Karys Rhea: Are We Watching Conservatism Split in Real Time? | DSH #1795

They want to be an edgelord. They want to say the most provocative, outrageous taboo things possible.

And they know that they can get away with it because we are a party of free speech.

And MAGA became a very big tent.

And so they really just want to push the boundaries.

As you know, they are trying to have content just like we all are.

And they think that what is going to get them clicks and virality

is the things that are the most outrageous and they are probably right.

Okay guys, Karris, Rhea, here nice and early today at Amphus.

Thanks for waking up and coming straight here.

Thanks for having me. It's kind of been a long time coming, right?

Yeah, yeah, we've been trying to do this for a while.

You've been busy right now, both now.

Going on your honeymoon, getting married.

Marriage, we actually filmed a hundred episodes this week.

I was looking through the calendar.

Yeah, because it was an event we were filming that earlier this week where we did a bunch.

And then this, we're doing like 60.

I guess you have to keep putting out content, right?

In order to be relevant, to gain a foothold, right?

Yeah, you know how it is.

You know how it is.

You know how it is. People forget about you if you don't post for a day.

Yeah.

That's just the attention time we're in.

But what's new?

Things like you've got it under control.

Yeah, what's new with you though?

What's the main focus?

What are you working on?

Well, since I left Epoch Times, I was a producer there.

I left, I left there in August.

And I've just been full-time writing a book.

I'm on a very tight deadline for it.

But in addition to that, I've just been kind of doing random pro bono projects.

I mean, I speak a lot at conferences or do media.

And then I also am consulting Congress members and journalists on this new...

Identitarianism and sectarianism that we're seeing on the right

and trying to understand the full scope.

Because as I say often, it's much, much bigger than Nick Fuentes or Tucker Carlson

or anti-Semitism even.

So I'm trying to educate and brief people

so that looking ahead to a post-Trump world,

everybody's really prepared for possible changes that are happening inside the GOP.

What do you think the right is going to look like after Trump?

Because it seems like there's a lot of different directions it could take.

Right, yeah.

I mean, that's the million dollar question.

And I think it largely depends on the will of the people.

Right?

I think that JD Vance is a big question mark.

The primary concern is whether he's going to govern in the legacy of Trump

or whether he's going to govern in the image of Tucker Carlson.

Because he's very loyal to Tucker Carlson because it is Tucker Carlson

who is primarily responsible for getting him that job in the first place.

I mean, he worked very hard along with Don Jr. and Charlie Kirk,

I believe, to put him in front of the president

and to influence and encourage the president to consider him

because JD Vance was very anti-Trump at one point like a lot of people are.

So there's a question there.

What way is JD Vance going to govern?

And I think that will largely change the future of the Republican Party depending.

I think a lot changed when Charlie got killed because I just saw Tim Bulldog about this.

He said the next ballot was going to be Vance and Charlie as VP

and then after Vance, eight years, they were going to do Charlie and John Jr.

Apparently that was a plan they were rumors about.

Oh, interesting.

So that's not happening obviously anymore.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Crazy, right?

Yeah, yeah. It's a weird time.

It's a sort of like a transition period, I feel like.

You have all of these different MAGA subgroups, right?

Under the big tent of MAGA that are vying for power in a post-Trump world.

Everybody wants to take up the mantle of MAGA or America first

and insert it with their own nuanced agenda, whatever that looks like.

And some of these groups are pretty sinister.

And they don't have an agenda that I would say aligns with MAGA at all.

But they're using that moniker or some of them are even just proudly not MAGA anymore

and they've decided that they're America first, which they believe is something wholly distinct from MAGA.

Right.

And they essentially, to me, are no different than the left.

They have a revolutionary reactionary mindset where they envision

an America very different from what the founding fathers envisioned.

They are outspoken about being what they call post-democratic or post-liberal

and wanting to essentially tear down the infrastructure of democracy

and rebuild it in their image.

Whether that image is a corporate monarchy, like Curtis Yarvan says,

or some sort of technocracy, like Nick Land says,

or some sort of Christian theocracy, like Stephen Wolf wants.

