Danny Jones Podcast - #255 - 2025 US Civil War, Psychedelics, Christianity & the Machine Rapture | Whatifalthist

Episode Date: August 19, 2024

Watch all episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Rudyard Lynch is creator of @WhatifAltHist he investigates patterns in history and anthropology so as to predict the future and understand the dynamics that result in civilizations rising and falling. SPONSORS https://takethesis.com/danny - Get $60 off your first subscription order. https://factormeals.com/dannyjones50 - Get 50% your first box + 20% off your next month. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off. FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - What will trigger the next global crisis? 09:40 - How radicals convert centrists 16:58 - Horseshoe theory 25:59 - Why the coming civil war is unavoidable 34:19 - Google manipulating search results 38:14 - 4 triggers for the next civil war 47:25 - Gay space communism 55:21 - The new left 01:08:18 - Why the right will win America's civil war 01:17:08 - Modern art & the CIA 01:23:50 - Genetic data has been covered up for decades 01:30:08 - Christianity vs. intellectualism 01:50:46 - Psychedelics & churches of the middle ages 02:01:11 - AI Gods & the "machine rapture" 02:09:36 - How warfare has been democratized 02:13:09 - Why the US is funding the Taliban 02:16:09 - Miles Routledge 02:20:29 - 3 metrics that predict a civil war 02:30:30 - Rudyard's plan to survive civil war 02:33:36 - The Unabomber 02:39:17 - Edward Bernays 02:43:50 - Hypernormalization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

All right, Rudyard. Thanks for coming on the show, dude. Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure. Your YouTube channel scared the living shit out of me. The one that really freaked me out was your recent one. I don't know how recent it was, but you basically broke down, bar for bar,

how and why you think there's going to be a civil war in America right after or before the 2024 election. Do you still think that's true? Why? Do you think that's true? Every week that passes, I believe that more and more. And you posted that video like four months ago? I think I posted the one for, I've made, I'd say, six videos on this topic. The one about why I think that the war will start within the next year, I think I posted that last April or May. And as of 2020 is when I started to think the world would have a major crisis. Or you could put it back to like 2017 when I thought the world would have a

crisis. I gradually narrowed down around 2020 and I thought it would be a U.S. Civil War as of like three years ago. But I didn't know the time frame. Over time, I came to think that it's going to happen this election. And that's something that I bet money on. And that is, and I say these things so that you know I'm not a charlatan, because a charlatan would give an incredibly vague and wide time frame. And if I wrong, I accept that I'm wrong. And there's a variety of reasons why I think that. And this is a topic I've put a lot of time and effort into.

So do you want me to get started on that on why I think we'll have a civil war? By the way, you're 23 years old. Yeah, I just turned 23. And you've been analyzing this shit and devoting all of your time to studying this stuff. since you were, what, like 15? Since I started a channel on my 13th birthday, and then I started analyzing whether or not the world would have a crisis when I was 16.

And the reasoning for that is that I had two weeks of stomach pains. In the stomach pain, I felt like there was going to be a world crash. And that's why I started becoming obsessed with China's growth because I wanted to figure out what my gut was telling me. And so I first thought China would rise to defeat America. and I studied China. I read about, like I'd say 15 books in the topic. Then I realized China wasn't actually a threat to America.

So I went down the list. And in 2020, I figured out what I think's going to happen. And I read a book called The Great Wave by David Hackett Fisher. And it is a history of inflation over Western history. And that sounds very boring, but it's one of the best books I've read. It's actually even so one of the best written and most interesting books I've read, where he looks at inflation over the last thousand years of West. Western history, and you can use inflation to predict when there's a global crisis.

And these happen every 250 years, with the last one being the French Revolution, before that the religious wars of the 70th century, which people forget, but they killed around a third of the world's population. There was the Black Death in the 1300s, which killed half of Eurasia's population, then the fall of the Frankish Empire. And you could push these back as far as we have records. And so there's these periodic, rhythmic collapses of the global order, which see plagues, disease, sorry, plagues, war, famine, regime change, and social rupturing. And there's about 20 variables you can use to predict this.

And Peter Churchin's done a lot of work on this topic. And he has narrowed it down to three variables which are predictive in the same way that David Hackett Fisher before uses inflation. And those three variables in his computer mom, model from 2010, he said in the 2020s, America would have a major war or an internal civil war, a revolution, or that stuff. And I would, and I expand that to the rest of the world, but everything we would need to see, because the way my mind works is I have multiple scenarios that run in my head. And when I look at new evidence, I think, which of these, which of the, for this new information I saw, what predictive model does this fit into? And everything that would be

happening if the U.S. were to have a civil war for the last 15 years has happened. Already. Yes. So one of the ideas I have for this topic is that when you look at the start of a major war, there's a series of dominoes that falls. Right. And the faster the dominoes fall and in the closer succession, it means that there's going to be something bad.

Because the way major world crises happen is that there's some underlying systemic geopolitical demographic force. And that means that there has to be a war. The question is when or where does it happen. So for World War I, there were about a dozen places where World War I could have started. It just happens to be in Bosnia. And the same is true for us, where every single week, for a pretty long time, we've had dominoes falling. We've had Iran threatening war in the Middle East. We have had Biden removed as the presidential nomination. We've had Trump nearly getting shot. And you can go back further. There's in multiple states have taken the opposing candidate off the ballot. And that, the last time that happened was the last civil war. States, both the Republicans and the Democrats

have said that if they've said the result of the last election weren't correct. And And there's a, my main logic for thinking we'll have a civil war is mostly economic data. But when I see outside is that all the manifestations in just politics and in general culture are there. And an example I love to use is that most mainstream leftist content creators have said that Destiny said it's morally permissible or in Trump voters should die. Vouch said leftists should dart owning guns against the right. Hassan has said that it's okay to punch conservatives. And then I'm, if you guys haven't figured that already, I am right-a-center. And as part of the culture on right-wing Twitter, it's just insanely bloodthirsty.

And I'll throw out test questions like committing war crimes is bad. And then people will debate, there will be mass approval against the concept. People dislike the concept of war crimes being bad. And so you can see from everything you would look at that the culture is amping itself up to just get incredibly bloodthirsty. And I mean, Hillary Clinton recently said that Trump voters should be put into reeducation camps. She said that a while ago, didn't she? Yeah, like a year. I'm a historian, so recent from my mind.

I call the 1600s recent. Right. Well, okay. So it looks like it sounds like the most of the evidence you're pointing. to is on the internet. You're talking about people like destiny. You're talking about just now. Yes, just now. You mentioned Hassan, Destiny, and Twitter comments. Okay. Well, we know that the you see on the internet that gets the most attention is the most ridiculous shit on the left and the right. The people to the far right and the far left are the loudest and you get the most attention.

But if you go outside, a good friend of mine, Julian Dory, he's got a great podcast. He made this, He pointed this out to me. Wawa, New Jersey. You're familiar with New Jersey. It's the New Jersey embassy. We have a Wawa down the street. Oh, yeah. I grew up in Pennsylvania.

Wawa is, it's like a religion in Pennsylvania. Yes. Eastern half of the state. If you slander Wawa on the slightest, you'll get beaten up immediately. I fucking love Wawa. It's the best thing that's ever happened to Florida. So, like, you can go on Twitter and you can read all this stuff.

All these people, this, you know, spewing venom online about whatever their ideology is, whatever political leanings they have. But when I go to Wawa, I see the girl with green hair holding the door for the 70-80-year-old man with the World War II hat on, you know, with the Trump stickers on his truck. So it's not that way in real life everywhere.

It's only that way with people who are hiding behind screens and keyboards, for the most part. That is a good point. And it makes me think back to a book I finished yesterday. the dictator's handbook. And one of the points of the book is that dictatorships often fall apart due to natural disasters. Because natural disasters result in the congregation of disaffected people who can then be used against the regime. And from my study of revolutions, I've found that revolutions tend to be spurred on by small disaffected minorities.

If you look before the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, all communists were 3% of Russia's population. the Bolsheviks were a minority of communists. Before the French Revolution, the Jacobins who ended up ruling France, were so small that you could predict factions in the French Revolution by what cafes they went to, where in the French Revolution, different political factions, the different political factions went to different cafes. They were that small. English Civil War, the Puritan radicals who took over,

they were 10% of England's population. So what happens in these civil wars is that the radicals organize, and then what happens is that there's a split between the normies who don't do anything. And over the course of history... To normies, I love it, yeah. Yeah, yeah. And so before the English Civil War, it was common knowledge that because England hadn't had a war in 150 years, that the English were too weak to fight.

And what ended up happening is that the radical, the cavalier radicals who were the old nobility and rural folk versus the capitalist religious fundamentalists, they just conscripted people. So what happened is that no one, and this is the thing I've said in a dozen podcasts, no one riots for normies, no one stands up for normie rights, no one pushes the normie interests.

And so the sad thing about a lot of history is that small, and this is something Nassim Taleb taps into with his idea of skin in the game. Who? Nassim Taleb. He's a Lebanese data scientist. His work is really cool, where he looks at mathematical projections

and draws philosophic conclusions from it is that small groups of radicals who get their acts together and organize, they bully the normies because let's say there's a civil war where, and we've done statistical analyses of American politics, one third of Americans, conservative,

one third are leftist, another third are just disaffected. And the studies have found they're not centrist, they're just stupid. Not paying attention. No, yeah. And they just, they don't,

it's not that they, it's not that they they're like principled centrist who have studied both sides of it, they're just disaffected and so what happens is that it splits that disaffected third is just not involved

then there's the conservative third who the conservative third thinks okay we need to placate the insane people on our side because our insane people will need to win not the left's insane people the moderate leftists make the same calculation

So both sides split up, and then when that happens, a new center emerges inside each coalition. And then what inevitably occurs is that the radicals eat up the moderates until the radicals win. And so what happens in every single one of these civil war, barring the American Revolution, is that a group of radicals wins through gradually eating up the centrists in their side until they win control of the government. How do they eat up the centrists? So let me give you a couple examples. In the French Revolution, what happened, and for a frame of reference, there are four conflicts I use as useful proxies for the war that I believe will be starting in America. Those being the fall of the Roman Republic, which was like 50 years with the birth of Christ, the English Civil War in the 1600s, the French Revolution in the late 1700s, and the American Civil War in the mid-1800. So for the French Revolution, what happened is that there's the degenerate corrupt autocratic king. He is completely ineffectual. Radical leftists just kill him in the nobility. And then there's purity spiraling between the radical leftists where the most radical

branch, the Jacobins just grabbed the guns first and they start shooting everyone. In the English Civil War, what happened is that the parliamentarians won. And then the religious fanatic faction inside the parliamentarians had the most initiative. So England, the moderates who weren't religious fanatics lost. And so in each case, what happens is that once the Civil War is won, an insane faction inside the winning faction beats up the rest. So it eats itself. Yes. That's the, I tell people, you should never be in the business of launching revolutions because the first guys to always launch the revolution get shot, often by their own side, because the kinds of people who would launch revolutions are not.

the kinds of people who are easy to keep around in a ruling coalition. Do you think it's a good idea to talk about this stuff and predict it? Do you ever get the feeling that like maybe you could be talking some of this new existence? Man, so I just say the truth. And once you get beyond that, the world gets too complicated, I use the truth as a benchmark because whatever the truth is is is right and you should just say it. And trying to think beyond that, the world gets too complex. but I think these things have been in work for decades where the statistical models I look at, which predicts this, Peter Turchin has made statistical models in 2010 that said that this would happen in the 2020s with ironclad certainty.

He said, wow, I'm alert, Steve. Are you having paint again? No, I'm not huffing paint, Steve. Thesis sponsored the podcast. So now my brain is as tapped in as Rudyard's after chewing up a handful of espresso beans. I can read off all their national ingredients, but it's so much prettier to just. to show them. Look at all this stuff. Non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free. It's all third-party tested for purity. Does it ever end? Look at this stuff. You don't have to load yourself up with tons of caffeine or cratum or smelling salts or ice baths, whatever you need to keep yourself energized and feeling good.

I took the quiz online and it figured out exactly what I needed to be perfectly dialed in. For me, it was more focus. But what I noticed was the clarity that I got from this for like four to five hours after I take it during the podcast has made a huge difference. There's six unique blends to best fit your brain chemistry, clarity, creativity, motivation. I have clarity. Thank you, Danny. And you can take the quiz and it'll identify what you need. And it will send you four blends to test over four weeks to see what works best. Clarity works for me. The thesis has coaches to guide you through the process. If you have any questions, and it comes with a 30-day money back guarantee, they are awesome. You should try it out. So if you want to get your brain dialed in and working right, you can try thesis's free three minute quiz to find out

exactly what your brain needs. Head on over to take thesis.com and use my promo code, Danny, to save $60 on your first subscription order when you sign up for thesis. Again, that's $60 off your first order at take thesis.com. It's spelled t-a-k-e-t-h-es-is.com. and use my promo code, Danny, D-A-N-N-N-Y. Maximize your mind with thesis today. It's linked below.

Now, I'm back to the show. This has already happened. It just hasn't moved through its logic yet. And so he predicted off three variables. And David Hackett Fisher, the guy who read the book that was, the inflation book, he was predicting this in 1990s. And so these are authors where I think the reality of this was set before I was born. and I'm just talking about an underlying reality,

and I want people to be prepared in whatever way they want to. The irony of it is if the left and the right could work together. If the working class could figure out a way to melt together and not be divided, I think that we would have way more power. I think that that's how the elite stay in power is having society divided. Yes. And that's how they benefit and make money with their policies and rule the world and whatever conspiracy you want to believe in.

but it's you know have you heard of the horseshoe theory I know I know it I know people who went from far left to far right once you get radical enough they start looking the same there's the have you heard about the the bootleggar and the Baptist no they both want alcohol to be illegal

for different reasons for opposite reasons the Baptist because it's based on his morality and his religion the bootleger because he makes money when alcohol is illegal and if you want to take that to modern day, look at for the few that still exist in various corners of our country, the KKK and super

far left people. There was a kindergarten, or not a kindergarten, it was an elementary school in Colorado, I think, a couple of years ago, that designated a specific time or day for children of color playtime only. So it's segregation. So, far left and the KKK both want segregation, the horseshoe theory thing. Yes. Yeah, that's something I agree with.

And once you get far enough right, you see a lot of traits in common with the left. Desire for the government to do stuff for you, your identity is based off your blood or what you're born with, that you need to split Rachel groups up, that there is this one enemy group that if you kill them, everything will get fixed. That's either rich white men or the Jews. Say that last one again. So both the far right and the far left think there's a bogey man. If you kill him, the world will be perfect.

The far right and the far left, think if you kill the Jews, it'll solve the issues. And then a lot of people on the left think rich white men are the cause of all the issues in the world. Well, if you're a moderate or someone like me, I think the world's a very complex place. And I think there's not an easy solution or an easy answer to questions. And so they don't respect freedom. They're not based out of a Christian value system. And so far right and the far left often have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates of their own side. And I mean, it would be – this is something where I have a different position than a lot of conservatives.

but I think the last 40 years has really been the story of class warfare. I agree. I think the American upper class has done literally everything it can to push down the American lower class. It's like feudalism, like neo-futalism. Oh, yeah, definitely.

