and we feel sorry for the addict. Well, he's an addict.

We can punish him, and by the way, throwing him in jail might be the only way to sober him up. It might save his life. And we should for his own sake, and for ours. Stop breaking into my car. But the drug dealer, well, we reserve our rage for him because he's the one doing it. He's taking advantage of the weak. And that's all true, and that's appropriate to feel that way. It's exactly right.

But we don't feel that way about credit card companies or student loan vendors, or the guys who are literally offering buy now pay later for DoorDash. Some unemployed or underemployed college grad went to some crappy college, got a worthless degree 'cause he believed in it. Now he can't get a job at JP Morgan. He's never gonna get one, and we are telling him it's totally cool to buy sushi on credit. What?

He shouldn't buy sushi on credit, obviously. That's dumb. But he's a kid. Who's worse? The guy who borrows the money or the guy who loans the money at some ridiculous rate?

Payday loans in this country, there are payday loans that have a 600% annual interest rate, and we kind of ignore it 'cause we're like, "Who would take a payday loan?" You know, that's like a ghetto thing. Okay. Okay, fine, it's a ghetto thing, but who would do that to the ghetto actually? Who would do something like that?

If somebody said to you, "You know, you can make a pretty good living exploiting and degrading people, destroying their lives", would you do it? Hope not. But if you did do it, the rest of us would have a moral obligation to say, "You are disgusting. That's disgusting what you're doing".

And we don't. And we especially don't on the right because it's immoral to criticize banks or something, 'cause, "You don't believe in free markets?" Well, yeah, I wish we had them. Of course I believe in free markets. Where is the free market in the United States? When you find it, you got my cell.

But what we have to be against, and this is more important than whatever you believe about the effectiveness of relative economic systems, we have to be against exploiting and crushing people. And if we're not, then what are we doing?

And it's not even a matter of banning it. It's a matter of saying it's disgusting. 30% interest credit card, and that's totally fine? I must have done 15 segments at Fox News about how Joe Biden's real sin was making credit card debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. "Oh, who cares? You're against capitalism?" If you wanna make people against capitalism, let that shit continue, and they will absolutely vote for Mamdani. And they have, by the way. They have.

Student Loan Beneficiaries.

So, if you want to understand why young people are getting radical, one of the main reasons is they are being exploited by the most unscrupulous, richest people in our society, and then being blamed for it. And no one says a word about the rich, unscrupulous people who are doing this because everyone's taking money from them.

And you saw this in the last administration, the Democratic, the liberal administration. So the idea was, and it's true, young people are being destroyed by student loans. Okay, that's true. Who's benefiting from that? Well, the colleges are benefiting because it's allowing them to hire more administrators than they have professors. It's allowing them to live in this kind of fantasy world where they build this incredibly beautiful little biosphere in the middle of some economically depressed hellscape in a rural area.

That's true of every New England college. Bates College in Lewiston. Ever been to Lewiston? Bates is beautiful. Why? Because they're participating in this scam, of course, back-stopped by the federal government, by student loans, so they're the beneficiary. They're the loan shark here, actually, and so are the companies that are getting rich from this.

But what was the Biden plan? The Biden plan was to stick taxpayers with the bill for bailing out students. So, they identified the problem correctly, which is kids are getting completely screwed. That's terrible, and it's preventing them from having productive lives, getting married, buying houses. It's hurting them, so who gets to fix it? You do. You got nothing to do with it. You're probably paying your own kids' tuition, but you get to bail them out.

And guess who's not blamed or punished? The beneficiaries, the lenders, 'cause you can't criticize the banks, can't criticize the universities. Oh, yes, you can. Yes, you can, because it's not exclusively their fault. It's primarily their fault, and they've dodged all responsibility, just like everyone who's made life-destroying decisions in this country over the past 20 years.

The truly guilty have escaped not just punishment, but criticism. Yeah, that can't go on forever, and in the meantime, it's creating a whole new audience, not just for Fuentes, but for a lot of increasingly radical people, because that's what happens when you mistreat people and then attack them for not liking it, is you make them radical.

[Ad break for PreBorn]

Hope in the Next Generation.

The good news is that not all of them are radical. A lot of them are just clear-thinking and sensible and decent, and committed to universal principles of human rights and decency in that generation. The real surprise here is how moderate a lot of these kids are. You would expect them to be a lot more pissed off, and they will get that way soon. But for right now, most of them are decent people and smart. They know what's up.

One of them is called Nalin Haley. And we thought a lot before doing this interview, the one we're about to do, because the man we're about to talk to is 24 and is the son of Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, presidential candidate, neocon.

And there's really nothing more immoral than using a child against a parent. I've been a consistent and pretty strident opponent of Nikki Haley's views for a long time. And so the idea of interviewing her son and being like, "Doesn't your mom suck?" That's disgusting and we're never going to do that.

And so we had a lot of conversations off camera with him before this interview, and it turns out he really likes his mom a lot and thinks she was a great mother and she's a great person. And he completely disagrees with some of her views, maybe a lot of her views, while still loving her and remaining grateful to her.

And that in itself is just such a remarkable model of what this country should be, the way that we should all be, but increasingly are not. And so we were delighted to talk to this man. And I think if you listen carefully, you will think that he has one of the clearest explanations for how a lot of young Americans, not just White men, but a lot of young people now currently feel about their leaders, the conservative movement, and where we're going.

So with that, Nalin Haley.

Interview with Nalin Haley.

Introduction and Why Young Men Listen to Fuentes.

Tucker: Thank you for doing this.

Nalin: Yep, thank you.