There are all these so-called right-wing philosophers or just idea people

who have been putting out intellectual propositions for the future of America

that a lot of people are now picking up on, including groipers,

and a lot of these books are being promoted here at Amphast.

And in my opinion, it's so antithetical to what conservatism stands for,

which is the conservation of our founding institutions and our constitution.

Yeah. Have you ran NC, any Creolepers here?

Yeah, I mean, they brought me here just so I could fight with the groipers.

I'm not affiliated with any institution or group here,

but there is an organization through the Philos Project,

which also has a branch called Generation Zion.

I heard of it.

They got me a ticket to assist them in any opposition they would face

from the right here, like from the groipers,

because apparently at other Amphast,

so the Student Action Summit, there's a lot of them there.

There's people that come up and they just go to any sort of Jewish or Zionist booth

and they hackle them and they throw cameras in their faces.

Really?

And they just call them a Jew over and over and over again,

as if that's an argument.

And so I was so ready to offer up any assistant and get in the fight

and any assistance and jump in the fight here.

So that's what we've been doing, but it really hasn't been that bad.

That's good.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything crazy.

I saw some viral video over there about Holocaust denial,

but nothing too crazy.

I heard about that, but I didn't see it.

Yeah, some girl was denying the 6 million, you know.

Oh, right.

I think it was Elle Molding.

I don't know her, but.

Man, she's a treat.

Yeah.

What's she known for?

I haven't heard of her.

I mean, I've just seen her, her ex-posts.

And, you know, there's this thing now that conservatives love to do.

They want to be an edgelord.

They want to say the most provocative, outrageous taboo things possible.

And they know that they can get away with it because we are a party of free speech.

And MAGA became a very big tent.

And so, they really just want to push the boundaries.

As you know, they are trying to have content just like we all are.

And they think that what is going to get them clicks and virality

is the things that are the most outrageous and they're probably right.

They're probably right about that.

It does work for virality, but it's a sustainable list of them.

Right.

Time will tell.

It's definitely not sustainable because any culture that has embraced anti-Semitism

or Jew hatred in the history of the world has collapsed.

Really?

It is brain rot.

Charlie said that.

Charlie always said that Jew hatred rots your brain.

It is a substitute for taking personal responsibility.

It is a way to scapego another group for all of your problems.

It is a way for you to essentially feel comfortable in your victimhood

and not have to face the consequences of your own choices, of your own actions.

And so any nation or society or community that has been consumed

by this type of scapegoating against a collective identity group or ethnic group

has eventually disintegrated.

Because like you said, it is not sustainable.

And that's why Jewish, Zionists, conservative Christians,

so many of us are trying so hard to keep that out of the party

because there is such a thing as gay keeping.

And it's not the same thing as cancel culture.

Conservatives have principles.

We've always gay kept.

Always.

We don't allow, like you can disagree on one or two issues, whatever.

If you like there are people who support abortion, who are conservatives, that's fine.

But if you have different values, how are we going to let you in our movement?

If you're not a patriot, a constitution loving patriot, how could you call yourself a conservative?

There's a fundamental world view to this.

And if you don't share it, then we can gay keep you out.

And that is not canceling.

We're not saying you should lose your job or use your livelihood or be censored or silence.

It's just saying go somewhere else because you're not one of us.

We've always done that.

Yeah.

How do you see this playing out?

Because this seems like we're the most divided we've been in my life to my lease on the conservative side.

Yeah, me too.

Speakers are really calling each other out on stage, which is crazy.

How do you see it playing out, I guess?

I don't know.

I've always been pretty bad with speculative questions.

I feel like any predictions I make for the future, they always turn out wrong.

So I'm opposite of what you said.

I can talk about what is going on right now and I can talk about the path that we took to get here.

How we arrived at this current moment.

But my, I mean, your guess is as good as mine.

I don't know where we're heading.

I don't know where this all leads.

I think that we'll have to see how the midterms shape up because that's going to determine how much Trump can do in his last few years.

And it will also determine where we need to, where conservatives need to put their energy.

So we'll see.