It's horrifying. And just the World Economic Forum always shocks me because I think to myself, if you guys were doing this, you should never have said that. If you had just done this in quiet, you could have won. But the fact that you felt the need

to broadcast this, everyone is just incredibly stupid. And I think they think they're so powerful that they're gloating. And from what I've seen from various ways I've looked into the American elite is that they are just incredibly stupid and incredibly naive and they have no idea what's going on. But to finish the point I was trying to make beforehand, I would like a world where the left and the right unified about the good of the common people, but that's not going to happen. I mean, the problem we've... I feel like Americans are waking up more than ever now, though. I feel like right now is people are more awake than they've been in recent history. The problem, though, is it's difficult

to arbitrate between the right and the left because they're fundamentally different religions. It's like getting the Sunnis and the Shias to work in Iraq, where the right and the left, they have different concepts of human nature, they have different concepts of God, they have different concepts of how to organize people, and so people talk about issues like abortion, and I definitely do think that people have picked symbolic culture war issues to get around stuff that actually hurts the American people. But like the reason an issue like trans bathrooms or abortion is so big is that it underlies a major philosophic difference between the right and the left. And so if the right and the left were to organize, they'd be like, do we organize by racial quotas? Do we organize? Do we organize? It's just they've become different religions. And so it's like saying, hey, why can't the Jews or Israelis work together? Sorry, why can't the Jews or Arabs work together? Right. And if they were to get together, they would realize they have a lot more in common than not. So that would involve triangulating with a third ideology. So triangulating is a political strategy used by Bill Clinton, where let's say you have a bunch of coalitions, for a Clinton example, black people, southern whites, Irish.

And so you think these people are divided. Let's find an idea that they share and unify them around that idea. And so that's what Bill Clinton would make up issues to unify different. parts of his coalition who disagreed in other things. Interesting. That would be what that person would have to do to unify the American working class. The problem is that we're such a politicized society that I think that might, that would have worked 10 years ago.

I don't think it would work now. Why not? Because it's, everything is politicized in our society. My dad partly grew up in Ireland and in Ireland, there's stuff like a Protestant shovels with his left foot on the shovel and the Catholic shovels with the right foot in the shuffle. And once you hit a certain critical mass, everything is politicized. For example, if you meet a person, it's relatively easy to know their politics within five seconds, how they dress, what food they choose to eat, what car they choose to drive. And I was really hoping that COVID

would be a moment to unify us. No, exact opposite. I was hoping that the foreign policy issues in Israel or Ukraine would unify us, no. Ten years ago. How was, yeah, yeah, okay, sorry to interrupt. Yeah, 10 years ago, all Americans would probably be behind Ukraine. Now, find a single political issue that's not politicized. The only one I can think of is geopolitical rivalry with China, where both Republicans and Democrats don't like China, but that was a relatively recent shift. Yes. Interesting how that happened so quick, right? Yes. Before Trump, when the coronavirus happened, he was talking about the coronavirus in a certain way, and people would say, oh, he's being, you know, know, racist against Chinese or xenophobic or whatever. And soon after that, it's like both parties started to align against China. Yes. So I think I have an answer to that. One of my buddies,

he worked for Monsanto in Southeast Asia for like 10 years. And so he would do, he would go to Thailand and Burma and go to rural communities and he would give them genetically altered crops to increase their yields. And so he traveled all around Southeast Asia. I have another buddy who was an anthropologist in Cambodia for years, too. It's funny, this is a tangent, but he lived with native peoples, and he said that magic is part of their daily lives. They see magic as real. It's something that's completely obvious to their worldview. Interesting. But what my friend at Southeast Asia said is that around In 2020, Southeast Asia became a cheaper manufacturing spot than China. And so American companies around that point and up to now have been moving factories out of

China to either Southeast Asia or to North America. So for both parties, there was a class interest thing going from, we need to have factories in China to make iPhones to we're going to split iPhone production between Thailand and America. And so both parties changed when it stopped being in America's trade interests to work with China. Where did I want to go? What were we talking about before we started talking about civil war? We were talking about the kinds of economic stuff I look at. Oh, yeah. Bill Clinton, the triangular theory. Do you have any examples of some of the things that he did or said? I don't know for Clinton himself.

I can talk about other Democrat policies, though. So Lyndon Johnson, Lyndon Johnson was genius at this, where he was able to get Northern Catholics and blacks. Civil rights was an issue like this, where civil rights could unify black voters with northern voters. And it was done at the expense of Southern whites, which is why the South is no longer Democrat. But Trump has done a lot, like, it's something that was. I thought that was Kennedy. It was a two-tiered thing. Do you remember the blue bomb?

Kennedy's blue bomb where they had the preachers go to all the churches? Yes. It was a two-tiered thing where the civil rights started with Kennedy and it ended with Johnson, where Johnson passed the bill itself that ended Jim Crow. But Trump is a great example of triangulation because I see all the different factions in the right, and the right has nothing that unifies it. The right has religious fundamentalists. It has monarchists.

It is fascists. It is libertarians. neocons, boomer cons, etc. And so the right is currently triangulated around disliking the left. So the only thing that unifies the right, and the right's willing to ignore all of the vast differences inside its coalition, because it's triangulated with unity against the left. Common enemy. Yes.

Let's say, you know, it looks like Trump is going to win the next election as long as he doesn't get whacked. If he does win that there's a possibility to reverse all this and find a way to unify. So I think there is a possibility to delay it five years. I think there's- Delay it? You only think it's going to be a delay. No, no, this is going to happen. And this is going to happen no matter what we do.

I think we could delay it by up to five years. I don't think that's likely. And I think there's no way to stop this. We're way past this point. It's like, you know, for the Titanic, once you see the iceberg, you're already hit. And the reason I say that is that we have lost a tremendous amount of flexibility. where we're at the point where the Republicans and the Democrats in power have, their incentive is to start a civil war because it's easier for them to get reelected by starting a civil war than to not have a war because we have become such a polarized society and we've lost strategic flexibility.

And strategic flexibility is wiggle room and as an example of this, we're such a polarized society that actually this is a great way to get into one of the important topics here. The one of the biggest predictors for these kinds of conflicts is a budget issue and so English Civil War started with a budget issue The French War in the 1500s started the budget issue The French Revolution started with the budget issue So the budget just keeps on bloating and bloating and bloating and bloating and then what happens is that one side refuses to pay to agree to a budget Because they think themselves if I agree to have another concession to the left then my people will no longer vote me in. If I start a civil war, then it'll create this sense of urgency that people will want to keep me around.

And it's the same reason why every president who started a war in the last century got reelected. Right. Sorry, I was going to say, like, if you look at the two presidential candidates right now and you go deeper, figure out who's behind them, you have on Donald Trump's side, Peter Thiel, on Kamala Harris, Joe Biden's side, you got the, what's the guy's name, the ex-CEO Google. And those guys are very close. Tim Cook. Not Tim Cook. No, Google, not Apple. Can you find the name of the guy, the Google executive? Eric Schmidt.

Eric Schmidt. Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel. Both of them very close. Yes. Both of them who represent the United States and the Bilderberg Convention. And each of them being the major. funder of each party. So it seems like it's more of a, like a, it's like a house of cards, right?

It's like a, it's a unit party divided, you know, that is, its function is to just divide the masses and keep us dumb. I've, I've heard this argument before. I don't think America's a uniparty. I think Europe and West, Western Europe and Canada are uniparties. Where you look at Britain where the Tory party, the Tory party, the Tory party, you know, is to the left politically of the most left-wing Tory voter. The Tory party in Britain is to the left of the Democrats in America.

And Canada's the same way, but we would not be a uniparty if Donald Trump won. We would have had an electoral system where Donald Trump would never become the president because it's clear the Republican establishment disliked him. And it's often common before these conflicts to have the elites have shared alliances with each other. Before the U.S. Civil War, Northern industrialists didn't want there to be a war because they were dependent upon Southern Cotton. Before the American Revolution, lots of the most wealthy merchants had a lot of trade ties with Britain. But then you hit a certain critical mass where it's just, it's not doable. What do you make of the very, very top of this pyramid?

Like, we're at the base of it. At the top of it, you got Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel and their buddies. They're hanging around flying around the world together. One of them's funding Trump, the other one's funding Kamala. What is that? What do you make of that? Guns matter. Money matters a lot less.

Hold on. Am I getting too hot for YouTube? No, Danny. It's summer and you're recovering from a morning binge of carbs and stress crying. I recommend sugar. I don't need cream, Steve. I need factor meals. Everybody knows that, and that's why they sponsored this show.

Crush your wellness goals with me this month and get 50% off your order. If you're like me and you're too busy, can't cook. but you still want a tasty meal that's not frozen or full of preservatives, then your food Jesus has arrived. So what's so special? You can target your health with specific plans like keto, calories, or protein-rich meals, and factor meals are never frozen, so the cell structure isn't destroyed by the freezing process and emotionally disappointment.

It's like Jesus catching your diet and saying, I got you, boo. When I close my eyes, it tastes like Jesus in my mouth. Choose from 35 meals, 60 add-ons, even breakfast, shrimp flay mignon, which I suck at making, delivered right to your door and mouth ready in two minutes. What do you want? Serial or like a body power up in your mouth? Make today the day you kickstart a new healthy routine with me and shame on Steve for his disgusting junk food crunching habits on this show. So if you want to try Factor at a huge discount and support

our show at the same time, head on over to FactorMeals.com slash Danny Jones 50 for 50% off your first order plus 20% off your next month. Again, that's factormeals.com, F-A-C-T-O-R-M-A-L-S-D-A-L-S-D-A-L-S-V-E-N-E-S-V-E-N-E-S-V-E-N-E-S-V-E-N-E-S-V-E-R-E-M-E-E-R-E-M-E-E-R-E-M-E-E-R-E-E-R-E-E-R-E-E-E-R-E-E-E-E-R-E-E-E-E-E-R-E-E-E-E-E-R-E-E-E-E-E-E-E- Once the guys with the guns make a decision to do something, everyone else's hand is forced. And so the people with the real power in the U.S. now are the military, where if there's a war, a civil war, the most important faction is, so the people who wield force are the most powerful. And indirectly, the people who wield force are politicians. And directly, it's the military. And one of the worst things that can happen to a society is the military loses faith in the civilian governments. and then the military acts out of its own self-interest.

And that's why so many countries in Africa or South America or Southeast Asia are crap holes. And I think the most likely option we'd have for a war is something like this. So this is a scenario where it would force those kinds of people's hands. And I still want to get to the metrics I use to predict this war because that's important. Force whose hands? What kind of people? So I think these are my top scenarios for things that would start a war. the first is an election issue where both sides have said that they did not respect the result of the election they lost. That's going to continue this time.

What happens is, let's say someone, like, let's say Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris loses this election. I heard a Democrat senator just say that if they lose the election, they're not going to, they'll find some technicality to throw away the votes. which is insane. Who said this? Let me pull up my phone. Steve, Steve could probably Google it.

No, I haven't on my... Was a Democratic senator? Yes. I texted a friend about this yesterday. It is Jamie Raskin. Google Jamie Raskin throw away votes. He said they'd go off to the 14th Amendment. I might be misunderstanding it, so hold me accountable if I'm wrong, guys.

But I still stand by the sentiment. And so first thing, election issues, neither side neither side can you find a video is it on video there's a video there's a video

there's a qualifying that's Facebook though fuck man screw Facebook try try that one right there Raskin closing no that's three years ago just go to the Facebook one

fuck it so this is another dystopian thing where Google is massively controlling search results oh yeah and I think I'm being shadow banned

but really yes your videos are fucking huge on YouTube thank you they're not doing as well as they used to.

And I mean, I still feel blessed to have the channel, but I know what the algorithm looks like. And so if the algorithm operates at a certain angle, then if the algorithm operates at a certain angle, I assume it continues growth at a certain rate. That's stopped. Remember Richmond north of Richmond? It was a country song about how being a normal working class American today is hell.

And it got seven. million views and it sparked a discussion. I don't think the technocracy wants there to be viral conservative hits. And Google, YouTube's pretty good to me. All my videos are monetized now. We have an ambassador with YouTube. I have no complaints about YouTube itself, but I definitely think the mother company, Google, is messing with results. And, yeah, I saw Elon tweeted the other day that you could, if you search for Donald Trump, it pulls up Donald Duck, but then I tried it and it worked. It pulled up Donald Trump. What I've seen with this is that I looked up the day of Trump's assassination, was Trump

assassinated. Nothing comes up first page. I had to go to Fox News. A week ago, it did the same thing. It's the same issue. There have been videos that have gotten millions of views, which, for example, the Columbia protest, Columbia, New York City, not Columbia, South America. The Columbia protest is one of the scariest videos I've seen in my life. And it had millions of views. I can't find it. The guy who lit himself on fire in New York City. Oh, yeah. His confession, you can't find that confession anywhere anymore. What was his confession?

So it was basically communist stuff saying, I'm doing this for the revolution. So I have two buddies where I can, I will send, I will text them and I'll send it to you after the show. Send me what? Oh, oh. Oh, his communist manifest? No, no, the 14th Amendment thing. Oh, gotcha. Steve, you can't find it anywhere.

Do you remember what website it was? I saw it on X. It was on X. Okay. You can do it, Steve. We got faith in you. I think the pandemic really was the biggest magnifying glass on the problems with the issue. The problem of social media in general.

Yes, yes. How they would censor stuff. Is this it? August 5th. Yeah, this might be it. I mean, it's got to be. President, the president. Jamie you're asking is correct.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could not be more clear. Click on the video. Click on it. can slip away from you very quickly. And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which they're just disappearing with a magic wand, as if it doesn't exist, even though it could not be clearer what it's stating. And so, you know, they want to kick it to Congress.

So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions, all because the nine justices, not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do. A huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means. And I'm glad that Sherlin's creating her new center so we can bring that. Hmm. Is that what you watched? Yes. No, I watched a different video of the guy himself talking about, so this is a video commenting on another Democratic politician saying that they would do it.

So it's the same topic, different video. The fact that we can't find the original video, though, is Orwellian. That should be a statement in of itself. But we were talking about the things that could trigger a war like this. So I said the number one thing is an election issue. because when you look at these kinds of wars, the thing that causes it is the one side refuses, one side asks another side for a concession and they refuse.

And a nation is often like a marriage where there's a marriage in the right and the left. And in a good marriage, they call it the bird method where if your spouse says, hey, look at that cute bird outside. And then the other person is interested in the bird, that's one of the best predictors for a few of a healthy marriage because it signifies that

the other person is willing to care about the little sacrifices of the other person. And we are way past this point now. We're marriage. And Ryan Long's got a really funny skit about if American politics was a marriage, and it's just completely dysfunctional. And so one time that happens is elections, because that requires one side to hand over power to the other. The second time is with budget crises. Oh, yes. That's what you're talking about budget.

If an election wasn't in play, I would say it's a budget crisis. That's the top predictor. But there's an election that's so close. I think that nudges it out for the top result in that. So it took us 250 years to reach the amount of debt we had in 2014. We have doubled that debt since. And that's something where we have more debt than the entire total GDP of the country. And that's horrifying.

And this is one of those things where it's just this is one of those things that we really, really need to talk about as a society, but we don't. And it's, in my mind, there are about five different things that we really need to talk about as a society and we don't and that they're going to kill us. The budget's one of them where we're, this is the era of the most money printing ever in history and no one notices. And that's actually one of the biggest predictors of these kinds of crises because once the government prints money, like, this, it means they're desperate. So, financial issue, budget issue, third is foreign war. And so let's say if there's a war with Iran, and let's say the deep state wants young American men to fight for a war for Iran. That's not going to happen. We've ruined the patriotism. So a war like that is another great predictor.