Tucker: So the main reason I interviewed Nick Fuentes is because I wanted to know why Nick Fuentes was popular, and let me just say, none of this is about Nick Fuentes. It's not about one guy. But here you had a guy who was, you know, everyone hated him, he was canceled, and he's getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.

And I thought, it's possible he's saying some things that are dumb or probably, but some things that need to be heard and that are not being heard and that are appealing to young men who feel like they aren't being heard. And maybe we should hear this and maybe even act on some of these problems before things get even crazier than they already are.

So I wanted to talk to you, not because I have no idea what you think of Nick Fuentes. I'm not even going to ask you, but because I think that young men are reacting against a society that hates them and have these attitudes we need to hear about. So thank you.

Nalin: Yeah.

Political Evolution.

Tucker: Have your political views changed in the last 5 years?

Nalin: Well, how old are you?

Tucker: 24?

Nalin: Just turned 24, and I actually would say not too much, just a little bit. Yes. I would say my views started to change probably around late junior year of high school. Nothing significant happened. It was nothing that I saw or anything. It was just I decided I wasn't gonna accept just what Con Inc. was giving me.

Tucker: What's Con Inc.?

Nalin: Con Inc. is basically your typical conservative media, you know, very typical Republican, not any sort of nationalist, the type of "legal immigration good, illegal bad".

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: And it got tiring, and I was like, "I don't want to just accept what's given to me, right in front of me. I want to actually think for myself".

Tucker: So did you feel, just to press on a little bit, did you feel that the news outlets that were created for you - You were never liberal, I guess?

Nalin: Never, no.

Tucker: Right, okay. Thank God. I wasn't either. But you felt that the news outlets that were there to serve you were actually maybe not serving you and instead misleading you?

Nalin: No, of course not, and I absolutely hate the media. I just do.

Tucker: Me too.

Nalin: They are, to me, the worst people in the world.

Tucker: I agree with that.

Nalin: They are vultures and blood-sucking leeches who care nothing about the country. They thrive off of destruction of the United States. They have no loyalty to a country, to an ideology, to a people, only their money and the ratings. And the way that they get that is through sowing division and chaos, because that's how they know people watch them more. That's how they get more money.

And so it's very similar to the way the greedy anti-American corporations are, in that they don't care about American values, American identity, American sovereignty, American workers, American people, and therefore we shouldn't care about them. Tucker: Some, I assume, are good people, to quote our president.

Nalin: Let's see. Okay. I'm glad I asked you that question. No, I hate 'em. I really do.

Tucker: Can I just say amen loud enough?

Nalin: Yeah, of course. Amen.

Tucker: Amen. Wow. How did you figure that out?

Nalin: I don't know. You know, it's funny. Everyone in my generation who's a conservative started out with the Ben Shapiro owns SJW compilation videos on YouTube. That's what brought it in. It was not even like the values or the talking points actually, which makes sense why we're leaving it kind of, because it was never the values. It was just funny.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: It was just rage bait, you know? That's what drew us in. And now that we were like, "Hey, wait a minute, why is it that we can't talk about this thing?" Or, "Why is it that we're not allowed to criticize this?" That's when people started to feel like maybe this isn't allowing us to see the entire picture.

Tucker: And maybe the point of it was to mislead rather than illuminate.

Nalin: Right. Exactly.

Tucker: How old were you when you figured that? I was like 50. So how old were you when you figured that out? Nalin: Junior year of high school. What is that? I turned 17, I think. Really?

Tucker: So that was - But I, of course I never told anybody my views, and now it's very known that I have different views than my mom, which is also very funny because whenever anybody says that, they're like, "I can't believe that you have different views". I just say, "Do you have different views than your mom?" And they'll be like, "Yeah, of course".

Tucker: That's true.

Nalin: So I just go on, "Why would I be any different?"

Tucker: I wanna say out loud 'cause it's, this has been a present factor in my life recently, I think it's totally immoral to use a child to attack a parent.

Nalin: Absolutely, yeah.

Tucker: I don't think there's really anything lower than that, and I would probably die before I did that. So I just wanna be very clear with you. Never do that. And of course I don't think it's weird that you have different views from a parent. That's just not weird.

Nalin: Yeah. That's pretty normal. And that's actually one of the things I respect most about you is how loyal and defensive you are of your family.

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: Because, I mean, that's - when you saw that thing about the event, it was like, "I can't believe he said that". And the whole time I was thinking, "Good for him that he did that at that event". Like, I was just like, "I would do the same thing". Tucker: Of course. That's a very normal human reaction to someone attacking your family. I think. Nalin: I'd attack my dad.

Tucker: Yeah. Well, that's your duty as a son, by the way.

Nalin: Absolutely. Yeah.

Tucker: Yes. I believe that. So I just wanted to be clear about that. So you start to have these realizations that maybe this is kind of fake or maybe it's totally fake. Who do you talk to about this?

Nalin: No one. Because the last thing you wanna do is tell people that you're not accepting what they're accepting and what they're believing. So I kinda - I've always been the type to just research things. When I see a certain topic that I'm interested in, I just wanna learn more about it. And so that's what I did, was taking various different sources and just trying to put it together.

And just when you realize you're not allowed to talk about something in particular opens up very, like, more questions than answers, right?

Tucker: Oh, yes.

Nalin: And I still feel like I have more questions than answers.

Tucker: Oh, I definitely do.

Nalin: So I never told anybody, but it was something that I noticed over time that I'm not the only one. Everyone else is noticing this, and everyone else is heading towards the same direction, which is nationalists, America first, and that's the direction I hope it will be.

America First Philosophy.

Tucker: Well, it's kind of, once you start to think about it, it's the obvious conclusion. What's the purpose of a government? I mean, you can like America or not like America, whatever, but if you're running America you have an obligation to Americans.