It does seem like Charlie held a lot of this together when he was alive.

There's this new technology floating around that people cannot stop talking about.

It's called the light system.

Before you roll your eyes, it's not some gadget you strap on or supplement that promises the world.

Every once in a while, I come across something that actually stops me in my tracks.

And the light system is one of those things.

This isn't a supplement. It's not a biohack.

It's a full-on energy environment built to help your mind and body synchronize, recharge, and operate at a higher level.

It uses light patterns, color frequencies, and coherent energy fields.

All the stuff that your body naturally responds to to create a coherent, energetic field around you.

People are saying they feel more clear, more centered, more alive in their environment.

And honestly, the science behind it is fascinating.

I've seen a lot of wellness tech, but the numbers coming out on this new study of the light system are actually insane.

Researchers measured human chic cells before and after sitting in front of a system and get this.

A 30-minute session boosted cellular conductivity by 61%.

The study even showed increased conductivity in isolated DNA, which is associated with stronger structure and better repair pathways.

The result, more clarity, more balance, and more alignment.

You can save $500 now if you go to the lightsystems.com and use discount code Sean.

Yeah, you know, a lot of people are saying that.

And a lot of people think that this divisiveness has occurred largely after he was murdered.

I've been tracking it for years.

I mean, I'm a proud MAGA conservative.

And I noticed something very sinister within my own camp as early as 2022.

And I've been speaking and writing about it.

And you know, I, as amazing as Charlie was, I do not want to romanticize him.

And here's what I think about Charlie.

I think Charlie was amazing at keeping out the grouper sub-faction of all of these kind of sinister groups that I have been noticing.

I think he was great at making sure that those people don't find purchase within mainstream conservative societies because he recognized that they were anathema to our values.

That they were nihilistic, that they were revolutionary, they were reactionary, and that they didn't stand for basic principles of faith, family, freedom.

I mean, look at somebody like Nick Fuentes. He's literally like getting married as gay, right?

So I think he was really great at that, but I think he embraced a lot of the, what I would call the enablers of this kind of stuff.

So he didn't understand that there was a very clear line between the extremism of the grouper's and the more moderate voices such as Tucker Carlson or Dave Smith or Steve Bannon.

And I don't think, and I don't think that there was any sort of malintent or any sort of awareness of this, but I genuinely think that Charlie just didn't understand.

He didn't realize the connection but being these people.

And I think one of the reasons he didn't realize that is because some of these people have changed.

Tucker Carlson is not the same Tucker Carlson he was during the pandemic.

I used to watch him every day. I was tuned into his monologues for five months, every single day. They were so valuable to me during the pandemic.

Steve Bannon is not the same Steve Bannon that he once was.

So I think that it's tough when you, when these people have built up credibility and a reputation that you respect.

And then either overnight, suddenly, immediately, like in the case of Steve Bannon during the 12-day war or gradually, like in the case of Tucker Carlson, they start going in a different direction.

And people like Charlie Kirk, they're not losers like me. He doesn't have, he's not a loser like me. He doesn't have time to watch every podcast and see what's going on.

So he doesn't, he doesn't, he didn't see the changes that were happening.

So that's kind of how I would characterize Charlie.

And so in terms of the view that he kept a lot of this out, I would say he kept some of it out. He invited a lot of it in.

But that's, I wouldn't fault him for that. I wouldn't necessarily fault him for that. It's hard to keep track. It's hard to keep track of what's happening with these people.

And I would just say I know that a lot of people, he all really, really love Tucker Carlson. I know that he is their savior in terms of conservative podcasters and influencers.

But I would say that they are being utterly gaslit into believing that he is a conservative.

Really, you don't label him conservative anymore.

I think that the only issues in which Tucker Carlson is a conservative are social issues that align with his faith.

So he's conservative on abortion. He's conservative on the trans staff. But listen to him on economics.

Listen to him on foreign policy. Listen to him on constitutional issues.

He is a leftist. Listen to the stuff that he said about Islam in his speech. He sounded like a leftist.