And then beyond that, it would be- Well, the war with Iran, the Iran thing's interesting. Yes. Because it's really Israel and Iran, but we're getting dragged into, we're sending, which I don't disagree with sending battleships because that's deterrence. However, it's interesting

that they're not retaliating to any of these. Yes. To any of these, the killing of the political leader of Hamas and I think he was a field commander of Hezbollah in Lebanon. And either they're waiting

for a strategic retaliation could be six weeks, it could be six years from now, or Russia and China went to them and said, hey, let's play it even keel. Let's be the sane ones here when Israel looks like the unhinged, maniacal fucking rocket, people lobbying rockets into Iran. If you guys play it cool, then we can make the Western world look like psychos. I put an 80% shot.

There's no war with Iran. I think it's high chance it doesn't happen. And the U.S.'s Middle Eastern foreign policy is probably something we shouldn't have. It's a remnant of when we were dependent on the Middle East's oil. And now the U.S. no longer is. We're one of the biggest oil exporters in the world. And so there's no real strategic reason to be involved in the Middle East. America, in my opinion, I used to be more interventionist.

Now I'm pretty isolationist because I just don't think we can afford to do that with our internal issues. And it's bureaucratic politics often get captured by weird special interest groups where the people who are involved in the Middle East, like the various defense contractors, the local governments, they all have a vested interest for America to stay in the Middle East at the expense of America as a country. And the way Iran works is that they are pretty desperate as a government. They're not in a good place. And their population hates Israel. So they get propaganda boosts by just hating on Israel and threatening war, but they're not actually incentivized to start a war because they're not – it's a lot of show to make the regime look strong, but I don't think they're actually in a place where it makes sense for them to do so because they're a very disliked regime. If they're arming young men to fight another country, they're really arming young men to rebel against their own government. And so that – foreign war is number three.

Number four is Black Swan event. And a Black Swan event is another Nassim Teleb term for random historic event no one can predict. So COVID, COVID's a Black Swan. It just hit us. And I know authors who predicted that we would, there's a very smart author who actually predicted that we would have a coronavirus pandemic in like over the 21st century. But when was that published? 90s. It's Vaklav Smil.

And he said coronavirus? Yes. He said that some kind of coronavirus because he was looking at SARS or no, no. it can't be 1990s. It has to be early 2000s. He said there's a pretty high chance that SARS shows up in a new form and that's what coronavirus was. And because if you look at history, if you want to look at a century, the bet that there will be a major war and a plague is over, it's close to 100%. For each century, the chances that you won't have a major war or a major plague, they're very low. You shouldn't bet money on that. And, and, and,

And so Black Swan, the events in Britain are fascinating, and they're really one of those domino things, where in Britain, you see a bunch of dominoes falling very quickly. How closely have you followed the British riots? Not very closely. Okay. They're one of the most interesting political events recently, and I'd recommend... Can you break it down for me? Yes, I was going to do that. Okay, cool.

And if you guys are interested, you should watch my friends at the Lotus Eater podcast. They're basically the British Daily Wire. I don't know if that's an insult or a compliment. And so they have like a seven-part series on the British riots. And they do a great job of breaking it down. But so what happened is that, as I'm sure a lot of you know, Britain has been taking a lot of immigration. And statistically, the vast majority of British people don't want said immigration.

But the British Uniparty does. And so the conservatives won this huge victory in Britain, one of the largest in British history. And guess what? The conservatives then imported in the most immigrants of any regime in British history by significant margin. Why? Because Britain's been capped. Britain for its whole history has been run by this tiny aristocrat, this tiny elite.

It used to be the nobility, then the rich, and now it's the managerial globalists. And it's, I think they're partly crazy. And I can explain that if you like, I think they're partly crazy. And I also think that they're also, they also hate the British people. and they want to replace them. I think it's legitimately one of those things they want a cheap labor force and a docile population.

One of my friends says that the elites want to Mexicanize the Western world where Mexico is a, it's a country where a small elite can do whatever they want and most people are stuck in poverty. And massive regulations mean that the big companies

can run everything because no one can compete. Or the elite are basically in business with organized crime. Exactly. And so you can see why an evil elite would want that because it's inside their own self-interest. And they don't contextualize it in that way. But Mexico is a country where the elite could do whatever they wanted for centuries.

And so it ends up in a similar place. And so I think they want that there? So they claim to want the world. So look at the World Economic Forum is fascinating. And I think the elites want it here too. The World Economic Forum is fascinating because in itself, it's not a powerful organization. but it's a good weather vein for what powerful people do think

where U.S. like Biden, the guy who runs the world economic firm, Klaus Schwab, he had a speech with Biden where he said China is a great model for the Western world. And so they just say stuff like that or they say stuff like, I mean, you know, the eat bugs live in a pod,

you'll own nothing. This is stuff they say. And so the human mind is very good at rationalizing and there's a wonderful book called The Elephant in the Brain. And it's a book of how humans rationalize bad things in a nice lens. And so people make up ideologies that rationalize whatever they want as a way to make it holy or good, where the Nazis wanted to genocide Eastern Europe so that they made up an ideology where that was moral.

The left wanted to kill the rich and take their stuff. They made an ideology where that's moral. And so for the Weft types, for those leftist globalist elite types, on paper, They say that they want an advanced modernist, basically automated gay space utopia. Yeah, I mean, it's basically true. There's a term called gay space communism. It's Star Trek, yeah. There's the title of this podcast, Gay Space Communism with Rudyard Lynch.

Yeah. Thank you for pronouncing my name correctly. Very few people do in the first time. Really? Yeah. How do people pronounce it? When I was growing up, people called me Rudyard a lot. So I had a teacher who called me Rudyard for six months.

And then she learned my real name in January and then she stood up in front of the class. And he said, hey, he's Rudyard. He's not Rudyard. Rudyard. Yeah, it's not spelled Rudyard. No, yeah. I was 15 at the time. I found that as I grew older and as I grew more famous, people went to greater effort to pronounce my name correctly.

You said you're the only Rudyard in America besides one black woman in New Jersey. Yes, there are two Rudyard Lynch's in America. There's me and there's a black woman in Irvington, New Jersey. That's incredible. Yeah. There's a Danny Jones in probably every zip code that exists. Yes, exactly. And so we were, oh yeah, so on paper they say that they want.

Gay space communists. Yes, exactly. On paper, gay space communism, in reality, and this is the thing with communism, communist delivers the opposite of what it says. It wants to liberate the working classes. It turns them into. literal slaves. It wants to create, for a lot of the Cold War,

communist societies were more unequal than capitalist ones. And so communism achieves the opposite aims of what it sets out. And so they're going to say they want that. But in reality, they're going to push for this, like, the people who push for progress the most will make society the most primitive. It's a strange paradox. The thing they're actually getting get up, get is Mexico. But so British riots.

By the way, speaking of real quick, speaking of gay space communists, what do you think of that Olympics opening thing where they tried to recreate the Last Supper with the blue guy who is he supposed to be, who was he supposed to be, Prometheus or something? I think so. So I forgot the Olympics happened until that happened.

And it's funny where like, that's what's happened to legacy institutions where Think of a single legacy institution people like. I mean, like, it's crazy to think that the UN would fall to degeneracy like that. See that woman right there? Yeah. That's the Jesus we deserve.

Yeah, that's hilarious. I mean, so, I mean, the West has just been consumed by suicidal nihilistic decadence in degeneracy. And wokeness went through this interesting evolution from 10 years ago, being an ideology that supposedly propounded minorities and women and gay people. And then it just devolved into this. I have no idea which demographic this helps. I have no concept what black dude in Camden, New Jersey is being helped by this. Right.

And so, wokenness at this point is just a rationalization for suicide. And it's crazy that I was very much surprised that wokeness was popular outside America because you'd think that it exists inside this very... So why does Finland care about Black Lives Matter? There are Black Lives Matter protests in Britain or Finland. Most of Europe has basically no black people. The black people who they have are recent. Their police aren't armed.

So why does America? There's quite a bit of black people in France. Yeah, but it happens even so in countries that barely have black people. So like Sweden. And we forget that Britain doesn't have like that many sub-Saharan Africans. And the ones that are there are very recent. And so why does this American issue of cops shooting unarmed black men in America, why do Europeans or South Koreans go to protests about this? It's because they've been so culturally Americanized.

And it always shocked me because wokeness only makes sense in the American cultural context. Only in America can you say that the divide is white versus black. In Europe, it's Protestants and Catholics and different ethnicities. And it's just ridiculous that it's ridiculous that the whole Western world has fallen for. this. And I think the biggest problem with this, like what we were talking about, gay space communists, I think it should, the correct term should be trans-space communist.

Because what the problem with that shit like that you see on the Olympics, right? Meanwhile, these fucking Olympic athletes are getting robbed. They're not getting paid jack shit for what they're doing and all these people at the top are making all this money. Yes. But what they're doing

is they're dragging your average gay and lesbian people through the fucking mud with them because they're taking something to the most ridiculous extreme and making it mainstream and these people, these normal people that are just living their lives

whether they're gay or straight some of a lot of gay people or Republicans they're getting dragged through and being automatically associated with these people and they're ruining it for everybody. Agreed. Yeah, I don't have any beef with gay people. I don't dislike them. And they're building a barrier

is what they're doing. What those people are doing right there whoever designed that whole thing, they're building They're building a barrier in society. Yes, I can very easily explain what's happening. So one of the best books I've read in my life was The Leviathan and Its Enemies by Sam Francis. And it's a book about how the bureaucracy controls modern civilization. And so what the bureaucracy does is it picks issues that can't get solved, and then it asks for infinite funding forever. So picking an issue that can't get solved is the way to have perfect bureaucratic bloat forever.

And so poverty in Africa, black ghetto communities, the head. hysteria of Karens. These are never going to get solved. 20-year Afghan wars. Exactly. Exactly. And so that's what's going to happen. And so with something like this, the thing is, the bureaucracy is no responsibility. If you're a medieval lord, if you're an industrialist, you run a factory, you're responsible. No one's responsible for what bizarre executive branches do. So it's all these people trying to get funding to push their own professors, weird, professors, bureaucratic bloat.

There's all these organizations where it's all these people trying to get more funding. And so they push something to the point of absurdity, but they're not responsible for the absurdity. And so it's this weird incentive structure the left has where their incent, and also one of the weird things at the left's moral code, and this is something I talk about in the anthropology of the left, is that their entire moral code is do you make the revolution? If you push for the revolution, if you push for the rights of disenfranchised peoples, you're a moral person. The left doesn't have frameworks. It doesn't have a concept. Here are the Ten Commandments. Follow them.

Here are the seven ways to virtue. And so it evolves. Yes, exactly. And so the left gets stuck in these hurricanes where everyone is trying to signal their loyalty to the group by being crazier. And they have no moral framework to assess themselves against. So over time, you end up with ridiculous stuff like what we just saw because everyone in the organization is benefiting from being ridiculous and no one is responsible for it to not be ridiculous.

How much of this stuff do you think is covert influence? Or how much you think is foreign influence, covert from other countries like China or Russia? Have you seen the famous interview with the Russian... Yuri Bezmanov? Yes, talking about infecting the institutions. Yes. Can you find that? Just type in Yuri Bezmanov interview.

about American universities, I think it was. Yeah, Yuri Besmanov is great. I'm going to make my first reaction video ever reacting to his videos. And my father and I have had a debate ever since I was in high school about is the left, is the left, is it driven by a cabal or a vortex? Is the left this grassroots populist force driven by people on Twitter? or is it this secret cabal, like the World Economic Forum? And the answer I've gradually come to is it's a combination. And so this is something Sam Francis also says...

The second one, Steve, the 2.6 million views. This is something Sam Francis is very smart about, where Sam Francis wrote this book in the 90s, where he said the left is divided between consensus liberals and the new lefts. The consensus liberals are the UN, the consensus, the science trademarked, Reddit, Stephen Pinker, rationality. And so the consensus liberals are the mainstream left, and then you have the new left. And the new left is they are like mother goddess, their intuition, mother nature, deindustrialization. So you have the radical left and the moderate left. And so they play this game of good cop, bad cop, where the radical left says something batshit insane. The moderate left says, hey, everyone else, to stop that insane thing, you should give us a tiny step for progress. And so, the radical left and the moderate left play this game where the radical left say something crazy,

then then they move the Overton window, and then after that, the consensus liberal makes one step ahead. And so the cabal is the consensus left, and then the vortex is the radical left. And so I think the left is a combination of a lot of things. Since COVID, I think it's become more cabal. I think the left was more grassroots in like 2014, and then it became more like elite management. And I think so I've I know I know a lot of Yuri Besmanov I've watched all his videos because I've been wanting to make a video researching him I ever and the scary thing of Besmanov and I'll explain a little bit for your audience is that he was a Soviet expert who this was made in the 80s where his job was to weaken foreign countries where he the communists most like 70% of their

intelligence budget went to hurting the culture of other countries not for spies or blowing up bridges or that stuff. And they add it down to a science. And it's all stuff that's literally happened where they make people not trust their neighbors. Make sure that the biggest thing he talks about is weakening religion. Really? Yes. The biggest thing Yori Besmanov says is the worst thing he can do to a society is kill its religion. Because he said the Soviets knew that if someone is religious, you could never break them and make them weaken the society for communism. And if they aren't religious, you can corrupt them. So that would, if you watch you. his one hour lecture. If you break their religion, you can't weaken their society for communism?

Yes. So if you watch his one hour video towards the end, the last 10 minutes are him saying, the number one variable that stopped society from being taken over by communism is religion. And so that's, for example, why you don't have communist parties in the Middle East or why the Bible Belt is less communist. And so he goes through a variety of things. So he says, make sure that people are dependent upon the government in school. make sure people can't trust their neighbors, make it impossible to have authentic capitalist interactions where let's say, I like this guy, let me hire him. You've got to have a bureaucrat in between absolutely everything. And you have to distort reality. And one of the things Bezano says is fascinating is that he said, you want to be in a place where a person, if you take them to the Gulag in Siberia, they still think communism is good,

where they can't see reality and they can't see what's from left or right. And I think that's why they're trying to push trans, because once you can get people to agree that men and women are the same and there's no difference you can get them to believe anything because the difference in men and women is so primal that if you can get someone to agree to that, they can get them to agree

to anything. And the thing with Besmanov... Trust the science, bro. Exactly, exactly. And so he is terrifying and having looked at his prediction for what would happen versus the reality, it all fits. It fits to a terrifying degree. I know I've given like a dozen different places for your audience to go, but this is one of the more important ones.

And the difference, though, is that this is something I can see from reading Soviet history versus our current histories, where I was reading Soljanitsyn last week, and you can tell that there's a lot of similarities between Solgenitsyn's left. And Solgenitzen was a guy who was thrown in the Soviet gulag, in our left. One important difference, though, is that Yuri Besmanov talks out a demographic called The Useful Idiots. And the Useful Idiots were like American professors or gay people or feminists. And they were these people who... In Soviet Union?

No, in America. In America. Yes. So, Yuri Besmanov said that in America, there's this in-in-the-Western world or the whole world, is there's demographical useful idiots. And useful idiots are delusional leftists. They push leftists. He said gays were useful idiots?

Yes, he said that, literally. It was a different time. Right. Interesting. So he said, like, basically, the new left. He says environmentalists, gay people, afro-racists. And it's funny. Well, right.

They're being used for a political ideology. And so he's- Yeah, he covered this more in the one-hour video where he says towards the end of it that those people all get shot. And if you look at the Soviet Union, those were the people who got shot. The Soviet Union was one of the least feminist states

the 20th century. It was one of the least gay-friendly states. It was an imperialistic empire. The Soviet Union was socially conservative. More so than Afghanistan? I said one of. Afghanistan's the most. But as industrialized countries go, the Soviet Union was more socially conservative than America on a variety of metrics.