Nalin: Absolutely. It's a crazy concept, right? But it's just, what would the other formula be?

Tucker: Exactly. Like, what are we doing?

Nalin: Yeah. But that's exactly how it's been, and it makes no sense to me why we have special status for certain other countries, why we have special status for certain corporations, certain groups. It's like, why? We have people struggling here. We have people below the poverty line. We have bad schools. We have people going into debt because they broke a bone. This stuff is ridiculous. So we have to call it out.

And America first, I think, is mistakenly always associated with social and cultural issues. But it's also a massive economic issue as well.

Tucker: I totally agree. And no one talks enough about that.

Nalin: 'Cause they don't wanna talk about that.

Tucker: No, of course not, because - It's easier to just scream about Hitler.

Nalin: Oh, yeah, of course. What does that have to do with anything?

Tucker: Yeah. He's been dead 80 years.

Nalin: Just label you something. And the labeling is so ridiculous and it drives me crazy because I've been called everything, fascist, socialist, woke -

Tucker: You have?

Nalin: Yeah. Radical, and that's the one that really gets me the most is the radical thing. I can be called fascist or -

Tucker: Who cares, right?

Nalin: Everyone uses that now, so it's nothing special. But the radical, that bothered me because I'm like, all I have done and the only time I've gotten attention was 'cause I advocated for American jobs, American affordability, American safety, American culture. It's like, that's not radical, that's rational. There's nothing wrong with that.

Tucker: I know. But it's ridiculous, the labeling. It's the least revolutionary platform ever devised.

Nalin: Oh, yeah. And the labeling is so dangerous too. Just calling someone a Nazi is basically the same thing as calling for their death at this point. And we've just, based off of the political violence and the direction we're heading, I don't really see a difference between the 2.

Tucker: I agree with that.

Nalin: Yeah.

Tucker: As someone who's been called it quite a bit. So was it Ben Shapiro that you were watching at first?

Nalin: Ben Shapiro, lot of Daily Wire, Steven Crowder. Other than that I think I was never - I never sat down and watched Fox.

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: 'Cause no one in my generation ever sat down -

Tucker: Of course not.

Nalin: So it was always YouTube videos and stuff online, and just, you know, memes basically. And now we've kind of evolved and now I'm on X. I was never on X. My life was probably better before I was on X.

Tucker: Probably so.

Nalin: But that's, it's definitely something that I transitioned into. And I don't really watch the people I used to.

Tucker: No. Yeah. No. No. I don't watch too many people at all actually.

Nalin: Right. I just lost touch with them. I felt like I couldn't relate anymore.

Topics Not Allowed to Address.

Tucker: What did you say at the outset that you noticed that there were things that were never addressed and that you were not supposed to address. What were those things?

Nalin: I would say a big part of that is the economic issues that we see. So the goal of every generation, right, is to leave it better than you found it. And right now we're not just not doing that, we're going in the opposite direction. It's getting worse.

And I noticed that you used to have a choice. You were either for free market neoliberalism or you were a Mamdani style socialist. And it's like, no, capitalism's actually a very broad thing, right? So I was upset because we're not allowed to criticize corporations who are clearly not putting American workers first, or the country first.

And the Republican party historically has been like, "You can't criticize that. You can't criticize the free markets". And I don't even like to call it free markets. It's more like lawless markets actually. And that's actually the same structure that destroyed industrial America. All of those factory worker jobs that were in Ohio, in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, that all got sent over to China and other foreign countries, and we're not allowed to criticize that?

Of course I'm gonna criticize that. You're putting American workers last.

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: And we're putting the elites first, and that's not right. We're putting a small number of people ahead of the majority, and I don't agree with that.

Tucker: Well, how could anyone agree with that?

Nalin: Because they have their own interests, and certain things drive that interest, like money. And that's what we see from the media, it's what we see from corporations, and that's what they do, because they don't want to lose track of that.

Tucker: It seems like one of the main control devices employed by Con Inc., as you called the institutional conservatives who are not conservative in any sense, but whatever, was to just call you a socialist. If you talked about Israel, you were antisemitic. If you talked about the collapsing, inverting American economy, where a tiny group got everything, you were a socialist.

Nalin: It's ridiculous.

Tucker: But did you feel that?

Nalin: That I was a socialist?

Tucker: No, but did you feel that some of those gatekeepers were using that term to keep you from asking -

Nalin: Oh, 100%. That's, and they still do that. And it's never gonna go away because anything that's a threat to, like I said, just like the media, any corporate money or anything that they don't make their quarterly goal or their profit, then yeah, they're gonna call anyone a socialist. Because just being against them, they want to label you, 'cause it scares people. The word socialist scares people. And it's not a good thing. I don't like socialism.

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: But they use it in the wrong way because they want to label someone to say, "Hey, don't talk about that. He's this, he's that, he's a socialist". And it's used to kind of delegitimize you.

But I think when you look at the Republican party now, it's now becoming more the party of the working class, and my generation is kind of responsible for that. I think it was Newsweek that reported something that in the '90s or '80s, they did a survey which said, "Which party is the party of the working class?" Like 90% said Democrats. It was unanimous. Everyone knew the Democrat party meant working people.

Tucker: Oh, I was there. That's correct.

Nalin: And now, they asked that again this year and 51% said Democrats and 49% said Republicans. Why would we not embrace that group of people, those hardworking people? We wouldn't have a country without them.

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: So, I hope to see that. And I think my generation is starting to lean that way and it's important that we put American workers first.

Debt Crisis Among Young People.

Tucker: The last conversation I had on camera with Charlie Kirk was about the debt that young people are incurring, not just their student loans, which are I think the biggest, but their credit cards, their buy now, pay later scams. How big a factor is that in your generation?