Here he is in his speech yesterday or two days ago telling us how he is not antisemitic. Antisemitism is bad, but it is used as a weapon to shut down free speech.

And then he goes and labels anybody who is criticizing Islam essentially as an Islamophob. He is such a hypocrite.

He contradicted himself so many times in that speech. He was like murder is wrong. Murder of innocence is wrong.

And if my brother went on a murder spree, I would defend him. I would not denounce him.

That's so weird.

And he said that the other night too. On another podcast, he was like I would help him escape.

Well, which is it? Which is it? And that certainly isn't what Charlie believed.

There's a quote here when you walk in. It says, it says God, God family country in that order. That is what Charlie believed.

So how can you tell me that you would help your brother escape if you went on a murder spree?

And still tell me that you are aligned with Charlie Kirk, that you are a conservative.

Because I believe that Charlie Kirk represented mainstream conservatism. And there's room for disagreement.

But there's on issues. There's room for disagreement on issues. But there's not room for disagreement on values.

Difference there. Huge difference. Right.

There's not disagreement. Values and issues. Values, worldview.

Yeah, I agree.

And so yeah, I think I think Tucker Carlson is gaslighting people to believe he's still conservative.

And just look at the people he's had on his podcast since 2025.

Over like 85% of his guests have been proud liberals, globalists or jihadist supporters.

He rarely has a conservative on and these are not hardball interviews. He has these guests on and he's falling over them.

He's agreeing with them, right? He's not having them on in order to bring in a different point of view.

He has these guests on and he doesn't tell you that they're not a conservative.

He had George Galloway on a few weeks ago who literally founded the conservative, I mean, sorry, the socialist workers party in Britain.

And Tucker Carlson has him on and says he's the most conservative UK politician. He is lying to you.

He's lying to you about who is a conservative and who is not conservative because he's actually a leftist.

But he knows that he knows that he has found purchase and conservative circles.

And so he wants to infiltrate that space with leftist aligned agendas and pretend that they're conservative

so that he can change the direction of the party of the Republican party and build it in his own image.

That is pretty logical argument.

Thank you.

I mean, if you're, if you're right about 85% what you probably are, you seem like the technical research.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

It makes sense, right?

Yeah.

It makes a lot of sense.

He's such a gas lighter. He's like, everybody's so obsessed with Israel.

Like, I don't, I don't want to talk about Israel.

Like, stop with the, it's like every other episode has been around Israel.

He will not shut up about Israel.

It's just like the pot calling the kettle black or whatever the expression is.

He's such a gas lighter.

And I know Charlie before he passed, like he was really concerned about the spread of Islam to the West.

Absolutely.

But very concerned.

You're starting to have on speakers at events to talk about it.

Mm-hmm.

And now he has Tucker promoting Qatar, right?

I know.

Tucker's like, I'm buying a home in Qatar to show that I'm America first.

What is that?

Well, it doesn't compute in my head.

Yeah. Well, I think the actual quote was, I'm buying a home in Qatar to show that I'm a free American.

That was the quote.

Oh, interesting.

Okay.

Very interesting.

It's a no.

Well.

Especially because you can't buy a home in Qatar without like government mandated.

You know what I mean?

Like the government is, it's, it's, it's a theocracy and it's essentially the government is, is, is present in every single element of your life.

And for Tucker, Tucker Carlson, who's apparently a proud Christian who cares about the persecution of his people around the world,

it's odd that he would be so friendly to a regime like Qatar that keeps Christians subservient and essentially second class citizens in that country.

There's only a handful of churches and they're all very, very tightly monitored and controlled in terms of what they can and cannot say by the Qatar regime.

So he's just a hypocrite all around.

I mean, what do you think the biggest threat is? Do you think it's within? Do you think it's the left? Do you think it's as long?

So America?

Yeah, to America.

Wow, there's so many.

So many.

There's so many.

I mean, this, this stuff that we're talking about, I think this is the biggest threat to the Republican party.

But in terms of America, I mean, look, these people, they don't control our institutions.

The left is still controlling our institutions.

So in terms of America, the direction of America, I would still say that the progressive left is the biggest threat.