Right. And so they shot all those people, sent them to the gulag. The one difference in Yuri Besmanov in our timeline is the usefulity it's one. You can see that in the left is horrible at power politics. The Soviets were strategic geniuses. They were so good at manipulating people. making a culture of terror, growing their empire. And the thing that really gets near our left is our left has no strategic sense.

It always shocked me. The problem with the left today strategically is that... But neither does the right. The right doesn't have strategic sense. In general. Yeah, the right in general does not have strategic sense. The left is off a thousand miles in la la land. And let me give an example of that.

I don't disagree with that. Yeah, let me give an example of this is that the... The intellectual structure of the left is that if you are a straight white man, a straight white man, you have no incentive to cooperate with them. Because no matter what you do, they're going to push you down. And this is something that really shocked me because I thought, if the left really wants to win, then they have to create an incentive for white men who are a third, or 40% of the population, to cooperate with them. And they just don't do that. And at the same time, they can't control the behavior of the people at the top of their caste system. That being like a black trans Muslim, because the black trans Muslim is a good person no matter what she does.

And so you can't control her behavior. The white guy is no incentive to cooperate. And there's no way that the left can be strategic because they're so, it's an ideology where hunting is morally bad, let alone fighting war. So the left has done none of their, the left has no concept. Working out makes you a right wing person. Exactly. So it's a culture that hates strength. It's a culture that hates toughness, masculinity. And you think if you guys actually wanted to win the game.

If we're in a kinetic war, that's not a good plan. Exactly. Which is why I've said multiple times that the left would lose a war with the right. Right. Right. Well, depending, isn't the military a huge determining? Let me get to this. Okay.

Sorry, I'm jumping ahead. I'll touch it next. Yeah, I mean, so what I can see from that is that the left doesn't really, they haven't been planning strategically. It's just very emotional gut-level reactions. And they don't really have a concept of, they don't really have a concept of how hard the game can get. No one in the left has a concept that could be a physical war. It's all optics and propaganda for them. And most of the left is ego protection, in my opinion.

And so the people involved have their guilt assuaged. Right. To get to your point about the war. And a great example is what happened in the Chaz. Yes. Yeah, that's hilarious. You articulated that beautifully. Thank you.

I think basically they ran out of food because all the homeless people were taking all their food and they were like reaching out to the government and saying we need more supply. Yeah, exactly. And it basically got taken over by a SoundCloud rapper. Yeah. So there are things that I see on the left that are worse than any conservative propagandists could make up. And this is one of them where Chaz was a conservative revolutionary state in Seattle that the local government was sympathetic to. And so they didn't do anything with and they let it exist for a long time. I think months.

So within the first 12 hours, they ran out of food because, again, homeless people were taking it. They had no system of government. And like all communist societies, they immediately became a dictatorship run by a SoundCloud rapper. And it's just, it's insane. And it's comparable to with the Columbia protests. And I brought up the Columbia protests before. I think they're one of the most terrifying things I've seen. Why?

What about it was so terrifying? Yes. So these are kids my age. So I have a pretty good concept of what they lived through. So early 20s. Yeah. I'm 23. They're like 21 or something.

And so I have a pretty good concept of what they lived through. And when I grew up, there was so much anti-Hawks. Holocaust programming. There were like seven years talking about the Holocaust being bad. And I don't think that's a bad thing. But they were immediately saying from the river to the sea, Intifada, which signifies genocide against Israel. And so they immediately jumped their programming the second that they left the cradle. And then secondly, they were, the left has spent 60 years arguing about why they're not communist. What I saw in Colombia throws that outside the window because I can speak communist. Communists use certain jargon and phrases,

which means different things to their people than the rest of the world. So they dog whistle each other. I was hearing all these communist phrases and the people at Columbia were saying stuff like, they were saying stuff like like,

like, we must destroy the imperial core and you must always have the revolution in your hearts. We are all revolutionaries foremost. They were talking like communists, and they secured a sacred space where if you weren't a communist, you weren't allowed to go. They were marching in ranks. They were chanting words together. They were acting like a cult.

And I saw this videotape of this girl talking about the Israel conflict. How many of those kids do you think were feds? They're so stupid, I think a handful, and I think the rest are to sheep. And I said this girl, and I think Israel's a complex issue where I'm open to a bunch of different perspectives on this. but she said, she said, if I see a Zionist in front of me, I will,

if I see a Zionist in front of me, I don't know how I could stop myself. I'm not a violent person, but if a Zionist were to get in my way, I would feel compelled to, I would feel compelled to just hurt them or kill them. And I thought, and her body language was insane.

It's like you were looking at a serial killer. Wow. And yeah, it's just horrifying. And from this, I looked at the, these kids are from almost, they're almost all from wealthy families. And they've been on the elite track their whole lives. And these kids clearly want to kill people. And to know that this happens to the elite in the next generation, and know that they're

this far off in Laga Land, that just terrified me. Yeah. Yeah, it's like the sophisticated society that we see is a very thin veneer. Exactly. And there's a very deep layer of barbarism that lies. Agreed. Agreed. That's the lesson of the 20th century.

Where are we going with this? We were talking about Chas. So I was, we were talking to the military. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, the military. So about over 80% of the scenarios are run in my mind, the right wins. the less than 20% odds, because the advantages the right has are that most of the military tilts conservative. But the military would have to break away from the state. Yes. So I don't know how the war starts.

It could have started with a bullet hitting Trump's head. Yes, definitely. That was one of the trigger points that didn't, ha ha, trigger points. One of the trigger points that didn't happen. and and the so the scenario where the military sides with the left is the right is very clearly in the wrong where the left's biggest strategy is baiting the right into hazard.

The left acts so annoying that it incentivizes the right to break with the left and to kill the left. And if the right launches a revolution is very clearly illegal, thankfully our military is loyal to the Constitution and the law. So if the law demands that the military crush the rightest rebels, they can do that. Then the left can use that

as a policy to basically crack it in the right as traitors. That's the one scenario where the left wins. The other scenarios, the rights advantages are almost most young men, I think two or three to one tilt conservative, the young men of the ones who fight. And that's youngest among fighting age males, like those are in college aged. That are not in the military or in the military? Both young men as a demographic and the military tilt conservative. Right. And also... But fighting age...

Fighting age, but doesn't mean they're trained to fight. No, no. So if there's a war, our military will rapidly balloon in size as we have conscription. So I'm looking at both the military as a demographic and the demographic of men who would get conscripted. Okay. And my friends in the military have told me that of the men who actually fight, the conservative tilt is even more pronounced. And it's the military statistics. It's the, in the military statistics, what happens is that the, the left, the military is still demographically conservative, but the leftist there are, tend to be like logistics guys.

The guys that the actual guns tilt even more conservative. And in conflicts like this, the upper brass of the military tilts left due to political appointments. But that's a pretty normal thing with revolutions, where for the French or the Russian revolutions, the top of the military were political appointments, while the military was sympathetic to the rebels. And then what happened is that the men tend to side with their colonels or their sergeants over their generals or admirals, where the low-ranking, the mid-level and low-ranking officers

are the people that the men trust, because they're identifiable. The people next in the chain of command. Exactly. And those guys tilt, the officers tilt even more conservative than the general men or the mid-level officers. So military would tilt conservative, young fighting age men tilt conservative.

The conservatives control all of America's, because keep in mind it's a rural urban split at its foremost. So the conservatives control all the electricity, all the water, all the manufacturing, all the roads. The conservatives have a single coherent geographic territory where if there's a civil war, they'd probably put the capital in Texas,

and the left is all these disconnected city states. Even on the east coast, you could split apart Philadelphia from D.C., from New York City, where the left is all these city states, and no one in the left wants to fight, where if you hang out with young left-wingers, you realize it's a culture that has done everything it could to not develop a culture of people who want to fight. They hate masculinity. And the only way the left could get troops in a war like this is hiring mercenaries.

So I actually think the push for illegals, illegal immigrants, is partly a push. to get a cheap labor force that they can pull troops from. And who do you think is behind that? I think that there's the huge, I think that's like one consideration of six. I don't think that's the predominant consideration they're making. I think the predominant consideration is stuffing the ballots and getting a cheap labor force. And I think that there are probably a hundred people none of us know about who have a tremendous amount of power.

And it's probably, I don't believe in cabals, or I don't think there are meetings where everyone meets up and they talk about this is how we exploit blank. This is how we take over the world. I think there are often shared class interests that push a goal among a bunch of different people who don't know each other who are pushing towards the same incentive structure. So back in the Middle Ages, the nobility could treat the peasants like trash. That's not because all the nobles met up in the same room. It's because the nobles all had the ability to do so so they were acting independently towards the same goal.

I think that's what's happening where like the governor of Gavin Newsom, I think he's making a calculation here. I think there are branches of the executive bureaucracy who are making the calculations. I think it's a lot of leftists looking at the same picture and then coming to the same conclusion. Again, I wonder how much of this stuff,

how much of the policies that are happening and the ideology that people are getting brainwashed by, you know, in social media, TikTok, YouTube, whatever it is, is strategic. Yes. Sciop from another country, like China or Russia. Yes. Trying to do this, something they've been working on for decades.

I couldn't give you a number, but I don't have the data. I think it's more than we think. And I think it's also a sciop by our government, but I also think corporations do a lot more scioping than we think. An example of this was when I was a teenager, I couldn't believe Snapchat streaks were real because I thought, I heard people say, yeah. Snapchat what? Snapchat streaks. So a Snapchat streak is, let's say you have a friend and so you send each other a streak every single day to keep it going. You send each other a photo every single day to keep it going. And even as a teenager, I thought to myself, this is such an obvious marketing ploy for Snapchat. Like I thought whoever developed

this is a genius. And then no one else saw that as a teenager. teenager and I'm like, how do you not see that? And so I think there's a lot of that going on. And Kamala is the easiest example where no one likes Kamala. If you polled Democrat voters, I don't, I think very, very few of them want Kamala. It's amazing how many of them online you see sporting Kamala. Exactly. It's really interesting. And then you read, here's something I noticed recently. Yeah. About a month ago, you could see a post on Instagram about Kamala or Biden or whatever, a mainstream like vice, publishing something about Biden or Kamala or something shitty about Trump

and you could read the comments of those things and the comments were just like basically like you guys are idiots. Like nobody was in the comments for what it's worth was agreeing with that post. They were saying like how the fuck could you say this? You guys are whatever

you know huge corporation who's the guy who owns all the media companies Rupert Murdoch yeah leaning more right than left. Now, in the last few weeks, in the last month or so, I'm reading comments on Instagram where an overwhelming amount of the comments are like pro-Kamala, pro-Biden,

and it seems like that happened, like a flick of a switch happened. What you're seeing is what I'm seeing. That same thing scares me, where no once worded Kamala before, now it's this giant astro-turfed control, and it's this giant astro-turfed control, And it's this giant astro-turf narrative. And for those that don't know, astro-turf is a cool word for when an organization tries to artificially create a ground-up movement, a populist movement. And so I was seeing all that like the Kamala TikTok dances because, like, I know a lot of girls in the demographic that would be doing this. And I know that they don't give a damn about Kamala. They like Michelle Obama.

They like, I don't know, like various other leftists, but not Kamala. And there's evidence that come out that they're paying content creators to put out pro-comala messages. And I have no doubt of that. And the whole how immediately the Kamala branding is terrible and how immediately the weird brands came out and the Kamala brat brand. So there are two memes that came out at Kamala in the last week. Both memes are stupid. Basically saying J.D. Van's saying J.D. Vance is weird and saying that Kamala is part of Brat Girl Summer. and those are just terrible.

And I think the algorithms are controlling this more than any of us believe. And they're pushing these kinds of narratives. And I think, I mean, if you look back in the mid-20th century where, you know, the top feminist was paid for by the CIA, Goria Steinem. I didn't know that. The feminist movement was paid by the CIA. Then a lot of governments around the world were paid for by the CIA. then the entire modern art movement was made by the CIA. What?

Yeah, they paid off all the artists of the modernist art movement because it was a way to show that capitalist culture was creative. If you look it up like Andy Warhol, all of those artists were paid for by the CIA. Can you find something about that, Steve? Yeah, this is public information. Look up Gloria Steinem CIA, Andy Warhol CIA. And so they were doing all that stuff. The top anthropologist of the 60s, Margaret Mead, she was paid for

by the CIA. All the news stations were controlled by the CIA. This is all stuff the CIA is publicly released. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is stuff they've released that they've done. So if that was happening in the 60s, what are they doing now? This is Googling Andy Warhol CIA. Yeah, Andy Warhol.

The CIA fund modern art. Artists backed by CIA was created in 1947. It began funding the U.S. And funding and using modern art as Cold War weapon. It focused on the works of Jackson Pollock, Robert, Motherwell, William De Cooning and Mark Together intelligence about the Soviet

enemy. I might be wrong on Andy Warhol, but they named literally every other modern artist. Click on this in the next one, it's CIA fund modern art. Oh shit. No, it's wrong. Then the other thing is Gloria Steinem. Though it appeared to be an autonomous association of artists, musicians, and writers, it was a fact

a CIA-funded project to propagate the virtues of Western Democratic culture, the CCF, operated for 17 years, and at its peak had offices in 35 countries employed dozens of personnel. Hmm. All right. Let's see, Gloria Steinem.

Margaret Meade. CIA connection right there. Yes, she was the biggest feminist of like that time period. Yeah. Same thing. Margaret Mead ruined the field of anthropology. She was funded by the CIA. She ruined the field of anthropology.

What was the goal behind that? From like let's say 1950, from 1960 until 20, 2010, the field of anthropology went full retard, where they believed stuff like tribal peoples were feminist. They believed that tribal peoples were peaceful. They had sexual liberation. They were just these tropical paradises. And it plays into the left intellectual narrative that human nature is naturally good. And then conservatives and social values corrupt good human nature. So that's what the field of anthropology believed for 1960 to 2010. And then the evidence has come out to be the exact opposite. If you try.

study tribal peoples. Most of them have a male death rate in war of 20 to 40% every generation. Women, women, some tribes treat women good. None of them are feminist. Some of them treat them very badly. They're not equal like tribal paradises. And so Margaret Mead went to Samoa, and she wrote about how the local Samoans had a culture of free love.

And then what the thing is, the local Samoans, they were playing a prank on her. In Samoan culture, if a young woman sleeps before, sleep as a man before she's married, she will be beaten to death by clubs. And upon a woman's marriage, her vulva is publicly checked by everyone in the tribe to see that she's still a virgin. So the culture is the exact, and this is the thing we do since the 19th century. And the CIA was because the U.S. government has been run by people who have had at least a slight left bias since the World War I. And so they were doing all these things that say, if we can change the field of anthropology, We can push social values that make sure the U.S. government has more power.

Because if you think human nature is good and naturally perfectible, then you think the government should do social engineering, and that's what the government wants because social engineering gives them more power. Whoa. Yeah. And it's one of the best books I've read is War Before Civilization by Lawrence Keely. And it's a study of every single tribal group in the world that show that every tribal group has war. And it breaks the myths that tribal people were people.

peaceful that predominated from 1960 to 20. I call it the blue pill era. Other parts of the blue pill era are that men and women are the same. Genetics has no effect that were all blank slates. No one thinks that genetics has no effect on people anymore. We know genetics influences how fast you drive, what political party you vote for, are you religious? Do you listen to music? And I've read four books written by socialists that say this.