Nalin: The reaction to the economic issues that my generation sees ahead of them is despair, hopelessness. They don't see any way out. I mean, and why would they? Because we just passed, I think it was $38.2 trillion in debt recently. And the biggest thing that scares my generation is the housing crisis, by far.

The average first time home buyer in America is 40 years old now. 40. 5 years ago, it was 33. So, it's scary how quick we're - I personally, I don't see how I'm ever gonna buy a home and I do decently well for someone my age, and I still don't see it.

I live in Fort Mill, South Carolina, it's just south of Charlotte, and I got so angry because about a month or 2 ago, I was like, "Let me look at housing prices. Let me see what they are". And I saw how expensive they were, and then I looked and saw how much they were just a few years ago. And it's doubled, almost tripled the cost. And that's everywhere in South Carolina, not just there.

And it's beyond frustrating that people of the past generations are not doing what parents should do, which is have your kids have a greater life than you did. That's the goal. So, it's hopelessness really.

Tucker: How much debt do your friends have? I want to ask you about yourself, but I mean, do people have student loans, credit cards? Is that a part of it?

Nalin: So, I think, I mean, everyone's probably scared to talk about it, so I wouldn't know.

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: But I would imagine just from school alone, tens of thousands. Maybe some even 6 figures.

Tucker: We live in a country where people are totally happy to tell you about their sex lives, whatever weird thought they've had, it's an exhibitionist culture, but not on the question of debt and money. Why is that? You say people are embarrassed to say they're in hock to Citibank for their credit card. Why is that embarrassing?

Nalin: It's actually becoming a little less where people are more vocal about it because it's just so normal. Everyone has it and no one really sees a way out. So, it's like, what's there to hide? So, I think that that's becoming less taboo to talk about.

Tucker: I hope so.

Nalin: And I think it's a great thing because previous generation either they're not sure of the problems we're facing or they're ignoring it. And to be honest, I don't know which one's worse.

Tucker: And there's also this kind of residual feeling that an indebted person is solely responsible for his debt. Whereas we don't feel that way about, say, drug addiction. It's the addict's fault, but it's also the dealer's fault, and actually the dealer gets a worse punishment.

Nalin: I don't understand that. I think that is an idea that's been pushed by Con Inc. pretty hard. And I think just based off of our system now, I think we've seen that that's not the case. Now it's getting to a point where you have to have a degree for everything now. Like, even you want to work at McDonald's, you have to get a degree. You wanna have this retail job, get a degree. Like, everything's a degree when it doesn't need to be a degree.

And so, that's when we're seeing so many people going into debt when they don't even need to go to college and that's how it was for my parents, my friends' parents, everybody else. You got a job straight out of high school, not even college.

Tucker: You got it out of high school.

Nalin: Yeah. And now it's just become so saturated that you need a degree in something ridiculous for something that doesn't require it. It's pushing people into debt when they don't need to be.

Tucker: Do people in your generation think that that's an accident or how did we get here? This was not the case -

Nalin: I think they're all confused. I think they have no idea what to make of it because we didn't make it. It's not our fault. We didn't do anything. It was the previous generation. They should answer. So, I think we're all just like, "What just happened? How come it's harder for us?" And they have no idea and they shouldn't have any idea because they're not doing anything wrong.

They're getting educated. For the most part, they're hard workers. We have some issues with Gen Z with work ethic, but when they want to work, they will work and they're good at it.

Tucker: There are only 2 kinds of Gen Z employees. We were just laughing about this last week, my college roommate and I. They're either total pothead losers or they're like the most impressive kids you've ever met. No in between.

Nalin: No in between. Is that not our imagination?

Tucker: Oh, no, that's just very accurate. No in between. What is that?

Nalin: I don't know. I have no idea. I can honestly say some of the smartest people I've ever met are in - for real, I'm not - that's not false flattery, in your generation, totally aware of everything and then there's the face tattoo people. It's amazing. But why? I couldn't even speculate. It actually does make no sense at all but it's very interesting to think about 'cause I've noticed that as well.

Tucker: Yeah. It does give you hope because there are a lot of kids who know what's up. Especially with these issues because those pothead kids, they probably don't know what's going on. They wouldn't notice that something's wrong at all. But now we have kids that are waking up. They're noticing that there's a problem and they're saying, "We have to speak up. We have to fix this".

Views on War and Foreign Policy.

Tucker: What's the prevailing view of war, foreign policy?

Nalin: Oh gosh, we hate war. We really despise it. George Bush was probably the worst president in modern America by far. When you look at the amount of debt, when we talked about the 38.2 trillion, I mean think about how much of that was Iraq, Afghanistan, all of that.

Tucker: Oh, yes.

Nalin: And we don't have anything to show for it really. I mean Iraq is now basically a satellite state of Iran. Tucker: Yeah.

Nalin: There was a deterrent to one of Americas enemies and now it's just a puppet state. And you have Afghanistan which, understand attacking Al-Qaeda, they attacked us, sure. But the idea that you want to turn a stone-age society to a progressive liberal democracy is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Tucker: Ever, yeah.

Nalin: And so we can't rationalize why we ever, why that ever happened, and even people in your generation are like, "What were we thinking? Why did we do that?" Like I've spoken to so many people who are conservative and they're like, "I don't understand why we ever did that".

And war is just not something we like. I don't think anyone likes it, and the real tragedy of war was not the debt, but it's actually just the innocent American lives that were lost.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: That's the real tragedy.

Tucker: I agree.

Nalin: And all the other stuff is secondary, but it still has lasting effects on us. So when you hear people agitating for another regime change war in whatever country, what do you think?