And I would actually include Islamism in that even though they're not part of the left because they are allies.

So the left sides with the Islamist threat in America.

So I would say what they call the red green alliance, which is the ally ship, the alliance between the liberal progressives and the illiberal Islamists.

So I think that's a huge threat that we're facing.

I also think globalism is a huge threat to America.

One world, technocratic governments, multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.

And I think that they are trying to usurp sovereignty from nations, including Israel majorly.

I think that's a perfect example of how they're a threat to the sovereignty of America.

Just look at what they're trying to do to Israel.

And yeah, so I think globalist, jihadist, leftist, I think those are the primary threat that we're facing.

But within our own party, within the Republican party and the larger conservative movement, I think there's going to be a reckoning and we're going to have to choose what direction we want to go.

Do we want to go in the direction of the nihilistic, radical, grievance-based, rage-based, you know, Tucker Carlson wing of the party.

Or do we want to go in the direction of what I believe was Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk's creed of personal responsibility and a family and community and tolerance, honestly.

Not scapegoating, not having a victimhood complex, right?

It's just so crazy. Last year when I was here, everyone was so united.

Really?

There was like no one fighting.

Not at the top, at least. Not like the big names. Like they are now with Megan Kelly.

Oh, right, right, right, right. But what about on the ground? Did you see?

There was fights on the ground, but just random influencers.

Interesting.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Now it's like the highest level.

Well, I'm just trying to think, I'm just trying to think, okay, so last year, I mean...

Trump just got in.

Just got in.

Okay, Trump just got in.

Yeah.

Okay, so Trump had already been elected.

Everyone was on.

Okay, so that makes sense.

Yeah.

That makes sense that we would be unified.

Because once Trump, as soon as Trump got elected, I think a lot of us were like, we can breathe.

We can finally breathe.

We can breathe.

We can breathe the same.

Yeah, that was a big one.

As a proud Jew, I was like, finally.

Finally, I'm like, I can, I can, I can relax because it was, you know...

That was a huge election.

America for Jews would have looked very bad under Kamala Harris, so I was, I was so relieved.

I didn't know her stance on Jewish people, honestly.

But I was more relieved for free speech, because if Kamala got in, all of the toast, I think.

Yeah, for sure.

No, the whole censorship, industrial complex, the whole apparatus would have just been strengthened

and exacerbated under Kamala.

No doubt about that.

That's why I'm like trying to really work harder.

It's not to build an audience before 28, because that's the possibility for the audience.

Oh, interesting.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It could be a Democrat gets in, whether it's news or something.

Did you have, did you have any experiences of getting like shadow band or censored or kicked out?

Yeah, even under Trump, honestly, too.

Yeah.

But it was worse underbiting.

Which which platforms?

TikTok under Trump.

Okay.

Facebook and YouTube under Biden for sure.

And Instagram.

Geez.

Okay.

Yeah, it was way worse under Biden.

Yeah, yeah.

Trump's, Trump and Elon have helped a lot.

Yeah.

Okay.

But I mean, what do you think now?

Because when I, when you even first approached me, I was so surprised that you did.

Because I had only seen your stuff in the context of a lot of these people that I'm fighting against.

The Nick Fuentes is and the Myron Gaines and the Andru Tates and the Jake Shields.

And I had just seen them on your shows.

I've had all of them on now.

But now, yeah.

But now I see that you have like so many different people on your shows from different sides.

Like, what has your perspective changed?

Like, where have you?

I've always had both sides.

But like you said, the algorithm only shows a negative post.

So you probably got the Jake Shields clips, the Myron Gaines clips, the take clips.

But I've had on a lot of pro-Israel.

I've had on more pro-Israel guests than not.

Interesting.

By far.

Yeah, yeah.

Interesting.

I actually get a ton of hate for it.

But here's the thing.

Like, showing both sides in terms of Israel that I totally get.

Like, showing people that are critical of Israel, showing people who, well, I mean, I'm critical of Israel.

But, you know, showing anti, well, of course, I feel like Zionists are the most critical of all.