No one in the sciences thinks that genetics doesn't affect your life. anymore, but this was something that academia covered up over the blue pill era. Yeah, that's great. I've never heard that before. So this is something I've, because more so than history, the only field I could, even more so than history, the field that I know the most about is anthropology. And I was saying that before we started the show again, over the blue pill era, which is what I call 1960 to 2010, the degree to which the field of anthropology lied about the human condition,

it's one of the worst things in human history. And I don't say that lightly, where it lied across a vector of things and it just completely fucked up the data. Where, for example, they said that humans are inherently peaceful. They said that there are no genetic differences between people. They said that most societies are egalitarian and feminist. They said that free love had no consequences,

that religion was oppressive, that social, that basically everything previous societies, had used for all of time, whether social class, whether ethnicity, whether social values, war, that all of this was completely ridiculous and unneeded. And they also thought that humans were naturally rational, where lots of human values exist to instill some sort of order in people, where, for example, lots of world religions ask, like Islam asked people to fast for a month. from a purely psychological basis, fasting for a month, it builds delayed gratification. And so they thought stuff like that's completely unnecessary.

And so there was this huge, complete blackballing of the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century. And it's insane that you had loads of people with very high IQs, with lots of information, and no one broke through this lie until the last 20 years, where the data we have in genetics now, it's going to change literally everything. The data we have about genetics, it's like an atomic bomb no one's seen. How so?

So over the last 10 years, we've proven that biological race exists without a shadow of a doubt. And this is something where there are, I know five PhDs in this topic, and they all say that the people, that once you look at the data, there's just literally no argument

against biological race. Or they've found that... Can you define biological race? So, it's biological race is that there is a demographic group that are white people and on a genetic basis Middle Easterners and whites are the same race. So there's this demographic. If you look at it in a genetic chart, different races cluster in different areas. And then they also, the real question of our time is how much does race affect? And I'm more so on the less scale on people in this topic than the more,

where some people think that, so for example, ability to process milk, that's the easiest thing. Ability to process milk. So white people can drink milk. White people and some black people can drink milk. Very few other races can. Black people have a certain allele that lets them process malaria. Asians have certain alleles.

Diet is one of the things that varies the most by race. And then the real question is how, much does it affect, but it's not just that. That's been proven. Social class is also found to be genetic. Social class? Yes. So this is one of those things where they find that class, and I would need to see a lot more studies on this topic before I jump on it, since the ramifications of this are so huge. But social class is as genetic as height. So they go through family lines over history, and so certain like people, if you drop a rich person and a poor person, a hundred in a random country, they own nothing, you will see people end up in similar social classes. And this is one of those,

with all these results, I'm scared at how they're applied because the second people think race, sex, gender are biologically innate. You know people will take it too far. But this is something that's been proven. And even thing, I mean, something I really, really want to stress is that even on an individual basis, the genetic differences are huge. So how fast you drive is genetic, what music you listen to, what clothes you like to wear. And there's crazy stories where you take identical twins, people with the same genetics split at birth, and they have chilling similarities. Right. So, for example, there was a pair of identical twins. They married a husband with the same name. They named their dog the same name. They have similar interior decorations.

They go in vacation in the same place. And so these are people, same genetics split up at birth. Genetics can go into very, very granular details. And we've found on almost every single trait, it's half genetic, half cultural. And that's one of the weird things of that genetic data where you think, why does it work out to be genetic that, to be 50% that much? But they've consistently found that for almost all traits,

that genetics drives around half of it. So this is one. of those things that's very politicized where you have people who basically, so she's a physical anthropologist, she's not a geneticist. And so anthropology is not a hard data science field where they're not actually looking at, so what the argument she's making here is that you can't find people who are pure of any given race, where race tends to be a gradient. Right. Where, for example, if you want to look at these scatter there's these scatter charts

white people cluster in a certain area Indians in another area Asians in another but like Pakistanis are a gradient between white and Indian and the people who work in this field Rzeeb Khan I know him personally

he's the biggest person who studied this field Kirkegaard has also studied this field Edward Dutton has there's a bunch of authors where I mean the problem with Anthropos today is that it's all

literary games. So these people say that race is a social construct. And because there are so what, this is how the left uses logic. The sun is a social construct because different societies have different ideas about the sun. Thus, you can change a social construct,

thus it doesn't exist. So we have social ideas around gender. Thus gender is a social construct. Thus we can change people's genders. The left's underlying philosophy. And so I've taken a course in gender studies. I've read books about leftist philosophy.

This is what the left literally says they believe. They say that they believe that the elites can control reality because they say that everything's a social construct. So if you want to change reality, just change how people think about it. And that's just insane. And so the argument people make for these sorts of things is that there's a social expectation about something,

change the social expectation, change the reality. When I took a gender studies course, they said, If we trained women to be basketball players, women would be as good basketball players as men. That's literally something, I read this in high school, and that was in a textbook. That's insane. Isn't it true that I've read this somewhere that in societies or in empires when the society gets obsessed with gender, that's like right on the precipice before they fall? And that is true with Rome, ancient Rome.

Yes, that's something Camille Pollya talks about. where there are certain archetypes of human behavior that you see repeated again and again. And an empire and collapse is ruled by harem girls, eunuchs, and bureaucrats, much like our empire. The harem girls are the pop stars. The eunuchs are, like, the unics are like the executive department. Yeah, and there was eunuchs and transgenders all over ancient Roman ancient Greece. Exactly. That's some pretty impressive historic knowledge where, like, Caligula would have guys cut off their,

He'd have guys cut off their dicks, then he'd sleep with them. How much have you studied ancient Rome and ancient Greece? Like I'm talking about classical period. So I know a lot about it. You could ask me about any part of it, and I could give you an answer. It's interesting. I've had a couple people on recently who've talked about the Genesis of Christianity. Yes.

And, you know, how it came out of the Roman Empire and some of the mystery cults that were going on over there in, like, a lusis. and the use of, you know, basically in the classical times, how plague, famine, and hand-to-hand combat were the main sources of death with people, right? People were dying all the time. Yes. And drugs were also ubiquitous back then. People needed drugs just to get through the day. And, you know, it's just interesting how when it comes to Christianity, It seems how there are so many parallels with Christianity and some of the mystery cults that were happening that were going on back in the day.

Like with, you know, we get the concept of dying and rising gods, you know, that came straight out of, you know, straight out of elusus and some of the Bocic cults that were that were going on back then. But then you have at the same time, you know, when you talk about Christianity today, you have Bible scholars. Yes. And people that basically studied the Gospels, right? So they're in there, they're only staying in this bubble of the Gospels. But they're not really paying attention to what was going on outside of the Gospels. They're not true classicists. That's why, you know, you have classicists that basically laugh at Bible scholars saying, you know, they think they're ridiculous.

Because there's a study, like how it's so counterintuitive that you can be a biblical scholar when 99.9% of biblical scholars, subscribe to the religion to ascribe to that religion that they're studying, right? So there's an inherent bias built into it. Yes. Do you know Brian Moro Reshku? I do. He wrote a great, and with his book,

he talks about the split between classicists and people who study the Bible. And this is one of the biggest issues in modern academia, the segmenting of fields, where there are conclusions that are obvious to reach if you're a polymath, but that due to the segmentation of fields, doesn't happen. And academia actively punches and pushes down anyone who tries to, uh,

who tries to work across fields or develop grand narratives. Yes. Yes. And so I, I believe his theory that the, the, the, the, the, the Eucharist used to be a psychedelic. I've seen the evidence myself. I'm, I'm very much behind it. It's the only way it adds up. And yeah, it came from Ergot. There's a, it's an alkaloid that grows on, uh, it's a fungus that grows on rye. and they take an alkaloid from it, which is erga, which has the psychedelic, and they consumed it as a drink. And people traveled from,

I think, elusive started in like 1600 BC. Yeah. And people would travel from all over Europe every year, I think in September is when it was, to go and participate in these rights. Yes, exactly. And this is what's attributed,

if you ask a classicist, they will say this is directly correlated with the explosion of art and intellect, like the and the scientific method, the idea of democracy, and then progress through time, take your time machine, go up, go up, go up, you get to about the 400s, you have Christianity, basically burning down a lusus, and that coincides with the beginning of the dark ages, when Christianity takes over. And then you have, you go, keep going till about,

I think it's like 1400 AD, is when you have kind of like the enlightenment. And it's just, it's interesting how, you know, Christianity kind of correlates with the dark ages and the suppression of all this stuff, the suppression of, of philosophy and overall intellect and that kind of stuff. was happening in society.

This is something where I disagree with Murawrescu, where we have records as late as the 1100s of the Eucharist being a psychedelic. We have records from the north of France of them making the Eucharist and it being a psychedelic. So I think it went on significantly later that we use in his book it cuts off with the dark ages. And I think that's a it's a correlation not causation thing where yes, the early Christians were very intellectual. They burned down libraries. They took down the universities.

but I think if you look back a few centuries beforehand, Rome was a dying society. And our era is, there are civilizational cycles that last 2,000 years. And I really like the point you teased out where modern Christianity, and I am a Christian, I say this in all honesty, modern Christianity is cucked. Like, it's not, it's completely cut off from what made it great in the beginning. What do you think made it great? I think it, I guess the period in the fall of Rome is the area of, study the most in history. And you can read the time period where it was just a horrible time period to live in. And people would see the relics of the saint's bones. And then they'd start

spasming in joy. Or you'd have the holy man who would do magic. And you can tell that this is something that happened to people and it was just their entire lives changed. It was just something of such profound spiritual beauty that we can't even understand it. And the thing is, these people weren't stupid. These were very well-educated, people who knew rationality, and they were writing about it, too. And in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, so the Catholic Church is still one of the biggest funders of science today. But in the 1300s, the- Is the biggest funder of science? Yeah, the Catholic Church is still one of the biggest funders of science. And that was true in the Middle Ages, where Galileo's research was funded by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church

invented the scientific method. The scientific method was invented by monks in the 1300s. The scientific method I thought was invented by the early Greek, the classical Greeks. No, the Greeks had rationality. They didn't have science. Where science is an arbitration method where you run a test. And based off the results of the test, it determines, based off the results of the test, it determines which of these results are right. No, that was invented in the 1300s. Can you Google that?

That's Google. When was the scientific method invented? It was the 1300s. A lot of it was English monks like William of Aukham. Sir Francis Bacon, 1561, 16th? Of course, this is what Google says. No, it was, I've read a couple books on this. It was 13 and 1400s.

Like William of Occam was a big thinker in that time period. Roger Bacon, you can look up Roger Bacon. Roger Bacon in the 1300s wrote about... Look on the Wikipedia. What does that say? Roger Bacon in the 1300s. He talked about steamships, and he talked about... He talked about steamships, he talked about helicopters. Go up, go up, go up, go.

the history of scientific method considers changes and the methodology of scientific inquiry is designed from history of science. So blah blah blah, blah. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward. Scientific method has been the subject of intense recurring debate, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

When did it first come about? Come on. My source is... Okay, here we go. Rationalists explanations of nature, including atomism, appeared both in ancient Greece in the thought of Lassippia, Lucipus and

Democritus And in ancient India In the Nayia and Vaishika And Buddhist schools Why Charvaca Materialism rejected In France as a source of knowledge

In favor of empiricism That was always subject to doubt Aristotle pioneered Scientific Method in ancient Greece Alongside his empirical biology and his work on logic. They're conflating two things here. My sources here are Bertrand Russell's history of Western philosophy.

Russell was anti-Christian, so he doesn't have a dog in this race. Then tragedy and hope are the evolution of civilizations by Carol Quigley and the knowledge machine by Michael Stravens. That's a history of science. So what they're looking at here is a logical hypothesis. The Greeks and the Indians both use logical hypotheses. So both of them said, here's the theory at the world. Let's see if this is right.

What they didn't do is they didn't test it. And so in ancient Greece, testing science was seen as ungentlemanly, where, for example, Aristotle had an idea that if an object's heavier, it drops faster. That was never tested. A 20-second trial would prove that wrong. But they thought that testing things was ungentlemanly. So the Greeks had calculators, and they had the steam engine. They never used it because they didn't, they thought that applying knowledge to the world wasn't gentlemanly. The European Middle Ages, they invented the scientific method, which was testing it.

Because in Christian philosophy, you have to accept humility that you're constantly wrong. So they thought, how do we test information on the most basic level? So it was invented in the 12, and it was invented late Middle Ages, largely in England and a handful of other countries where it's, how do we know what, we know, and it's let's make a test and whatever the results of the test are, we go off that. And so the Catholic, I mean, the Catholic Church invented due process and invented the scientific method. So it says his experiments, which were based on Aristotle's writing, led to him to identify four common reasons for errors in writing. reliance on faulty authority, reliance on popular opinion, and reliance on personal bias or vanity, and reliance on rational argument. So it was based on Aristotle's writings.

Yes. So in the Middle Ages, you had multiple intellectual schools competing with each other. And so the school that around the time of the black death, like 50 years after this, the intellectual school is scholasticism. And so scholasticism is that you should read Aristotle and Plato and they were the definitive truth. Around the time of the Black Death, you saw, let's rely on rationality and let's rely on science rather than Aristotle. And so this was Black Death into the 1600s was this gradual move away from venerating the ancients to we should study things on their own rational merits. And so in that debate, Duns-Codas was a Scottish philosopher on the other side of this. and Thomas Aquinas was a big bridge from the medieval to the modern worldview

where Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, William of Avacom, there were a couple other thinkers. They were the people who jumped from let's venerate the ancients to let's look at science. And so they only threw out Aristotle in the 15 and the 1600s where it was a, everything's,

most many things are gradual processes. But by the time you get to the 1600s, you're really in science. When was Aristotle? He was like 300 BC. So Aristotle was such a Chad that he just made the definitive opinion. Yeah. I mean, he was such a Chad that he made the definitive opinions on every subject for 2,000 years.

The church loved Aristotle. There were a handful of Greek authors that the church really held up because they had intellectual ideas that could work with Christianity. And Jesus was not a comprehensive philosopher. Oh, Galileo was the guy who said there could have been multiple worlds. Yes, exactly. And the church didn't like, the church actually funded Galileo and they turned on him because he picked the wrong faction into papal political dispute. So they were picking an issue because he was backing the wrong faction in Italian court politics. But they funded his original research. But his idea is

like, you know, how can we be the only world? If there's other worlds out there. Yes. Right. And there is a Jesus Christ and a God. How come Jesus Christ came to our world and died for us? That's not what the issue was. The issue was that in the medieval vision of the world, you go out. So there's the earth and then there's spiritual rings that lead to heaven. So the medieval saw space as going towards heaven. And so Galileo said no. It's just other planets. It's just an infinite universe.

And so the church thought, hey, then how can we, then where's heaven? And this wasn't as big an issue earlier on because the fathers of the church like St. Augustine and Gregory of Tours and stuff, they said the Bible should be written. written symbolically, read symbolically. So they said, no, the fathers of the church said, Noah's Ark probably didn't happen the way we think it is, all these things. These are moral allegories for spiritual truths. So the early church was established where the Bible is a coded document. And then you read it once you've attained a high enough mystic level, and then you interpret what the hidden truth is inside the symbolism. And then what happened is Protestantism

showed up. And the church had gotten really morally corrupt. And so Protestantism said, no, you're is making stuff up Catholic Church to get more money, we're going to look at the original source documents to call you out for being corrupt. And so the Catholic Church had to pivot to be more Bible-focused as a way to fight the Protestants. And so like back in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church said that witches didn't exist. The Middle Ages is not what people think. And the medieval Europe, medieval Europe had atheism as a public philosophy. The universities of Italy were run by the atheists in the 1300s. Medieval Europe had advanced philosophy. And It had a stock market.