Nalin: I'm angry and I'm frustrated as someone who's the son of - my dad's in the military. It makes me angry because I don't want him to go and fight in a war that will just be another waste of money and a failure. So there's a personal element to it, but also it's just stupid. How many times are we gonna do this before we learn it doesn't work?

Tucker: Right?

Nalin: So there's so many elements to it, personal, financial makes no sense, and it's just logistically absolutely stupid. It is stupid. And it makes me angry that people are even advocating for something like that, and I don't think they're advocating it just to advocate for it. I think there's interest groups that are pushing them to advocate for that.

Tucker: Clearly there are. Oh yeah. We've learned a lot about that recently.

Views on Israel and Foreign Lobbying.

Tucker: So that was one of the topics that nobody ever, including me, I had 0 desire to talk about it, the Israel question. And Fuentes is most famous for - yeah, and there's no upside in that. And I just - I never felt it was as central as it turned out to be. I guess that's, I just didn't understand it very well, but Fuentes is famous for saying naughty things, but also saying pretty straightforward critique of the control that Israel has over the United States. Is that view widely shared do you think?

Nalin: Well I don't know too much. I mean I've -

Tucker: Well take Fuentes out of it. I keep reading that young people's views of Israel are increasingly skeptical if not hostile. Do you think that's true?

Nalin: Absolutely, yeah. And I don't think it's anything we've done. I think it's all reliant on Israel. That's on them actually. Not on us. And the reality is they're just another country. I've never bought into like they're super evil - like all the -

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: They're just another country, who cares? And if they want a better relationship with the United States, they need to stop interfering in our politics. It's really simple.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And it's not just Israel. I mean, we need to ban foreign aid. We need to stop sending - We should not have a single dime going to another country when we have people in poverty, with bad schools, medical debt, all that stuff. It makes no sense. That's part of America first.

We also should ban foreign lobbying. It's irresponsible. Why would we have the interest of another country put as policy for our country?

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: Our leaders should be making decisions on the interest of American people, not someone in Burundi or something. Who cares?

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: So those are 2 things that I think if we cut out the aid, cut out the lobbying, I think it'll stop a lot of influence, not just from Israel, but from every country.

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: Because it's not just Israel. It is a lot of other countries that do that. And it's just as much a problem. And just as egregious a violation of the most basic principle of government, which is serve your people first.

Nalin: Absolutely. Yep.

Tucker: Do you feel people are less afraid to say that now?

Nalin: Oh, yeah. For sure. I just remember growing up when I was in that 2016 era of conservative politics, Israel was untouchable. Like, you could not say anything about it.

Tucker: No, I remember.

Nalin: And in some ways it's still kinda that way. But it's just weird. It's weird the obsession, you know? Whether - I'm not one to, the obsession, whether it's good or bad. It's just weird that people are obsessed with it the way it is, and I just don't agree with either one. Tucker: I agree. You know? I completely agree. Waste of time.

Nalin: It's unhealthy, too.

Tucker: Let's just build the country.

Nalin: Yeah, it really is. Wake up thinking about Israel every day is not good.

Tucker: No.

Nalin: In either direction. Let's focus on America. How about that?

Tucker: Amen.

Views on Immigration.

Tucker: So how, what are your views on immigration, and what views do you think best describe the people you know?

Nalin: So 2016, Trump brought spotlight on illegal immigration, and that was really desperately needed. Because we had seen it, but no one really said the obvious. Now we need to do the same with legal immigration. We need to state the obvious. Mass migration is a problem.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And it's funny. When I started speaking out against that, the amount of legal immigrants in this country, the amount of children of immigrants in this country who have come up to me and say, "Thank you for speaking about that", is shocking in some ways. But it's also not shocking because it's directly impacting them.

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: How ironic is it that someone leaves their country in search of the American dream, to give their kids a better life, only for their kids to grow up and have the job that they want being sent back to the country that they came from? Like how - That's ridiculous.

Tucker: No. And it's -

Nalin: So perfect though, in a way.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: Yeah. It's, I mean, you can't make that up. And I do see a lot of - There are some, on the other hand, who are legal immigrants, who are children of immigrants, who are saying, "That's hypocritical of me".

Tucker: Why?

Nalin: "No one should -" Well, because of my grandparents, who immigrated here, which was back in 1969. And my response is always like, "It's not 1969".

Tucker: No.

Nalin: "We have a very different country. We have a very different set of circumstances. It's then, therefore it's rational to adapt and adjust". So your grandparents did something 56 years ago - Now I have to do the same thing and believe the same thing they did. Which I know damn well they don't, because if they did they wouldn't have the progressive views that they have, 'cause no grandparents had progressive views. Tucker: Yeah.

Nalin: But they want to put it on me because they're mad that someone with my identity has the views that I have. And they want to -

Tucker: Oh, because you're part Indian or something, they think?

Nalin: Yeah, they think that I owe them my loyalty because of some decision my grandparents made. Which is stupid, because all I've known is America. All I know is American culture. I love the South, I love Southern culture. I only speak English. I'm a Christian. Why would I care about anything else?

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: And so you have the legal immigrants and the children of immigrants who are upset at me, and who've called me racist, all sorts of things -

Tucker: Racist?

Nalin: Yeah, racist for saying we don't need more people here. But - It's ridiculous. But the reality is that when those people who are calling me racist lose their job, they need to remember that it was the people that they called racist that were actually trying to save their job from being taken by a foreigner.

Tucker: Yes, exactly.

Nalin: And so - Eventually they may understand that, but it's shocking, really, how we're allowing this to happen. Tucker: How widespread is that view, do you think, among people you know?