It's just that we're not anti-Israel because we understand that Israel is like any other country

and as we do this.

That makes sense.

But when you say, like, showing both sides of like the Jewish question, like, that doesn't make sense to me.

Because one side is you're a Jew.

I'm going to punch you in the face.

Like the pro-Palestine side, your side?

No, like the Jewish side.

Like, the Israel stuff, that I completely understand.

But if you're just talking about like, showing both sides, like, people who are pro-Jewish

and then people are, who are anti-Jewish, that's not like...

Like, anti-Semites, your side?

Yeah, that's not like a both side.

That's like, oh, I'm going to have somebody who is...

I'm going to have somebody who is racist and then somebody who's not racist.

Do you know what I mean?

Like, it's kind of weird.

There's extremes, yeah.

There's extremes.

Yeah.

No, I see what you're saying.

Because Israel is actually like a policy debate, right?

Right.

But how can there be two sides to a debate about somebody's identity?

Like, I support somebody being Jewish and I don't support somebody being Jewish.

That's so bizarre.

That's so bizarre.

So it's like, if the guest is racist, are you saying like, not to have them on?

Like, is that like your line?

Well, that's a good question.

I mean, I would never...

I would never tell you to not have somebody on.

No, not me, I'm saying like for you, like, for you to converse with someone.

That would...

No, I mean, I would converse with anybody.

If I had a podcast, I would have to think twice about having them on.

I wouldn't have them on unless it was a hard, a hard-ball interview.

That's for sure.

That's for sure, right?

I think that it's tough because...

If you censor these people and you silence them, right?

They're going to be emboldened in a certain sense and empowered.

Empower.

But you also don't want to normalize and mainstream.

They're aggressively bigoted views.

Right?

You don't want to put that in the ecosystem to the point where it becomes just like another conversation.

Like, in my opinion, in my opinion, if these people got their way,

and not just the grippers or the manosphere people, but also the Tucker Carlson's

and the Candace Owens and those people.

In my opinion, if these people got their way, the conversations that conservatives would be having,

like, are you conservative?

Yeah, I'm conservative.

The conversations that you and I would be having would be like,

whether it's okay to rape women or whether the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust deserve it.

Wow.

You think it defaults to that?

That is the level, that's the level of conversation that I think that we would be having as conservative.

So to me, it's guttural, it's degrading, it is trashy, right?

It is like, it's a level of humanity that is tapping into our ugliest,

our worst instincts, which as Jews and Christians,

we are constantly fighting against every single day, right?

Like, we have both the capacity for good and evil,

and we need to foster those parts of ourselves that are optimistic,

that are positive, that are responsible,

and not the parts of ourselves that are ego-driven, that are angry,

that are bitter, that are resentful, right?

And so I think it's such a fine line that you have to walk, right?

You essentially want to keep these people on the fringes,

but you don't want to, you don't want to completely silence them,

so that they don't have their own little voice wherever they are.

Like, they should have their own little niche, right?

But we don't want to normalize it.

We don't want that to be the norm, because we're going to be having very different conversations of this country.

Yeah.

So you don't want to make the mainstream, basically,

but you kind of want them to have their own bubble.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Because keep in mind before the internet, before social media,

there was such a thing as polite society.

And there were people whose views were so aggressively bigoted or so hateful or so violent,

that we just didn't welcome them into polite society.

But nobody thought that you were cancelling them when you did that.

It's just that we're decent people, and we don't want indecency in our spaces.

Occasionally we'll debate with them, and occasionally we'll talk to them.

But we just don't want them circulating every waking minute.

We don't want their guttural hatred, like consuming our brains all the time, right?

So we just kept them kind of on the fringes, right, because they're indecent.

And I think that's the task at hand.

It's how to keep it so that you're not falling prey to what the left did, right?

The cancel culture was terrible.

Exactly.

But you are gatekeeping because you recognize that there are certain views that are so guttural

and so below human decency that we don't want to affect our minds with those 24 or 7.

Yeah.

I could see that.

I don't agree with de-platforming, debanking, and all that.

What do you...

When Trump got banned, I followed a social media.