It had a comprehension of physics. It had capitalism. It had individualism. It had parliaments, too. Almost every country in Europe and the Earth 1,200 had a parliament. So every single institution you can possibly think of, including modern law, stem from the Middle Ages. And so we write the Middle Ages up as this barbaric time period. And yeah, there are barbaric elements to it.

But it's actually medieval Europe was the most modern. society up to that point in history, barring China. Interesting. Have you heard of Thomas Payne? Oh, yeah. Have you read, have you read his book? Any of his books? Age of Reason, isn't it, is a good one?

No, I haven't. I know his ideas were he was a big Enlightenment guy. He was anti-monarchy. Yeah. Yeah, he made some points in his book where he, you know, he talks about the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and their views on Christianity. And, you know, his view on the whole thing is, is like, look, like, you know, you can't take someone's word for something just based on them saying it.

Right? Like if I code to you and I tell you something I did, right, yesterday, you can take it for what it's worth. Yes. You don't necessarily have to believe that as truth just because I said I did something doesn't mean it's true. Okay. That was the lens that he looked at the Bible through because the Bible is basically just

a composition of testimonies, many from people that are anonymous. Yes. or didn't author themselves. And not only that, but they're saying things that are completely fly in the face of nature. Yes. So there are two things going on here. The first is, are you aware of Ken Wilbur's spiral dynamics? It's a theory that people operate under different levels of consciousness and that the higher level, if you're on a lower level, you can't understand a higher level.

So, for example, tribes in the Amazon of the Congo don't have a concept of objectivity or rationality. I like to say if you had to explain the modern world to an ancient Babylonian, they wouldn't know what a machine is. They don't know what a natural law is, et cetera. And so as we advance as a species, we develop new intellectual tools. And so we've developed a couple different layers of spiral dynamics since the Bible. And so back when the Bible was written, the idea of a prophet coming down in just uttering the words of God, that was treated as truthful testimony because it fit with their lived reality. And so the way the Bible was written was that this is a worldview that fits with how we live life. these Bibles are, these prophets are saying facts, and thus we should support them.

What happened in between is we developed basically the tool of rational analysis. And so now we have to understand the world through the lens of rational analysis, and the Bible doesn't fit up with that. And the other thing is that the Bible was originally written symbolic. So it flies in the face of reason, you're saying. Yes, it does. And what Ken Wilbur says is that we've progressed two levels since the Bible. There's the reason level, which is the enlightenment.

I would guess you're at that level. Then there's the leftist, like, let's all love each other. We're all equal level. And then Ken Wilbur thinks there's going to be another level that will happen in our lifetime where we realize how each of these levels fit in with the self-interest of that time period. And so we can integrate each of them based off how they fit in their part of history. And so we progressed a couple levels up Ken Wilbur's. system. And if you look at the medieval or the ancient world, there was atheism and

religion in the ancient world. The Greeks and the Romans were not very religious. There were periods in Egypt or Babylon where religion was weak. Around 500 BC, all of the old, no one could believe the older religions because the world had changed so much. And then you saw the rise of the ancient Greek philosophers, Buddha, Confucius, and Taoism all formed at the same time, 500 BC. All those people, Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius all lived at the same time. Because at that time, the change in coinage destroyed the traditional religious structure. So there was a rise of new religions to explain the world to people to people to people. And so you see the rise of pseudo-religens like liberalism or communism to deal with it. But they're don't really have a good answer. And so we're stuck in this weird spot now where our technology has advanced faster than our social comprehension and thus we don't have belief structures that

explain the world to us. Right. It's so far down the road. Yes, exactly. And so if you look at the civilizational cycles, because Spengler talks about this, as does Amory Doreen, that societies tend to go in civilizational cycles. And so our civilizational cycle is comparable to the fall of the Roman Republic, where the Roman Republic, like around 100 BC, it was a giant superpower republic that in the process had becoming an empire created mass inequality. There was hyper-political partisanship. There were giant massive inequality with these huge mega-corporations driving people into poverty. A third of Italy's population were immigrants who were undercutting local labor. There was the rise of political strong men. There was a feminist movement.

it was a very irreligious and a degenerate society. And so I often compare modern Christianity to what the Roman religions were then, where the Roman religions, people went to them out of politeness and a sense of obligation, but not that many people actually believed them. So the mystery cults like Christianity, they filled the void. In the same way, I think, a variety of things between political ideologies or like raves or video games fill the religious void for us. And so, I am Christian.

I don't attend church that often, though, because it's just I don't think Christianity as structured today has that much to offer most people. And I think that Christians, whenever you criticize Christianity, they guilt-trip you saying, why don't you like doing this? And I throw the question back at them, why don't you design your religion better

so that people want to come to church and wants to be part of your religion. And Christianity now has become so, like, I, for Christians listening, I do want to know I am part of your religion. I do support Christianity. But Christianity has become so cucked and it's become so, it's become, had so much brain brain drain that lacks vitality to deal with the modern world. And so the question of the next century is how so can you, what do you mean by that? So one of the, there's a very interesting book I read called the Secular Age by Charles Taylor.

And it's one of the hardest books I've read, but it's a history of why. Western religion died since the Middle Ages. And so he stacks it up to a couple different things. The first is technological progress. That's obvious. The second thing is that religion stopped being fun. We're back in the Middle Ages, religion, the church would throw parties. It would give Really? Yeah, like people would party at church in the Middle Ages. The church. They didn't have, they didn't have orgies, though, like in ancient Greece. No, they didn't. People did have, this is one of the weirdest facts. People did have sex in public in the Middle Ages, because there wasn't a concept of privacy.

Hmm. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. The church was not, the church in the Middle Ages put sexual sins on the lower rung. So like pride was a worse sin than fornication. The church sponsored brothels in the Middle Ages. Hmm. So it's a very different society.

And the church would also, it gave people over a month of days off every year. So the church would just, you'd have a day off or a saint's day at least once a week. So it was just the church was more fun. And what happened was the middle classes took up, took over the church. and the middle class has made church really boring. So that's thing two. Thing three is that governments realize the church wasn't in their self-interest, where governments realize to themselves,

if we remove God, we can't be held to standards because God is something that holds us to standards to control the people. If we want total power, we should just remove God because the people will make the state the God then. And so you saw the turn of elites realizing that, you saw the turn of elites realizing that it was inside their self-interest to get rid of religion. And the fourth thing is the church just, the church experienced a lot of brain drain with the smart. Back in the middle ages, the smartest people went into the church.

Now they go into business or content creating or tech or finance. And so you had lots of generations of people with the church not getting society's best. And you also removed the content of a magical universe. where back in the Middle Ages, it's like my friend who used to live in Cambodia. In certain societies, magic is just part of your life. Witchcraft is as obvious as a bridge. Or fairies are, you just believe in fairies and dragons and that stuff.

And when you remove that kind of world, you remove the kind of intellectual framework where that kind of Christianity makes sense. I think drugs were a huge part of it. Oh, yeah. I think what Brian May Rescue talks about what classicists like Carl Ruck talk about, where these experiences that they were having, where they would often describe them as being the most important experiences of their lives,

where they can literally see the fabric of the universe. And that's what they thought God was. Something that you could experience through these drugs. I agree on the psychedelics bit where I am one of the very few people whose area of speciality at the Middle Ages, who will agree with that, but I do. but we have primary sources from the Middle Ages of the church made peasants take the Eucharist at least once a year because the peasants were terrified to take the Eucharist.

The peasants, they said the magic of the church was so strong, it was scary. That doesn't make sense if it's wine. It does make sense of it to psychedelic. And so once you think of it this way, the church is making peasants trip at least once a year. That completely changes the dynamic of taking the Eucharist. In what year? This is like 1,200.

1,200. Yeah, so I put. the event, this is something Mooreshko studied more than me, but Moresco is a classicist, he's not a medievalist. And so he puts the end of using psychedelics for the church around 400. I put it around like 12,200s, 1,300s, because we have records from the 1100s. You're saying people like Brian Morescu, classicists, don't go past 400. No, that's one of the, having read his book, I don't see him reference this thing.

I don't see him reference that much stuff past the ancient world. I don't, I, from reading that book, I don't remember him ever talking at the Middle Ages. But we have records in the Middle Ages from the 1100s in northern France of people taking psychedelics. And we also have records from, I think, 1,200s England of peasants being scared to take the Eucharist. So I think it did go on later. And I think it was one of, so during the 12th hundreds, the church became completely morally corrupt. where I visited, so the king of France killed the Pope, and then he made an alternate Pope in France.

And I was visiting the location for that alternate Pope's residence in Avignon in the south of France. And I had a joke, every single room in this palace is either a feasting hall or a place to store gold. I did not find a single chapel in Avignon. And the reputation for reading at that time period is the Pope in the 1300s, they were just complete degenerates. And the reason Protestantism showed up was that the church

was taking in all this money to build St. Florence's Cathedral and to fund all this degenerate Renaissance art and for the Pope to have a bunch of mistresses. And the Germans thought, why the hell are we giving you money to be degenerates? And that's what caused the Protestant Reformation. So my guess, and I would need to study this topic significantly more to give an educated opinion on it, is that at some point from like 1215, the fourth ladder in council, and then the black death, that they phased out psychedelics. And it wouldn't surprise me if it's a gradualistic thing because the church was doing all these very strategic power maneuvers and their whole thing was there trying to clasp down on heretics because western europe was um infiltrated

they had all these organizations like uh the cathars or the waldensions and so the church was launching or the hussites the church was launching all of these crusades against heretics and the heretics all had different views on christianity so my guess would be that the church phased out the use of psychedelics so that the heretics wouldn't get more information because the church stopped liking like private revelation where St. Francis of Assisi was part of the Franciscans where they were a mystic group and the mystics, they talked to God personally and all that stuff. St. Francis of Assisi, he was nearly labeled a heretic and he wasn't against the Catholic Church. They were just scared of new ideas. And the thing is the Franciscan saved Catholicism during that

time period because the church needed to take in at least some free thinkers to fight off the heretics. But my guess, and again, I'm not an expert in this field, my guess would be that at some point in the 12 or the 1300s, they gradually faced out psychedelics to combat heresy. And because by the time Martin Luther shows up in 1500, I see no records of this. But, oh, yeah. So one of the interesting topics I've looked into is the history of mental illness. So, There are very few records of autism or schizophrenia from the pre-industrial world, but you do get illnesses like everyone in a town breaking out into dancing for hours straight. Or you get demonic possession or witchcraft.

And so you get, what we've found from the studies is that people in late medieval France and Germany would just randomly break into dancing after the black death. And that was influenced by Ergett. And so we know that the random dancing was by Ergett. And so if that's actually a theory that Urgett in the wine is what got people to dance. And so how you get an entire town to be infested with Eucharist, this is a society where literally everyone goes to church. So if they're drinking Urget infested wine and breaking into dancing, that's the only reasonable explanation for the dancing towns of the 1300s that I know of. And then you come to today, which is what leads us to what we've been talking about before.

And drugs are outcast from society. legal and you know basically explains you know why so many people are incarcerated in the country and it's it's like we've devolved so far from the origin of all this stuff yeah i think drugs and sex are two things our society does in the worst way possible um they do they do it in the worst way possible yeah so with drugs uh like i'm from philly and in philly you see all these like random homeless dudes who are just fentanyl's from philly it's our best export of the last five years so um The fentanyl crisis started in Kensington, Philly, and you see all these guys just dying on the street. And it's one of those things where you're like, on my walk to school every day, I would see this body on a vent for five days straight.

And the cops never moved it. It's just this dead fucking body. And you know he's not alive. And it's the nicest part of town. And you think this is not what should be happening in a first world country. Right. Right. And so we have that. And like, drugs are, they're. They are a big issue in America. There's lots of people where, and I don't really blame people, if I'm honest, like life is really hard today. And if you need to medicate to some degree to survive, I think that's reasonable. But a lot of you will take it really far.

And so that's unhealthy. But at the same time, like if you tell your grandma you are drinking at age 19, she's not going to like that. But the idea that we, like in Europe, 15-year-olds drink with their parents. And in Europe, the binge drinking, like Europe is a functioning society. It's not like teenagers are constantly dying of alcohol poisoning in Europe. So we have this weird, and it's true for sex and drugs, where this combination of like degeneracy with Puritanism, and it mixes in such weird ways.

And it's comparable with sex where like porn is super prevalent, like everything in our culture is very sexualized, but also the idea of people's parents having sex disgusts people. People won't see their friends or family naked. And that's historically strange. We're in the Middle Ages, an entire town would bathe naked together. Or in the Middle Ages, entire families would sleep naked in the same bed. And so we have kind of, we're a combination of a Puritan culture that slid into generacy.

So we have these weird Puritan remnants combined with, we have these weird Puritan remnants combined with other degenerate sides. And it's poorly integrated on both sides. Yes. I also want to talk to you about AI and the singularity. You said something really interesting on one of your videos, how there's parallels between technologists who view the singularity as like a resurrection type moment. Yes. And it's funny how it correlates with religion.

Yeah, yeah. So Carl Jung says that the human mind naturally fits into certain archetypes. And that's just indisputably true now. where, uh, where, yeah, I mean,

so you have like, every society is religious, cultures have trickster gods, they have heroes, they have that stuff. And, um, and,

and so, the idea of a resurrection and, like, a Messiah, that's a very common concept. And I think it's just to get out of free card people who have terrible lives. Um,

where, uh, like, they're, like, I remember, when school ended as a kid, I was so happy because I could just be done with this BS.

And as an adult, there are certain points where you want school to end. You just, you want the crap of your life just to stop. And so you keep on seeing these ideas. And one of the greatest ironies I've seen is that leftism is a child of Christianity and they don't realize it. Leftism shares so many similarities with Christianity.

Same thing with the tech people. And the reason I say that is, let's look at Hinduism or China. In those cultures, the idea of people being equal doesn't exist. The idea that human life has value doesn't exist. The value in of itself. The idea that progress exists doesn't exist. The idea that there is one universal moral code.

These are all things the Abrahamic religions invented. So if wholeness, if leftism was invented in India, it would have reincarnation built into its logic somewhere. And so technologists take a lot of assumptions from Christianity too. And this is the whole Nietzsche thing where everyone is, yeah, this is a little Nietzsche thing where everyone is Christian to some degree. It's just how much. And so, for example, the idea that we can have a rapture, that's from a machine rapture where the AI God save us, that's Christian. The idea of building God through our own actions, that's Christian.

the idea of, um, of a sharp change in history where all the, because every single invention in history, it just plays into human nature. Humans like getting rich and killing each other and all that stuff. And so whatever inventions human make, we will go into getting rich and killing people.

And, uh, and so Christians like to think that there's any of the rapture and then we all love each other. But if AI was invented, uh, sorry, AI has been invented. If the AI God is invented, invented, you'd better know that the AI God is either serving its Google or U.S. government

masters or it's become its own entity pushing its own interests. Right. So it's this very, life's hard. People look for get out of free cards. And so it's easy to think that if we push far enough, all the suffering of the world's going to stop. Yeah. I mean, what would, how would, so what effect do you think, I mean, obviously you think this civil war scenario is going to happen in the next couple of years for?

four years or something like that at the very minimum. But like how would technology make it different? How would technology make it change how it happens? Like compared to the previous civil war, are you talking about like if we really had a civil war, you think it would be like literally public executions on the streets or would obviously the government, our government and our intelligence apparatus and our military contractors have technology, that is so far advanced and so many decades ahead of what we see in the public sector. Yes. So how much shit is out there that we don't know about that they could use to effectively turn something like this around instantaneously?