Nalin: I would say it's actually kinda split. I don't think it's as noticeable as like the economic issues where everyone seems to see it because they feel it, but - You know, we have a big country, right? There are some parts of America where you don't see too much migration.

Tucker: No.

Nalin: They're like, "What is everyone talking about? There's no migration". But that's just not the case. And really I think it's irresponsible to have legal immigration at a time when companies aren't hiring Americans specifically. We're in a fragile economy and you have AI taking over a lot of jobs, so why would it make sense to import more foreign workers? It doesn't.

And that's just one aspect of it, is the economic issue. The cultural and assimilation issue is a whole nother aspect. And I think - So immigration's historically have basically been expected to assimilate. And then around the Obama years was when you started to see a shift of like, "No, you don't need to change. You can be who you are".

No, you need to assimilate. You have to, 'cause without it we lose our identity as a country. Why would we have people in here who don't see themselves as one of us?

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: And you have - That's how you end up with places like Minneapolis, with Little Somalia. These people isolate themselves and don't integrate. You have parts of Miami where people literally don't speak English at all, which is insane because if I was to move to another country - And I was thinking, "Where could I go to get a better opportunity? Oh, I know, somewhere where I don't speak the freaking language". Genius, right?

But it's just unbelievable. And there's so many different aspects to immigration that it's not just the migration part of it, but a lot of other things that are just out of control.

Tucker: Like what?

Nalin: So, naturalized citizens should not be able to hold public office. Growing up here is a big part of understanding the country. We need to stop and limit the amount of foreign students that are coming into our universities. Some of them are spies, by the way, for foreign governments, but it's also just we should put our kids first.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And we should also not allow dual citizenship 'cause that's the stupidest idea. You're either American or you're not. And everyone wants to make it so complicated, that's the thing that I don't like about the past generation is they're always about the rules, the process, and regulation. No, it's really simple. You're just America first, people should have their loyalty to America first. And if they can't do that, then this ain't the country for you.

Tucker: That's totally right. What about serving in a foreign military?

Nalin: Oh, gosh, no. Forget about it. You can't do that. Of course not, right? It's ridiculous. That idea alone is just insane. Dual citizenship's already bad enough, but to serve in another country's military is disqualifying, really.

Tucker: Of course. I mean, it's hard to believe it's even a conversation. What about language? Do you worry that - You know, countries are united by their language, and language is inseparable from culture. Language is culture in a lot of ways, but this doesn't seem like an English-speaking country anymore.

Nalin: Yeah. Especially when you go to places like Minneapolis, Miami, New York, which I lived there for a little bit, and yeah, I wanna be able to understand everybody. I just do. It's my country. I don't think I should have to speak another language in my own country. I don't think anyone wants that. I don't think it's good for us.

Not saying that you can't know another language. I think that's great -

Tucker: You should.

Nalin: Yeah, that's good. But to have anything other than English as a primary language in this country, not acceptable. Tucker: You're not describing the priorities of the modern Republican Party at all here.

Nalin: No, but hopefully one day it will be. That's what I hope will happen.

Representation and Leadership.

Tucker: So my sense, but you would know, is that everything you just said for the past half an hour is basically what most young men your age think who are conservative.

Nalin: Who are conservative? Absolutely. Yeah, yes. Who are conservative.

Tucker: So do they look at the Republican Party as representing them?

Nalin: No, not at all. And that's the struggle that we face, and that's why, that's where the anger comes from is that we're looking at our politicians and we don't see any of us, right? When you have a politician, you want them to kind of be a reflection of you in a lot of ways.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And we don't have that at all. And you have Democrats who have kind of listened to young people on their side. So when they're not listening to us on the Republican side, yeah, it's pretty frustrating. You have Democrats who have the first Gen Z member of Congress. They have the AOC, they have Imam Donnie, they have all these young, youthful figures who are doing pretty well, making media, advocating for their causes, but who do we have?

It's frustrating that we can't look to someone and say, "That's our guy. He speaks for us".

Tucker: What is that? I couldn't agree more, by the way.

Nalin: They must just be anti-young people, I don't know, or they just don't wanna face the problems that we're putting forth, which is the issues on the economy, the issues on immigration, because they'd rather just call us radical. It's a lot easier.

Tucker: I wonder if that makes people radical over time.

Nalin: Oh, for sure. For sure, it makes people radical because they get so angry. Tucker: Yeah.

Nalin: And when people are angry and they feel like they have no one speaking for them then, yeah, of course, they're gonna get angry because we deserve representation. That's the whole point of this democracy, our system is that you should be able to have someone who represents you, and we don't have that.

Tucker: Not just don't have that, it'd be one thing if we didn't have someone who we felt we could relate to. That's fine. That's normal. You can't relate to everybody.

Nalin: Yeah.

Tucker: But someone who's actively ignoring the problems that we're saying, "These are massive problems", yeah, it's frustrating.

Men and Women Relations.

Tucker: What's going on with the way that men and women get along?

Nalin: That's a very interesting question. That's something I've said for years - Literally years I've been saying the future of division in this country is not all these other things like race or income. I mean, there may be some issues, but the massive division in this country, in the future, is gonna be between gender, men and women. That's especially problematic because in order for a society to function, men need women, women need men.

Tucker: Amen.

Nalin: So the fact that that's the upcoming divide is very scary.

Tucker: Do you feel that divide?

Nalin: I would say, I think in some ways I think it's a little exaggerated. There are women who are traditional, but for the most part, men are more traditional in my generation.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And I think they're going in different directions, but they're going in different directions for a lot of the same reasons, which is empowerment. Women see themselves as going the more progressive lane, that it's empowering to wear revealing clothes or do whatever you want and be promiscuous - Which is actually the male gaze of someone who just wants to view them as an object and not care about who they are as a person. Which is how is that empowering? How is that feminist at all?