100%.

So is de-platforming?

Is that mean...

You get banned?

Oh, yeah.

I am 100% not for that.

Yeah, I don't do that.

For X, for example, a lot of people say that X has become a cesspool of Jew hatred.

You can't go on X and say Shabbat Shalom without having a flood of people.

Just like you're a Jew, you're a Jew, 7,000, free Palestine, like what Palestine, right?

But should all those people get kicked off of X?

Of course not.

But should they be dealing with bots?

Of course.

That is such a difficult thing to do.

But in order for people, right?

Because free speech also applies both ways.

If you're a bully and you're preventing...

If you're intimidating somebody else into not exercising their right to free speech,

that's a problem, right?

So if you have all these bots, these mobs that are descending on people just exercising their free speech,

and then they're trying to essentially intimidate you into silence.

Yeah.

How do you deal with that?

It's so difficult.

So I think that X needs to deal with the bots and the human bots,

not just the fake people posing as humans that aren't,

because there's real human bots on there.

And I also think steps that they're taking, like, you know, country of origin is really important.

That was a good stuff.

I think that that should be listed right in your bio, right underneath.

I don't think you have to go...

You should have to go into your about section or whatever to find it.

And I think there's a lot of really creative solutions like that that they can take.

But I definitely, definitely, definitely think that dealing with bots will be a huge problem,

because you need to find some way of determining the foreign influence

from like the genuine, you know, the people that are, like, genuinely in your camp

with a real live human voice.

And somebody at X, I think it was Nikita, somebody who worked at X said,

you know, one of the most common problems we're finding in terms of these fake accounts

is people posing as Christian conservative patriots.

Yeah, he was like the...

He said the most common thing we find in a bio of a fake account

is like an American flag emoji and a cross.

So there are so many people not necessarily bots,

but just people from other countries that are pretending to be America first,

mega conservatives.

Trying to make them look better.

Exactly.

So that's a problem.

That's going to be the next fight of bots and AI videos and deep fakes.

Totally.

It's going to be a deadly combo when you mix all that together.

So I agree with you.

If that's your definition of de-platforming 100%, I would never...

I don't think that these people should be kicked off of X

unless they're, you know, calling to actually commit,

carry out some sort of violent or terrorist attack, you know, on people.

But if your definition of de-platforming is like criticizing somebody for,

you know, not giving a hardball interview,

I think that that's fair game, you know, if you have somebody on your show

and I'm like, I'm like, Sean, it's your right to have anybody you want on your show,

but I can criticize you for how you can conduct your interview.

I'll take the heat.

I don't do as much research as you as well.

So if I were to push back on certain topics,

I would look like an idiot, honestly.

Yeah, yeah, that's fine.

But that's your right to say that.

And it's my right to say, cool, we'll do more research

or like, you know, be more careful, you know,

when you bring people that are, you know, pushing certain things on your show.

I'm not saying don't have anybody on your show.

No, I agree with you.

I agree.

I take all the criticism.

I just think it's like, if you are Tucker Carlson

and you choose to have somebody on your show, then own that.

And be prepared for people to say like, oh,

that interview was so dumb for like reason A, B, C, right?

It's like, it's like people can push it out, but I can't take it back.

I like genuine feedback.

It helps me improve as a host.

With Tucker, I noticed he picks who to go hard on.

Like Ted Cruz, for example.

He's only done two hardball interviews since 2025.

And none of them have been the last person he has.

Well, I guess like Bankman Fried or whatever.

Oh, yeah, he went hard on that guy.

Yeah, that was it.

Yeah.

Those were only two interviews.

And so when people are like, oh, no, he has these people on to have a different

point of view, whatever, like nonsense.

Yeah.

Nonsense.

Yeah, he definitely picks and chooses.

I watched the flintest one.

He was chilling on that one.

Totally.

No hard questions.

All these people that he's pretending our conservatives are leftists and he will not tell you.

Jeffrey Sachs is a favorite of his.

He has Jeffrey Sachs on.

I think that's the all-in.

He's the guy.

No, he's.