That's a great question. And I'm going to enter it in a couple different ways. The first is that AI, I think that there is already, and I don't have any evidence. for this, I'm just spitballing. I think there's a government AI that already monitors the population pulling data from big tech to predict your actions in advance. And the reasoning I say that is that my phone predicts when I'm going to go to, when I get in the car, my phone knows I'm in the car. It predicts whether I'm going to get a massage, whether I'm going to go to the gym, what restaurant I'm going to go to. It's obscenely accurate. It predicts when I want to start reading a book,

too. So, and this is, it's insanely accurate. And it's sort of thing where this has to be in the development for years. And people say like, oh my God, I just talked to my, I had an experience where I just texted a friend about the Soviet Union. My next YouTube recommendation is at the time thing I texted to my friend. I don't think the computer is listening in on me, although that is completely possible. I think they just have such a good AI model of my personality. They can correlate certain things. Well, you have an iPhone? Yeah, I do. So like if you're logged in on YouTube on your phone or if you're logged into Google on your phone like most people are, when you go to your laptop, it's going to be, you're connected to the same account. Yes. And we know that these, we know that Google uses audio voice detection to, like I have YouTube TV at my house. Yes. Where it's basically like people know what YouTube TV is. It's like internet television.

Yes. And the commercials on YouTube TV are served by Google. Yes. If I'm having a conversation with my wife and my phone's in the room an hour earlier, we're talking about cat food. Yes. I go to watch TV in the living room and I'm watching YouTube TV. I see fucking cat food commercials. So we know that for a fact,

they're listening to us for advertising purposes. Yeah, I do think they are listening to us. I think that's indisputable because if they can abuse power, they will. That's a pretty good rule. Humans are about as evil as you let them be. So if they're gathering our information and listening to our conversations

for the purpose of advertising, is it possible they're collecting that data for some other nefarious purposes? Yes. What I was trying to convey, though, is I don't think they need to listen to us to get that info. I think their AI models are advanced enough that they could do that even without listening to us,

that they have enough other info on us. And keep in mind they're correlating us with billions of other people so that they can fit us into a statistical model under these conditions he's likely to do blank. And so I think that's something the government has that we don't know about. But I think technological progress has in general,

it has in general democratized us. Because the reason I say that is that look at Ukraine, in a previous era, in a normal military situation, Russia would steamroll Ukraine in a month. The fact that the Ukrainians are still fighting means military warfare has changed. Israel should have steamrolled Gaza in a month, too. The fact that the war is still going. Same thing with America and Afghanistan, Vietnam War, Algeria. In each case, modern warfare has democratized conflict and allowed the weaker non-industrial opponent to fight harder.

And the defense has gotten a real strength because let's look at Ukraine. Okay. Ukraine is one of the easiest countries to conquer. It's dead flat. The Russians attacked on three axes. The Russians supposedly had the second best military in the world with an incredibly advanced tank core. If in a normal timeline, Russia could have crashed Ukraine on three axes with Blitzkrieg. That didn't happen.

And I think that's a very important variable. because technology has democratized warfare. The defense has a larger advantage vis-a-vis the industrialized stronger attacker. And keep in mind, Gaza is the size of like, the size of a county in Pennsylvania. Right, exactly. It's tiny. And you'd think that giant, or not giant, New Jersey is the size of Israel. But you'd think that the Israelis could just steam roll Gaza.

But the fact that this war over an area that's just a tiny county is still going means that warfare's been democratized. What do you mean by democratized? Can you like break that down? The peak of warfare oscillates between giving advantages to centralization versus decentralization. In that around the world wars, there was peak advantage for centralization. So the U.S. in World War II, we had all the huge factories of the rust belt. We turned out in some cases more.

equipment than the rest of the world combined. So the U.S. could use our huge manufacturing, our huge continent, to get an asymmetric advantage vis-à-vis Germany. That's what the technology of that era pushed. There are other eras of history like the Middle Ages, and the Middle Ages, whoever owns a castle can fight off anyone else. And because the owners of castles and the knights, and knights also pushed democratization of warfare, they had a Trump card. So that's why medieval Europe was 500 squabbling little princelangs because no one, the warfare system meant there was a mass democratization of warfare. And so I think we're moving from a period of warfare pushes centralization to decentralization. And the fact that the U.S. lost in both Afghanistan and Vietnam,

who were at the time of those wars, the poorest countries in the world, means that if Afghanistan and or Vietnam were fought in the period of the world's wars, the U.S. would just completely steamroll those countries. But things like, I would say more recently, the Internet allows easier cooperation than through hierarchical organizations. And the assault rifle, the bazooka, drones, bombs, all of these things give smaller, stripped down military. on advantage against the larger militaries.

And I also think, I think large countries have lost the will to fight where there's a movie called Hacksaw Ridge, and there's a scene in the movie where it's set in World War II where a guy said, young men are so scared of serving that young men who weren't allowed to fight in the military against the Japanese committed suicide out of shame. That's insane today. No one wants to die for the U.S. government today.

So there's been a huge collapse in social trust as well. Do you think other people in other countries would want to die for their government? Do you think the Chinese people would be willing to die for their government or the Russian people would be willing to die for their government? I mean, the Russians are conscripted, right? Yeah, I mean, there's a different thing between wanting to die for the government and dying for their government. So Russia, the reason Russia is such an authoritarian country is that they have no social institutions that oppose the government. So they don't have a strong church. they don't have a local nobility, a big farming block, industrialist block.

In Russia, every single thing is dependent upon the government. And so the government can do whatever it wants. And so if America pushed for a draft, you would have all these various associations pushing against it. And in Russia or China, just everyone's enforced to work with the government. But I think, like, the youth in Russia or in China have it worse than America. Like, if you're a young Chinese guy, you're just so screwed. and there's no reason to die for China.

You know the Chinese don't give a damn about you. And so the real question, and so the question is, how much could the Chinese government bully their people to fight for them? And how much do the Chinese people just refuse to fight? What do you make of the U.S. sending all this money to the Taliban? You know, you've seen the stories about, like, how Congress has been sending the Taliban, like, I think it's $70 million a week or something?

Yeah, that's something I predicted years ago, actually. it's a rational calculation because once we are out of Afghanistan, the Taliban are our strongest potential allies against the Chinese. Because the Chinese are trying to build

a colonial empire across Central Asia, the Belt and Road Initiative. Yes. So the Chinese have been working with all of these local dictators and the local people hate the Chinese. The dictators, though, can get money

from the Chinese to oppress their own people. Local dictators. Like what do you do? Like Uzbekistan. Okay. Or Uzbekistan is a, it's a basically very authoritarian country where there's a small group of very rich people who keep everyone else in poverty.

So they're unpopular. They use the military to crush the population. And so the Chinese show up and say, hey, if we can build factories and railroads across your country, we're going to give you $100 million. Yes. So the leader says, great, I can use this to crush my own people. The people hate the Chinese because of this. And so the rational calculation for America to make is that the kinds of.

of people who would drive the Chinese as allies out of Central Asia or the radical Islamists. So America, it strategically makes sense for us to fund radical Islamists in Central Asia against the Chinese or the Pakistanis. Interesting. Yeah. Wouldn't they also be able to cut off supply lines from China to the Middle East, like for oil and stuff and for food? Exactly. This was something I predicted four years ago that the U.S. would start allying with the Taliban. And yeah, so the Chinese are very much dependent upon oil supplies from the Middle East.

Right. It's almost their entire economy. And so as of now, they get it through the Persian Gulf. And this is something Peter Zahan's very much into. I respect his work a lot. And you can block up Malaysia. You can block up a handful of places and just stop China from having oil. So the Chinese have been trying to build connections via land across Asia to get rid of.

of America's complete domination of the oceans. And so their goal has been to allow oil to move over land from the Persian Gulf where most oil is produced to China. And so highways or roads like that, it would make, you can not go through Afghanistan if you want to, but Afghanistan's the spine of Asia. The reason that Afghanistan keeps on getting attacked by the Russians, the British, the Americans,

is that Afghanistan's in the middle of the map. It's like the imagine, so, It's like the mountain where you can stare down the rest of Asia. And so I think the Chinese have a self-interest. Afghanistan's also got a lot of resources. My friend Lord Miles runs a gold mine in Afghanistan. Your friend owns a gold mine in Afghanistan? Do you know who Lord Miles Rutledge is?

No. Damn, he'd be a great guest for your podcast. Can you Google him, Steve? Yeah. So Lord Miles is a good friend of mine. He's my age and he's a professional British adventurer. He's fought in Ukraine. What?

Yeah, he's fought in Ukraine. He's been to South Sudan. He's been to South Africa. We've been friends for like three years. Why was he fighting in Ukraine? He's just like, he is if you made a hurricane a person. Is he hanging out with the Taliban right there? He's like, yeah, yeah, he's like no one else I've met. He's just like a, he's a force of will. And so I was supposed to go to Afghanistan with him, but I canceled that because I did, I did like a call for, I did like an event with the U.S. US Air Force and I have a buddy who does a lot of connections for the U.S. military. So I told Miles, if we go to Afghanistan together, I'm going to get us all be headed. And that turned out to be true where we were supposed to hike the Wakon corridor together out to China. And I also, I have bad,

I have some bad stuff with China and Russia. I never want to go to those countries because I'm worried they'd throw me in the camp. But, so he has been to Afghanistan like seven times. He lives there now and he was captured by the Taliban for six months. And so, um, and so that was a couple months before I was supposed to go to Afghanistan. Is that him with Andrew Tate? Yeah, he, he knows Andrew Tate. Holy shit. Yes. And so he was held by the Taliban for six months. And so when he and his buddy were captured, the two people they called to figure out the situation were me and Callum from Lotus Eaters. And so we had to make the call, do we call the CIA? What do we do about Miles getting captured by the Taliban. We both decided to do nothing because anything that we would do to help Miles would make him

look like a spy for a Western government. Whoa. Yeah, it was crazy. I thought he was dead for months. How did he get out? So he has a pretty good relationship with the Taliban. They captured him because a lot. So hearing how Miles was treated by the Taliban makes me like the Taliban more. They gave him a PlayStation. They let him order a DoorDash. He had a man servant. He could go shopping. A man servant? Yeah. As opposed to a woman servant? I mean, it is a society where you're not supposed to look at women. Yeah.

They also fuck each other. Yes, exactly. It's gay. So it is a society where, so he didn't have a full-time man servant. And I'm sure Miles will hear this story and comment what things I got wrong on Twitter. But so he was captured in Afghanistan. The Taliban treated him very well. I thought they were like torturing him and waterboarding him.

and yeah so they treated him pretty well and the reason was a local commander in the region he was in didn't like him and they didn't distrusted him and then there are some other complications I'm not sure how much I'm legally allowed to say but so they captured him for six months now he's in good with the Taliban

they've promised him it's never going to happen again they gave him rights to a gold mine and yeah he's in their good grace now oh my God Does he just peck away at the gold rocks in his free time? Yeah, what do you do in Taliban? So he creates content for the internet or what? Yeah, so he's a traveler.

He's been to a bunch of places. Like, he just went to Anthrax Island in Scotland. He went to Snake Island in Brazil. His job is he just, like, goes in situations that kill people. It's a wonder he's still alive. Steve, we got to get this guy on the podcast. We got to get how much is a flight from Afghanistan? Probably a thousand dollars.

Holy shit, dude. One way. Yeah, we were just talking, I was talking with a guy their day on this podcast. We were talking about the whole what went down in 2020 with the Doha Accords. Yeah. How Trump made a deal with the Taliban. Yeah, yeah. And that's what set off us sending all that money to them.

Yes. Lord Miles is a singular man. I can think of no one who's like him. The guy's got nuts. Oh, yeah. Fuck, dude. All right. What else will be on cover that we haven't covered yet?

So let me finish up with civil war stuff. So the thing I didn't talk about is how I predicted the civil war is what I'm looking at. So there are three metrics you can plug into a computer model to predict if a society has a civil war. Okay. And they've used this for over a dozen historic conflicts. And off these three variables, you can predict when countries have civil wars to the exact years they happen. So this worked for the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the fall of the Roman Republic, the Black Death, the Wars of Religion in the 1600s. And those three variables are income inequality, the average wages, and competition for good jobs.

These three variables predict when societies have civil wars. And so, as Aristotle said, everything pushed to its natural extension, destroys. itself through its greatest strength. So period of peace. The population grows and then you see a labor imbalance. And so what that means is that the supply of labor has over-extended the need of labor by 40% to 1970. That's why Homer Simpson could live with his, Homer Simpson was a working-class guy. He was lower middle class. He supported his wife and three kids with owning a house going on vacation off a single working class income. For upper middle class people today, that's unattainable. And so life has gotten worse because the supply of labor has gotten harder. And we've done,

we have done literally everything we could to decrease the price of labor. The population's naturally doubled through population growth since World War II. We've imported 50 million immigrants. We've, automation is the biggest thing that no one talks about. That's one of the biggest variables. Women entered the workforce. And then we sent a lot of jobs to cheaper places like China, Malaysia, Mexico. So we've done literally everything we could to devalue the value of labor. And I'm shocked no one talks about this.

But people have gotten significantly poorer by any given metric since the 70s. People have lost meaning. Exactly. I mean, it's a bunch of things. And Peter Turchin's the big guy who studies this in that, in that he has looked at it's a variety of things, not just it. You can correlate declining height,

people not getting married, not having kids. When the average age of marriage gets above 28, you're going to have a war. When the average age of marriage, what? Goes above 28, you're going to have a war. When the black death happened, the average date of marriage was 28. Didn't you also say something about people,

like people aren't losing their virginity, like until they get really old? Yeah, so a third of men under 30 are virgins. A third of men under 30 are virgins. And 80% of 18-year-old men. 80% of 18-year-olds. And is that, like, what was it like in like the 80s compared to that? Oh, it was nothing.

It's quadrupled in the last 10 years. You can call it the invention of the iPhone with young male virginity skyrocketing. Whoa. Where it was a very low number. I think it was like 8%. of men under 30 were virgins in 1980. It was something, I think it was even less than that. It was like beneath 5%.

It's really, really low. And now it's like 30. Yeah, it's like 30. And also this is self-reporting. And you know guys are going to lie about this stuff. And so this is a really horrifying statistic. And as far as I can tell, it's driven mostly by the economics of dating apps, where there's a variety of factor.

If people blame feminism, people blame income inequality. but the way the dating apps work is that 20% of men get 80% of options among women. And 80% of men get basically no options on dating apps. So if Tinder was a country, it would be the second most unequal country in the world behind South Africa and ahead of Venezuela. And that's how the apps work. That's how female psychology works. And so the inequality really screws over a lot of young men. And I say that this is the biggest issue in society because people can't talk about.

about it and it percolates under the surface because unless we can talk about this issue and find solutions, it's just going to get worse. And so, um, so it's a variety of things like deaths of despair have gone up. The average lifespan of white men has gone down. Um, there's a 20 of these different statistics, uh, that employment, um, quality of life, uh, purchasing power. And so all of this adds up. There's no way to reverse shit like that. I mean, it's, it's directly tied into the advancement of technology. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah, exactly. And I mean, that's the problem with Pandora's box. And normally, technologies in the long term, they help more than they hinder. It's just you have to deal with the negative sides of it.

And, and, um, do you think humanity would be better if we just had no sex? You think if we kept evolving on the trajectory we're on now, we had no, no more wars, no more Holocaust, nothing like no nuclear annihilation, no asteroids hit in a hundred thousand years.