Tucker: I don't think a body count of 20 is that empowering.

Nalin: Exactly. I'm just guessing. It's ridiculous that that's seen as feminist though. But the reason why I think that is because on the other hand you have men, and this is not a majority of traditional men, but there's this very small minority where they feel insecure and powerless. They think that them having a traditional mindset where they're the leader, they're the provider, they're the protector, and they think, "Because of that, my role is better than that of a woman".

Tucker: That's wrong, first of all.

Nalin: But what that does is that it gives ammo to the feminists who are like, "Look. See? See, women? What we've been trying to tell you, that they think they're better than you. You have to go our way". When in reality, it's - That's not what tradition is at all. It's yes, men are the leader, provider, protector. Of course. All of that. But without the woman, it just doesn't work. The family structure doesn't work.

Tucker: Well, you said it at the outset. Men and women need each other. That's just the bottom line. It's the biological fact. It's the emotional reality. It's the spiritual reality.

Nalin: Right. It doesn't work for a man in a family to not have a woman. It doesn't work for a woman to not have a man.

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: And it's actually - The whole point is that it brings their best characteristics together to build something amazing. They complement each other with their traits. They rely on each other. And what the result of that is is just a beautiful family. It works. Studies have shown -

Tucker: How do you know all this?

Nalin: Well, because studies have shown actually that people in these traditional marriages where they pray together, they have less divorce. They're more happy. On the opposite, you have women who are going the progressive route, they're miserable. And studies have shown that as well, where they're struggling to find a person, find a man to have children, and they become miserable.

So it works, but the beauty of it is that it's not the view that a man is better than a woman. It's that they have different traits.

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: They combine them to make something beautiful. It's partnership.

Tucker: And I think if that was explained to more progressive women and on the left, then they would see it's not about men being better at all. It's just about -

Nalin: Or dominating you or humiliating you.

Tucker: Yeah. No. It's about helping each other.

Nalin: Exactly. God created Eve as a helper. They help each other.

Tucker: Right.

Nalin: And that is a fair description in my opinion.

Dating and Religious Faith.

Tucker: So like how hard is it to date at 24? For young men, not you, but I mean -

Nalin: For young men, it's not hard. But if you're a Christian, yeah, it's very hard.

Tucker: Why?

Nalin: Well, because it's hard to find someone who prioritizes that in their life, and I'm not saying that's specific to our generation. That's every generation. It hasn't really been that easy. But that's just something that is very difficult. And it's unfortunate because that's what makes the most successful relationships. That's what makes happier children, more successful children. It's a really beautiful thing. The fact that people are rejecting that is very, very sad.

Tucker: It is really sad. I also get the sense that there's an increase in religious faith among young men.

Nalin: 100%. 100%.

Tucker: Really?

Nalin: Yeah. Which is - I mean, that came outta nowhere really.

Tucker: I know.

Nalin: Like no one expected that. And good, right? Like God willing, that'll spread everywhere and we'll be like that everywhere.

Tucker: When did you first notice that? I mean, you grew up in the South. You grew up in a nominally Christian culture 'cause it's the South, right? But people talking to each other, young people, about God, mentioning God. Like when did that happen?

Nalin: So there's always been like cultural Christianity, right? But there's a difference between what we're seeing now, which is actual lived faith in Christ. And we're seeing that in church attendances going up among young men. Really, I don't know what brought it about. The only thing I could attribute it to is probably the Holy Spirit. And I don't know why it's happening now, but I hope it grows, and I hope it continues to flourish because it's something our society desperately, desperately needs.

Personal Faith Journey.

Tucker: What was your path? This is -

Nalin: So I grew up with kinda 2 religions in my household. So I had my parents who were Protestant, and my grandparents have always lived with me growing up, my mom's parents.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And they were Sikh. As a result, I was very confused.

Tucker: Yeah.

Nalin: Because that's what happens. And I just remember that as young as like third grade when my friends would check out their books on dinosaurs and cars and all that stuff, I was reading on every single world religion and trying to absorb as much as I can because I wanted to know if God exists, and if he does, who is He?

Tucker: Right?

Nalin: So that's what I spent doing for years, and I would say -

Tucker: Reading about world religions instead of dinosaurs?

Nalin: Yes, I was obsessed with it.

Tucker: Unusual child, yeah.

Nalin: I was, yeah. Yeah. No, it's great. To put it that way. And then I would say around 7th grade, so this is a few years of just researching this stuff obsessively - And I was reluctant to speak about this publicly, but I figured if it blesses just one person then I'll say it here.

I had an experience where I was researching and it was as if in an instant I heard, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". And as if the knowledge, the truth of God was placed instantly after that was said in my mind and in my heart.

And it's funny, after all these years I've struggled to really put into words that experience and that feeling, but once that happened I had always heard about the Holy Spirit, right? Everyone hears about it, but when that happened I was like, "Oh, that's what that is", right? Like, 'cause it was just some mythical thing -

Tucker: Of course.

Nalin: That I had read about, but then it happened and I was just like, "This is really interesting". But - And it'd be one thing to just write off as, oh, that's just some weird thing, weird experience, but it never left me.

And the most interesting part and the part that I kinda like the most is, it wasn't - none of my research on these world religions got me to that answer. Not at all. It was an instant realization that was not of any of my own work.

And what made it so beautiful was that not long after that, I was reading the Gospel and I found where Jesus said to Peter then Simon, "Blessed are you, Simon, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven". I was like, "That's what that was".