So Tucker won't tell you this, but he is a UN sustainability development dude.

He is literally the archetypal, archetypal, globalist.

He is everything that the left is fighting against.

And Tucker will not tell you that.

He is also the foremost non-Chinese speaking talking head that goes on

on CCP state media to bash America.

That's all he does.

He just bashes America again and again and again and again.

And again, but Tucker won't tell you that.

So Tucker will have him on pretend that this guy is not our enemy and just talk to him about, you know, how America is responsible for all these wars in the Middle East and this and this and that.

And, you know, just really, really hammer home the like anti-war train, which I don't really believe he's anti-war, but that's how he that's how he presents himself.

And he won't tell you that the guy that he's speaking to that's anti-war actually hates America.

It really, really hates America.

And so it's just endless.

And this whole anti-war thing is ridiculous.

They're anti-war if you respond to an active aggression, but they're not anti-war towards the aggressors themselves.

So like they have no problem with like Russia invading Ukraine.

They have no problem with Hamas attacking Israel, but they have a problem with Israel responding with Ukraine responding.

I see where you stand.

The initial, the real war mongers, the real war hawks, they have no problem with.

They rationalize.

They rationalize the initial active aggressions.

They'll say, oh, well, you know, Hamas was they had no choice.

They've been blockaded. They just want to stay. They'll rationalize it.

They'll say, yeah, it's wrong what they did, but, but, but it's understandable, right?

But there's no rationalization.

There's no way that they will support any sort of response.

So true.

So they'll rationalize Russia, oh, like NATO, you know, NATO was really threatening Russia.

And Russia has a right to certain areas of Ukraine, whatever, whatever, whatever.

But, you know, Ukraine responding knows Zelensky is a war hawk and a greedy war monger who just wants to draw Europeans and America into his war and whatever.

And I'm not a huge fan of Zelensky.

So this is not me, you know, running cover for Ukraine or anything like that.

But it's like, it's just, it's so, it's such a double standard.

It's so myopic and it is not anti-war.

It is, it is a, they're, they're viewing a world in which they are viewing a world in, in which...

Russia, Iran, China are the imperialist powers and America looks no different than Canada or Europe.

That is what these isolationists, these paleo-conservatives, these so-called anti-war pacifists want to see in America.

They want to see America completely seal itself off in some sort of hermetic dome as if that's possible in 2025.

And essentially become no different than Canada or France.

And anybody who disagrees with their utopian worldview is immediately labeled a neocon, right?

Like because you, you, you see holes in their, in their isolationist, non-interventionist worldview,

suddenly you believe in like a bush-era nation building, right?

Of like top-down, you know, intervention and spreading democracy, which could not be further from the, from the truth.

Both neoconservatism and, and, and isolationism, to me, are like two sides of the same coin.

They're two extremes and they're both utopian.

They, they both have these unrealistic, un-new-on's divisions for foreign policy.

And neither of them are Trump's foreign policy.

Trump's foreign policy is the middle way. It's peace through strength.

It's being much more vigilant about how, you know, where we send our troops, where we send our taxpayer dollars abroad.

You know, and, and, and, and, and trying to pull back from a lot of these foreign entanglements that aren't in America's interests.

But also wielding a big stick, having a very strong defense, a very strong military, and letting our enemies know that if they even, if they step out of line,

if they try anything, then all bets are off.

That we will not hesitate for a second to go in and destroy you, right?

Yeah.

So that, that's, that's what Trump's view is.

It's not, it's not pacific. It's not leftist. It's just not.

It's not rocket science.

Yeah.

Well, Karis, thanks for your time.

Where can people support you and find you?

Thank you so much. I'm very active on X.

It's just my last name and then my first name. So my name reverse at Raya, Karis, R-A-G-A-K-A-R-Y-S.

And that's really the only, the only social. I'm on Instagram, but it's private.

I don't post a lot of, it's just our family and friends and stuff.

So if you want to connect with me on politics, X is where to find me.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you so much, Sean.

Check her out, guys. See ya.

I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe.

It helps the show a lot with the algorithm. Thank you.

Thank you.