We're just these beings that no longer have reproduced. We have to genetically create humans in a lab. We don't have sexual desire. Like if we got rid of sex and the sexual competition, I wonder how that would change the world. Removing sex from humans as removing the water from the ocean. Like human nature is so driven off sex that it's like, And fear of death. Yeah, exactly.

I say the three things that power human life are sex, God, and war. He ever watched Westworld on HBO? Yeah, I have. Anthony Hopkins has that beautiful monologue where he's talking to the AI, or not the AI,

but he's talking to the robot lady, and he's talking about like Michelangelo, the Eiffel Tower, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Empire State Building, all just an elaborate mating call. It's peacock feathers.

I think, so I think things are not mutually exclusive. I think all those things are elaborate and mating calls, but I think there are multiple symbiotic drives. I think people push for excellence, they push for sex, they push for dominance, and a couple other things. And so, yeah, just you can't remove sex from human nature. You have to accept it for what it is. And so once you get into a place where wages are low, people are pushed into desperation, inequality grows, because once you

lower the value of labor, the ability for money to control labor, in increases and thus inequality balloons. We are one of the top 10 most unequal societies ever in history now or the world today. And so what happens then is that the pie shrinks for most people and people fall into desperation. So they pick one faction or another to push their interests. So historically, different civil wars have different underlying factions that they symbolize. The English civil war was capitalist versus nobility. The French revolution was again, capitalist versus nobility. The Russian Civil War was fringes versus center of the empire. So there's always some underlying like demographic or economic or whatever factor. As I say, people like

killing each other and they make up excuses to do it. And for us, it's the college educated versus the non-college educated. Every single policy the left pushes is for the college educated. Removing the military for college educated so for college educated diplomats, removing pre-sexual. for professors as are the determinants of values, removing entrepreneurs in exchange for corporate or government bureaucrats. Every single thing the left pushes for is to give a college-educated person a job. The right pushes for the non-college educated, the merchants, the priests, the soldiers, and the right pushes policies that, because the left pushes policies that give resources

to the college-educated and the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy versus independent entrepreneurs, small businesses. There's four correlations. you can stack right versus left. Urban versus rural, urban versus rural, masculine versus feminine, high agency versus low agency at work. And then there's bureaucracy versus merchants. So that's the gist of the civil war. Yes. And so we're seeing the split up in different factions and past a certain point people are incentivized to push their faction at the expense of the broader nation. And so once people's loyalty is more so to the right.

or the left than America, then you get the Civil War. The shit that you're saying, it makes so much goddamn sense. But at the same time, I feel so weird talking about it in this air-conditioned room on this microphone, on this podcast, on our fucking YouTube channels. And people have lost their meaning. Like, the meaning, your meaning is like what you can provide to your community. Like, what brings value to your life? And if they're, if those things are going away to automation or whatever,

whatever it is, and our society loses its meaning, what's left to fight for. Yes, exactly. Yeah, exactly. That's true. I mean, I admire that you have the rationality to disentangle what your gut tells you versus what you rationally believe. Most people can't get past the level of different. They just rationalize whatever their gut tells them.

And so I've been on like over a dozen podcasts talking at the Civil War, and most people get stuck on the gut level and they just can't move past it. And I know, man, it's just like it's hard to get from the gut level. It's hard to know it's real in your gut. Because I've had a couple days ago, I had the realization sink in. This is happening. And it's happening sooner rather than later. And over the last six months, I've had the gradual dawning realization that this isn't something in my head.

This is something that's real. And there's a world of difference between that. What would you do if a civil war broke out when, if and when? I would I'd buy guns and this is stuff I'm doing I'd buy buy guns

stockpile food build up friends and various conservative things just all of the things like I'm reposting my entire backlog onto X and Rumble this is all stuff I'm doing in the next couple weeks

you're reposting all of your content on X and Rumble yeah I'm reposting all of my YouTube channel onto Rumble and Twitter. So it's more decentralized? Yes, so YouTube can't just wipe out my entire business. So you'd stay and fight.

Yeah, I've made that obligation where the people who work with me, they basically sat me down at one point and saying, Rudyard, if you leave America and there's a civil war, we're going to abandon you because that's just so dishonorable. And the people in my network, people I talk to politically, I'm going to stay here and be part of it because that's my duty. Wow, dude. and you're now working on a video about the unit bomber?

That was a video I released last week. Oh, you released the video I'm going to release in the next few days is stop coping your life sucks. Stop coping your life sucks. Yeah, that's the title of the video. And it goes through the life of an average Woodif Altist fan. He was a 25-year-old white guy named Tom Eldridge from Los Angeles. He works in a low-level job in insurance, and he went to like a C-tier college, and he's single, he's depressed, he has anxiety-ish, issues. He didn't like school. He can't move ahead in his job. And it's to show normal people that

they have a right to be disappointed in their lives. Because I see so much coping today with people like, yeah. What do you mean by coping? Coping is like, I hold myself these standards where something bad happens in my life. And I tell myself, Rudyard, you should refuse to rationalize that this is fine. So let's say, for example, a great example of coping is you miss a bus. You miss. You miss. You a flight to go on a trip you really want to go on, you have to cancel the trip. You should just admit to yourself that it sucks you have to cancel the trip. You don't lie to yourself to say, oh, I had something important I wanted to do back at homes. This is all for the best. Coping is something bad happens and you lie to yourself about how you actually feel about it.

Interesting. So I have a test when I talk to someone. I had a friend whose mom recently died and he kept them saying, oh, this is horrible, but I know people have it worse and it'll all be fine. I said, no, dude, your mom died, except this is the worst thing ever. Once you understand it's the worst thing ever, you can move on. And so I see a lot of people, because a lot of people are really struggling today, and they're like, oh, I'm so blessed to have all these other things. And gratitude's very, very important, but at the same time, you have to accept your emotions for what they are, and then you can move on to being grateful. And people are just lying to themselves about what their lives are.

But once you add all of the stats together, it creates an objective sort of view that people can't really get around with denial. What did you talk about in your video about the Unabomber? So in that video, I cover the Unabomber's life and I cover his ideas.

And the Unabomber's got a weird trajectory in that when I was growing up and when I was a child, he was seen as like a Marvel Vival. villain. He was this evil genius who created this plan to destroy modern civilization who killed people. And now in the circles I hang in among disaffected young men, he's called Uncle Ted. And his ideas are championed as brilliant. Wasn't he part of some sort of a Harvard CIA experiment? Yes, M.K. Ultra. And this is something for people who don't know, the CIA is admitted to it

themselves. So this is something that's not a conspiracy theory. Right. Where he, M.K. Ultra was an experiment with the CIA. It was an illegal test. on Americans. Yes. I had Tom O'Neill on here. Okay, great. You've heard of him. You read his book, right?

No, I haven't. Oh, really? Oh, my God. It's one of the best fucking books ever. Huh. Have you heard of Tom? No, I haven't. I'll read it.

It's that book, that red book behind you. It's called CIA, Charles Manson, Chaos. Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the 60s. He goes, so he was, basically, he was a reporter for a L.A. News magazine. And he got assigned to do a story on, like, the 20th anniversary of the Charles Manson murders. Yeah.

And he like fell into a rabbit hole, kept finding shit. Yeah. And he kept extending his deadline. He extended his deadline so far out that the fucking newspaper went out of business. They got into a lawsuit because they kept paying him. He never finished it. He eventually had to like hire these lawyers and figured out how to like, you know, win the lawsuit to buy back the fucking story from them. Yes.

Spent 20 years chasing everybody involved in. the whole story met fucking Manson's probation officer. Shit. Met everyone involved from Jolly West, the people that were working in the free clinic. And discovered all the fucking LSD and amphetamine experiments they were doing on people back then. It is a wild book. The deepest, most thorough book on that story, on MK Ultra. I'll check it out.

That's interesting. Yeah. So your audience is already familiar with MK Ultra. and the thing with Kaczynski, and so we don't know how bad it was because when the perpetrator of your trauma is a superbly powerful government agency, you're not going to open up to people about it.

And one of the weird things that Kaczynski's life is, this is one of the things that got edited out of the video by my editor that I'm really annoyed listening to I left it out, is that Kaczynski had a period where he had sexual fantasy of being transgender. And he had incredible guilt about this. He went to a therapist. He refused to talk to a therapist about it.

And so MK.K. Ultra did have sexual molestation. It wouldn't surprise me if he got those fantasies from that. And so we know at least, and again, I'm just throwing out theories, but we know at least that Kaczynski went into a, because he went to Harvard. He had an IQ of 167th, which is like in the millionth percentile. 167 is absurd IQ levels. That's close to what we think Isaac Newton's IQ level was. and

and so we know that he had they had all of his respected professors come in and then they had him insult his worldview and rip it apart

and say why it's bad as a test and how much you can control someone's mind and so he had I say in the video I think

the government said he had schizophrenia I think he had PTSD and so that informs a lot of his worldview and I when all of said and done

I think Kaczynski is one of the best critics of modernity. I think he's a singular thinker in ways that I rarely find. And his criticism of modernity is called over-socialization, which is that modernity is a giant industrial machine that has to operate out of its own logic. And you are rewarded in industrial societies with how much you can cooperate with the machine. And so what happened there is that we select for standardization and we select for and we scale. And so America 200 years ago was this super diverse local society.

A Pennsylvanian might as well be a different country than a Floridian 200 years ago. Now we've standardized all Americans to this new global homo, which is a word I love with triple meaning. We've made everyone global homo so that we've removed what people's individuality are. And so there was no school system or the Industrial Revolution. And the school system makes you wake up at a uniform time, work for someone else. It makes you work inside the machine.

There was basically no employment in the pre-industrial world. Everyone was a self-employed ranting farmer. The only people who would be equivalent to the employed today would be servants or slaves. So industrialization forces us to control our own behaviors where, for example, the left, which is peak over socialization,

the left wants to remove people's traditional ethnic, family, sexual, national, religious ties. The left wants to destroy every single sort of meaning or social connection people have independent from the left, from the state, from the bureaucracy. And so that's the attempt to destroy human nature to make us program so that we can be easily controlled by the machine. And so I agree with Kaczynski there. I don't agree with his terrorism. I think killing three people and blowing up constant things is objectively bad. Yeah, definitely. And the MK. Ultra, the idea behind MK. Ultra was that they would basically break down people's mind and basically turn them into a blank slate.

Yes. And be able to, like, inject any kind of crazy shit they wanted. There was a lot of weird shit going on in that period of time. That was, like, a lot of paperclip scientists were involved in that stuff. And, yeah. This is a rabbit hole I've been meaning to do for years. I just don't know how to research it because I've been looking at this from the perspective of Edward Bernays. Oh, yeah.

That was, that was, what's his name's, like cousin, right? Yeah, Netflix and Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud, yeah, yeah. So, Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew, and then his nephew made Netflix. Really? Yeah, they must have good blood. Bernase's nephew made Netflix? Yeah.

Have you seen the documentary by Adam Curtis? Adam Curtis. I think Adam Curtis is the best documentary filmmaker today. That's one of the best documentary that's seen. I have to agree with you. The craziest thing about his documentaries, too, is he doesn't film anything. He uses all source footage and does a voiceover to his incredible stories. So Bernays is responsible of basically creating the advertising and consumerism in America.

Yes. And one of the great examples in that documentary, I forget the exact, I think it was the, I forget the name of the documentary that he talks about Bernays in. Century of the Self. of the self. Yeah. They talk about advertising when it relates to, I think it was like a Betty Crocker cake mix or something like that. And they were trying to figure out how to sell this cake mix. People weren't buying it. They were trying to market it to housewives. And the reason they did like a psychological group study where they brought in a bunch of housewives to try to figure out how we could better sell this. Yes. They figured out the housewives felt guilty because of how

easy it was to bake this cake. So they just altered it, altered it, alter the instructions on it to say you have to add an egg. So now the housewives felt more productive and like they were contributing more to the household by just, they didn't need to add the egg. They just put that on there. So they psychologically felt more important and they fucking flew off the shelves after that. Yes. So I think I'm using Bernays because I think he's symbolic of several very important things in our society. I sometimes think calling World War I until the present, the Bernays era, because that era of history and the elite, it's this globalist, bicostal, technocratic elite, that uses psychological manipulation to control people. And this is a big thing in conservative

philosophy where the leftist elite doesn't want to drive tanks over their enemies. They want to gradually molds their minds through a variety of methods, media, school, subconscious programming, etc. to agree with them. And the thing with Bernays is that he plays into the concept of human nature we have very well, where there is a thinker of the mid-20th century, and this feeds into the blue pill anthropology lies called Skinner. In Skinner's behaviorism, it's like you give a rat a cookie or whatever the rat cookie is. And then the rat does something for you. So they found that they could program rat behaviors by incentive structures.

So this was their idea of human nature. So you give humans dopamine boost if they do things you like to gradually train their behavior. So that's how we've turned everyone into being NPCs because we've literally created a science of using dopamine boosts to control people's behavior for the last century. And that's what Bernays thing was. Bernays said, I will target people's subconscious drives to control. them. And my friend Sam O'Bersha

has said that people are rational in societies that train them to be rational in that if you're in a tribal society where you worship the you worship the wood dick god. You are trained to

have that kind of psychological, you're trained to venerate the god. And in our society, you're trained to be hysterical and respond to NPC stimuli. So people are that way. If you were in society 300 years ago, where you're expected to read all of these ancient Greek philosophers, you'll end up being rational.

So I think implicit in Bernays is this very strong criticism of our entire era of history. And I also want to make another video based off the Adam Curtis concept of hyper-normalization. Yes, I haven't watched that one yet. That one's really good. Hyper-normalization is a concept you get from the Soviet Union, which is that for the final, like, 15 years of the Soviet Union,

everyone realized that he has this great line. We know that the government doesn't know what they're doing. The government knows that we know that they don't know what they're doing. We know that the government knows that we know what, that you know what I mean. Yes. And so it was this 15-year period of the Soviet Union where people lived in this false reality of what the government said about the world. And then there was the lived reality.

And these were hundreds of miles apart. And so it was this hyper normalization of this false collective lie. Everyone knew was a lie, but no one had a better idea. And I think that's a very strong criticism of our society of history. Because in our society, it's more true the younger you are, that there's this huge divide between the collective consciousness you're allowed to stay on TV and how you deal with the world. And so, for example, you're supposed to mouth that, like, violent racists run society, but at the same time, if you're one-quarter Syrian, you mark that

you're brown on your job application. So your conception of the reality and how you act in the reality are super different, and that's hyper-normalization. And so it's the media's attempt to create this counter-narrative that no one believes, but no one has a better idea as an alternative, so we all play the game. Holy shit, dude. You just blew my fucking mind, right, dude. We just did like three hours. That was fantastic. Yeah, it was a great show. Yeah, I really enjoyed talking to you, man. You too. blew my mind. Your YouTube channel is What If Alt Hist. Yes. I'll link it below. Anything else that we should tell people about? No, my other channel is called History 102. I take an hour to go through different historic time periods like the fall of Rome or the World Wars. You should check that out.

Thank you so much for having me as a guest. My pleasure, man. Again, I'll link everything below soon to be on Rumble and X as well. Yeah. I'll link that shit to well. Thank you again. Of course. And you're going to go do Matt Cox tomorrow. Yes. It's going to be glorious. He's the one who told me about you.

Huh. So I'm glad he did. Matt Cox is a great guy. You're going to love him. Sounds good. Be happy to go on. All right. Good night, world.

Peace.