And then I also read where he said, "Knock and the door will be opened to you. Seek and you will find". And it's just a beautiful thing when you realize that God is true to His word every single time. And it has never left me.

Tucker: Amazing. You became Catholic.

Nalin: Yeah, that's another thing. So - There's another layer to it. It's just -

Tucker: What happened there?

Nalin: Wait, there's more. So when I was Protestant and when I was Protestant, obviously God is all you need, but I did feel some unexplained void in my faith. I didn't know what it was at the time. And I went to Villanova which is a Catholic institution and it's so ironic because my first time ever going to a Catholic mass was the summer after I graduated from Villanova.

So never went to mass when I was at Villanova, I'd never been to mass before, but it was after I graduated from Villanova that I went to mass for the first time. God doesn't write in straight lines, I guess, but - And I began to really think about my own faith. And I was like, "I have this void that I can't explain. How can I be the best Christian I could be? How could I best serve God and serve others?"

That was the question that made me think about it. And I'm - Again, I began to research. But really, it wasn't about the research. It was that question, like, "Where can I be at my best? Where can I serve God and serve others?" And when I did study Catholicism, and I read the early church fathers and their history and all that stuff, I felt, "You know what? This may be for me".

And then when I started to partake in the sacraments, the Eucharist, confession, that's when I was like, "Oh, that's that void". That's when I felt like, "Okay, I feel fulfilled now". And now it's to the point where if I can't go to mass on Sunday, I feel empty. If I don't go to confession, I feel like heavy weight on my shoulders.

Tucker: Yes.

Nalin: And that's when I was like, "This feels like not just speaking about faith, not just having it, but living it. Not just a feeling, but action". And that's when that happened I was like, "This is home".

Tucker: And has it proven to be what you thought?

Nalin: Absolutely. More than that. It's the best decision I've ever made in my life, second to becoming Christian in the first place. Although that wasn't really a decision, but kinda happened to me. But yeah. I feel like this is - Which is not to detract from your individual experience, but it does seem like part of a trend. I feel like this is not the first time I've heard this story recently.

Nalin: Yeah. And I think when you speak about men becoming more religious, it's more the traditional churches, right? Catholicism, Orthodoxy. And I think it's because in our society, we're so fed up with modernity, and the phones and the technology and - Really, it's just not natural. None of it's natural. None of our ancestors had that stuff, so we're feeling that.

And we're longing for something that's lasting, something that feels normal to us, and that's what this is. Now I'm not saying, and there are people who do this, but I'm not saying that you should join a church just because it's based in trad and all that, no. You should do it because you actually believe in truth and you wanna live out that faith and serve others.

But that is what's pulling a lot of people more towards that lane, and it's a very good thing because we have too much technology, we have too much modernity, and it's kinda repulsive.

Tucker: Put it mildly. Yeah. I'm trying not to jump all over your great story by agreeing with you too much. But I do - want to say that. Every freaking word.

Information Sources and Political Figures.

Tucker: Who do you listen to? Where do you get your information?

Nalin: So, just like everyone in my generation, it's social media.

Tucker: Yep.

Nalin: Which is not ideal. I don't want to get it from there. But it's also like, what am I gonna do? Like, read the newspaper? Go on some article - Like, I don't wanna do that either.

Tucker: No.

Nalin: So, it's difficult to find somewhere. If I am super interested in one specific news article or topic, then I will search various sources, try and see what's happening and all that. But for me and for most of my generation, it's social media.

Tucker: Are there any political figures that you like or identify with or think are telling part of the truth or -

Nalin: I appreciate you.

Tucker: Well, I'm not a political figure. I'm just a podcaster.

Nalin: Oh, political figure. Well, I mean, I don't feel represented by anybody. And in terms of political commentators, I don't watch them either, you know? Like it's -

Tucker: I don't either.

Nalin: It's not my idea of a good time is to watch political commentators. Any politicians? It's - No, really, that's funny that you feel that way. You know, I think JD says a lot of good stuff. But I think there's also just a lot of unknowns. And I think once this primary comes up that we'll learn more. And that's where the - Primary is, it teaches you about them, who they are, what they really believe.

Tucker: Exactly.

Nalin: And so when that happens, I think we'll learn a lot more and we'll be able to make better decisions. But my hope is that we'll see someone who resonates with my generation.

Future Plans.

Tucker: And what's your plan? Would you get into politics?

Nalin: That's like my mom's worst nightmare for me to do that. Not 'cause she's not supportive, but just like -

Tucker: No, no, I get it.

Nalin: She's seen how toxic and exhausting it is, so it's like - It's a rough life.

Nalin: Yeah. It really is. And so, no, what I would rather have is people do their job. Not wait for problems to come to them, but really get on top of them, you know, not be so reactionary. I would rather that.

But if no one does that, then I don't know, maybe. If no one speaks up, no one's saying the things they need to, then that's not something I'm thinking about right now. But someone has to do it. And so I would rather the people right now in office and our leaders, so-called leaders, do it now. But, yeah, someone's gonna have to do it because we can't just keep ignoring these problems.

Conclusion.

Tucker: I appreciate you taking this time.

Nalin: Thank you.

Tucker: You've given me hope. I mean it, too. So thank you.

Nalin: Thank you.

Claude AI.

I've organized the entire transcript into a structured document with clear section headings and identified speakers where possible (Tucker Carlson and Nalin Haley). The document is now formatted as a readable markdown file.

Note: As you correctly predicted, I couldn't identify all speakers throughout because the original transcript doesn't consistently label them. However, in the interview section with Nalin Haley, the speakers are clearly identified. The earlier monologue sections and video clip portions remain unlabeled where the original transcript didn't specify who was speaking.

You can copy this organized version from the artifact panel for your reference.